NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you remember the guy who said, "I think, therefore I am?"

That's who came up with the idea.

Whoops... Gotta go.
That'd be Renee Descartes (sorry, can't do accents). Incidentally, also the dude who came up with the "Cartesian Plane", the system of graphing using "x" and "y" axes to show sets of data. Cool guy.

Please, let's not go around calling people arrogant, even if it's true. It gets us nowhere, and we don't really know these people in person, so we can't really be certain. IMHO going around saying people are arrogant is not the way to save a thread from being a flame-fest.
Anybody with me on this? Anyone care to actually post something of interest?

Please, let's not go around calling people arrogant, even if it's true. It gets us nowhere, and we don't really know these people in person, so we can't really be certain. IMHO going around saying people are arrogant is not the way to save a thread from being a flame-fest.
Anybody with me on this? Anyone care to actually post something of interest?

I'm sorry. I just lose my temper when people are so blindly arrogant they won't admit any evidence to the contrary then act like they have a solid argument

Actually I think this was a great thread. It was about Bible Bashers and succeeded in bringing them out here to demonstrate what bible bashing is all about.

now time to apply the funness you claim the earth is billions of years old yet at the same time scientist say the sun is getting smaller every second so if the earth is billions of years old then the sun would have been huge which would have resulted in global burning killing all human race upon the planet in second
Oh sweet Jesus.
Someone remind me why I don't take drugs.

Your post is total, unadulterated, Grade-A bullshit. Sol is expanding. Not shrinking. The rate of change is also so small to be negligible. Stop reading Kent Hovind and look at a science book. Please. For your mind and my continued sanity.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Nietzsche


faith is not supposed to "prove" anything, to have faith means to believe in something that can't be fully proven.

yes I am tried of all these ppl who call me a "bible thumper". im proud to be one.

im not in favor of forcing my beliefs on anyone. Jesus didn't, so christians shouldn't either. ( im a Christian).
Just last week, a friend of a friend, who is 2 years older than i am, pratically attacked me because i was a christian. She accused me of being a "Holocaust Denier" and a "gay-lesbian hater". I hardly said a word to her except hi or yes, im a christian, and she blew up on me. y do ppl call christians these things? because all they want to do is break apart from this fallen world? because they desperatly want to be saved from sin? because what they believe is different to the world's beliefs?
And to the atheists : I have a question. Where do you go after you die?
Do we just rot into dust and blow in the wind until the end of time? I wonder how you guys get up everyday if after a few decades, you believe we just die and thats the end...then everything is pointless.

I used to be an atheist until i began going to church with my parents. When Jesus saved me, well..a wave of relief just floored me. My whole body just got this jolt and i felt suddendly light headed. and i started crying for no reason at all. i stopped making perverted jokes at school, i stopped swearing and cursing. my life changed a lot, yet only a little because i was just a kid, the road to recovery was short. i don't care if ppl call me a bible basher or thumper or a jesus geek etc., im a glad im those things.
If you accept Jesus and he turns out to be a hoax, then whatever you lose, life will go on regardless.
but if Jesus turns out to be true, then you'll be welcomed in heaven and live there with Him forever. Wouldn't ya like that?

(words are spelled wrong b/c it easier to type).

If I have the ability to question my existence, I most certainly exist.
You sure?

"Once there was a guy named Murglestorf. He questioned his existence."

Does this mean that Murglestorf exists? No. It doesn't. That's the fatal flaw of Cogito ergo sum.

Solipsism is fun.

faith is not supposed to "prove" anything, to have faith means to believe in something that can't be fully proven.

yes I am tried of all these ppl who call me a "bible thumper". im proud to be one.

im not in favor of forcing my beliefs on anyone. Jesus didn't, so christians shouldn't either. ( im a Christian).
Just last week, a friend of a friend, who is 2 years older than i am, pratically attacked me because i was a christian. She accused me of being a "Holocaust Denier" and a "gay-lesbian hater". I hardly said a word to her except hi or yes, im a christian, and she blew up on me. y do ppl call christians these things? because all they want to do is break apart from this fallen world? because they desperatly want to be saved from sin? because what they believe is different to the world's beliefs?
And to the atheists : I have a question. Where do you go after you die?
Do we just rot into dust and blow in the wind until the end of time? I wonder how you guys get up everyday if after a few decades, you believe we just die and thats the end...then everything is pointless.

I used to be an atheist until i began going to church with my parents. When Jesus saved me, well..a wave of relief just floored me. My whole body just got this jolt and i felt suddendly light headed. and i started crying for no reason at all. i stopped making perverted jokes at school, i stopped swearing and cursing. my life changed a lot, yet only a little because i was just a kid, the road to recovery was short. i don't care if ppl call me a bible basher or thumper or a jesus geek etc., im a glad im those things.
If you accept Jesus and he turns out to be a hoax, then whatever you lose, life will go on regardless.
but if Jesus turns out to be true, then you'll be welcomed in heaven and live there with Him forever. Wouldn't ya like that?

(words are spelled wrong b/c it easier to type).

YAY MIR TOWN!!!

But you got one thing wrong, see the Great Commission at the end of Matthew, Chapter 28, verses 16 to 20: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make deisciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everthing I have commanded you. An surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'"

And again in Luke 16:15-16
"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creaton. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'"



So, weather you like it or not, I am going to tell you the truth about Christ the Lord Jesus

YAY MIR TOWN!!!

But you got one thing wrong, see the Great Commission at the end of Matthew, Chapter 28, verses 16 to 20: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make deisciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everthing I have commanded you. An surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'"

And again in Luke 16:15-16
"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creaton. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned'"



So, weather you like it or not, I am going to tell you the truth about Christ the Lord Jesus


You are going to tell me what your peticular denomination's belief about jesus ;) there is a difference

You sure?

"Once there was a guy named Murglestorf. He questioned his existence."

Does this mean that Murglestorf exists? No. It doesn't. That's the fatal flaw of Cogito ergo sum.

Solipsism is fun.

Fake characters have very little ability to think, no matter weather or not you say they do.

You are going to tell me what your peticular denomination's belief about jesus ;) there is a difference

I am going to tell you that Jesus is the way, the Truth, and the Life. I am not going to tell you weather you should call church a mass or a congregation.

I am going to tell you that Jesus is the way, the Truth, and the Life. I am not going to tell you weather you should call church a mass or a congregation.
You saying it true does not make it an objective truth ... just a subjective one :p so from my point of view he is not the truth

To make it an objective truth you have to objectively prove it.

Until you do that it is, and will never be truth objectively

I am going to tell you that Jesus is the way, the Truth, and the Life. I am not going to tell you weather you should call church a mass or a congregation.

Fine, and I'll tell you about the Great Pink Unicorn.

Fine, and I'll tell you about the Great Pink Unicorn.
I prefer googleism myself!

You do that, but I like to tell people things that are true, and here it is:

God, the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity who is the only one, created the universe. A mere six thousand, one hundred years ago, mankind sinned, and was banished from his presence for all eternity.
Without the presence of God, there was little that man could do, and continued in his sin. The only way to claim forgiveness was to kill a perfectly innocent animal.
Until...
Four thousand years after mankind's fall from God, a small child was born, in humble conditions, from a young woman who had not yet had sex, pledged to be married to a humble carpenter. The child grew up, gaining favor with both man and God as he increased his knowledge of what is now known as the Old Testament, and of God himself.
Upon his baptism, the child, now a man, was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and gained his rightful place as both a temporary man and the eternal God. He spread his teachings, telling people who were, at the time, completely morally degraded, the differences 'twixt right and wrong. He was quite possibly the most popular man at the time.
However, problems brewed...
One man of the twelve who had pledged to follow Jesus became greedy, and, for a mere 30 pieces of silver, betrayed the Savior of the universe. Later, overcome with guilt, the man would hang himself.
Jesus, once a child born of a virgin girl, was scourged, mocked, and tortured a multitude of different ways. His torture was ended with the most painful form of death yet endured, crucifixion.
This happened almost a full two thousand years ago.
For one, brief moment, every sin of every man that had lived, lived, or was to live was placed upon that one, helpless, completely innocent man, that harmless soul. Much like the animal sacrifices of old, but so much bigger, so much more enduring, so much more saving.
The carved-up body was laid to rest in a simple tomb, and, by order of the Jewish Leaders, sealed away tight. However, three days later, an angel pulled back the stone, and God breathed life back into His Son, who walked the earth once more, teaching for a short while before being taken into heaven by a loving Father, leaving his students, the Deisciples, to spread his word among mankind.

Even today, the sacrifice still has its effect on mankind, with hundreds of people taking it every day. By aknowledging their sins, admitting that they've done wrong, and asking the Living Spirit of Jesus to indwell them, despite them being the puny humans they are. The result is fascinating, a full missing third of their life has been filled, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them. They live their lives with the confidence that, whenever they are to die, their sins have been paid for by the Ultimate Sacrifice, and, like billions of others, but unlike so many more billions, will be accepted into God's presence. There their soul will live for eternity with their beloved Savior and His Loving Father.

I've used it before, but, clearly, you weren't there to read it.

As an atheist, I'm all for religion in schools. Let them thump their Bibles, Korans, whatever, and make their futile attempts at garnering favor with the almighty.


Just leave me out, and don't bother me.

see, why cant more atheists be more like that. if they dont believe in a god, why does it bother so many that we do? oh and why does it bother people that the 10 commandments were in the supreme court building. Its a great standerd for morals and ethics.

You do that, but I like to tell people things that are true, and here it is:

*something as valid as the Great Pink Unicorn*

I've used it before, but, clearly, you weren't there to read it.

Yay for the Great Pink Unicorn! :D

You saying it true does not make it an objective truth ... just a subjective one :p so from my point of view he is not the truth

To make it an objective truth you have to objectively prove it.

Until you do that it is, and will never be truth objectively

It doesn't have to be the truth from your point of view, it's just the truth.
Did people believe that the earth rotated the sun when Copernicus and Galileo said so? No.
Did people believe that the earth was round when Columbus, or that ancient Greek mathemetician, said so?
That doesn't mean they aren't true just because people didn't believe that they were.

Now I have to run before I eat, be back in about 25, 20 minutes, maybe more.

Don't overrun me with arguments please.

You do that, but I like to tell people things that are true, and here it is:

God, the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent deity who is the only one, created the universe. A mere six thousand, one hundred years ago, mankind sinned, and was banished from his presence for all eternity.
Without the presence of God, there was little that man could do, and continued in his sin. The only way to claim forgiveness was to kill a perfectly innocent animal.
Until...
Four thousand years after mankind's fall from God, a small child was born, in humble conditions, from a young woman who had not yet had sex, pledged to be married to a humble carpenter. The child grew up, gaining favor with both man and God as he increased his knowledge of what is now known as the Old Testament, and of God himself.
Upon his baptism, the child, now a man, was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and gained his rightful place as both a temporary man and the eternal God. He spread his teachings, telling people who were, at the time, completely morally degraded, the differences 'twixt right and wrong. He was quite possibly the most popular man at the time.
However, problems brewed...
One man of the twelve who had pledged to follow Jesus became greedy, and, for a mere 30 pieces of silver, betrayed the Savior of the universe. Later, overcome with guilt, the man would hang himself.
Jesus, once a child born of a virgin girl, was scourged, mocked, and tortured a multitude of different ways. His torture was ended with the most painful form of death yet endured, crucifixion.
This happened almost a full two thousand years ago.
For one, brief moment, every sin of every man that had lived, lived, or was to live was placed upon that one, helpless, completely innocent man, that harmless soul. Much like the animal sacrifices of old, but so much bigger, so much more enduring, so much more saving.
The carved-up body was laid to rest in a simple tomb, and, by order of the Jewish Leaders, sealed away tight. However, three days later, an angel pulled back the stone, and God breathed life back into His Son, who walked the earth once more, teaching for a short while before being taken into heaven by a loving Father, leaving his students, the Deisciples, to spread his word among mankind.

Even today, the sacrifice still has its effect on mankind, with hundreds of people taking it every day. By aknowledging their sins, admitting that they've done wrong, and asking the Living Spirit of Jesus to indwell them, despite them being the puny humans they are. The result is fascinating, a full missing third of their life has been filled, and the Holy Spirit dwells in them. They live their lives with the confidence that, whenever they are to die, their sins have been paid for by the Ultimate Sacrifice, and, like billions of others, but unlike so many more billions, will be accepted into God's presence. There their soul will live for eternity with their beloved Savior and His Loving Father.

I've used it before, but, clearly, you weren't there to read it.

I have read similar things before … just because you bold it does not make it OBJECTIVE truth

I have no doubt you believe it but that does not make it fact (by the way you don’t want to get into the omni everything argument there are so many flaws with having an omni deity that we could go on for hours )

Yay for the Great Pink Unicorn! :D

the great walrus could eat ur pathetic unicorn!!!!!

It doesn't have to be the truth from your point of view, it's just the truth.
Did people believe that the earth rotated the sun when Copernicus and Galileo said so? No.
Did people believe that the earth was round when Columbus, or that ancient Greek mathemetician, said so?
That doesn't mean they aren't true just because people didn't believe that they were.
But they had objective proof not subjective

And we are not talking about my personal subjective proof we are talking about objective truth. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs

the great walrus could eat ur pathetic unicorn!!!!!

At least the Great Pink Unicorn can spell. ;)

the great walrus could eat ur pathetic unicorn!!!!!
but googalism is the way of truth! dont believe me just try
www.google.com
Ask a question
The great google WILL respond! (unless the holy webservers are down ... but google has a whole team of holy tech's fixing it then)

But they had objective proof not subjective

And we are not talking about my personal subjective proof we are talking about objective truth. This has nothing to do with my personal beliefs

Admittably, those things could have been proven. So can mine, but not quite in this lifetime. It will be proven personally for you when you die, and your soul either disappears into nothingness, or it goes to 1) heaven or 2) hell.

Pray that its the latter, especally pray that it's #1)

but googalism is the way of truth! dont believe me just try
www.google.com
Ask a question
The great google WILL respond! (unless the holy webservers are down ... but google has a whole team of holy tech's fixing it then)

The Great Google is not as great as the GREAT WEBCRAWLER!

I have read similar things before … just because you bold it does not make it OBJECTIVE truth

I have no doubt you believe it but that does not make it fact (by the way you don’t want to get into the omni everything argument there are so many flaws with having an omni deity that we could go on for hours )
Yes, just because I say it's true that doesn't mean it is. However, you saying it isn't true doesn't instantly make it false.

The truth does not need believers in its validity to be true. If I convinced the whole world, every single person, that the Earth was flat, that doesn't mean it would instantly be flat, would it? It would still be round, no matter what I said.

The truth does not need believers in its validity to be true. If I convinced the whole world, every single person, that the Earth was flat, that doesn't mean it would instantly be flat, would it?

Correct, in true reality.

This reminds me of 1984, when O'Brien says that if he tells Winston he can float like a soap bubble, and Winston truly believes him, then O'Brien will float. So, if everyone truly believes that the Earth is flat, beyond any doubt, the Earth will appear to be flat regardless of the actual flatness, simply because of the creation of a mass illusion.

This raises the question: Does God exist in reality, or does He exist solely because there are people who believe he does?

Correct, in true reality.

This reminds me of 1984, when O'Brien says that if he tells Winston he can float like a soap bubble, and Winston truly believes him, then O'Brien will float. So, if everyone truly believes that the Earth is flat, beyond any doubt, the Earth will appear to be flat regardless of the actual flatness, simply because of the creation of a mass illusion.

This raises the question: Does God exist in reality, or does He exist solely because there are people who believe he does?

God exists in reality, to be true to you. Many religions, including atheism, I might add, only exist because there are people who believe they are real. Such existence thus makes them false and, as a result, nonexistent. My God is the exception.

So, if everyone truly believes that the Earth is flat, beyond any doubt, the Earth will appear to be flat regardless of the actual flatness, simply because of the creation of a mass illusion.

This raises the question: Does God exist in reality, or does He exist solely because there are people who believe he does?

Actually, not quite. Because everyone believed that the Earth was flat at one point. They did not percieve it as flat, however, they percieved it as we percieve it today. They feared going beyond the map, to be sure, but the earth was still round.
On the same note, God exists, weather you like it or not.

God exists in reality, to be true to you. Many religions, including atheism, I might add, only exist because there are people who believe they are real. Such existence thus makes them false and, as a result, nonexistent. My God is the exception.

However, this cannot be decisively proved. Nevertheless, I must admit there is a definite possibility of the existence of God, but am not decisive on the matter because of the lack of direct proof.

There is a definite break between true agnostics and atheists as well. I am agnostic, so I ask atheists: How can you "not believe in God"? By saying you "don't believe" you admit the possibility of existence and so are not atheistic. Literally, "a-theistic" would imply a total absence of religion, not disbelief. By not considering the possibility, it makes the most extreme atheists as equally fanatical as the most extreme theists. So, I leave the door open to the possiblity, so to speak. Only my opinion, however.

Admittably, those things could have been proven. So can mine, but not quite in this lifetime. It will be proven personally for you when you die, and your soul either disappears into nothingness, or it goes to 1) heaven or 2) hell.

Pray that its the latter, especally pray that it's #1)
Well I will believe in it when proven ... any good god that gave me the set of resoning skills I have will relize that it is not possible for me to hold an unproveable idea

Nice, but there are few ways to decisively prove anything that can bend your life around. We cannot observe evolution, but we see it's 'results.' We did not see the "Big Bang," but somehow we can calculate it out.

Likewise, we cannot see God, but we can see what He does; we have no definate proof for God, only a strong argument.

So the option is up to you. Do you want to think that you dissapear at death, or do you want to think that, although your life ends, your soul, your mind, continues?

God exists in reality, to be true to you. Many religions, including atheism, I might add, only exist because there are people who believe they are real. Such existence thus makes them false and, as a result, nonexistent. My God is the exception.
Atheism is not a religion … it is a belief … there is a difference

And what makes your god the exception?

Nice, but there are few ways to decisively prove anything that can bend your life around. We cannot observe evolution, but we see it's 'results.' We did not see the "Big Bang," but somehow we can calculate it out.

Likewise, we cannot see God, but we can see what He does; we have no definate proof for God, only a strong argument.

So the option is up to you. Do you want to think that you dissapear at death, or do you want to think that, although your life ends, your soul, your mind, continues?
I would rather believe what is true not what would be nice to hear

I don’t need to be comforted by some tale that I keep going on if it is not true

Atheism is not a religion … it is a belief … there is a difference

And what makes your god the exception?

Atheism, to net believe in anything, requires more faith than any other religion I have ever known. Even so, atheists need something to worship, it's hardwired into us, so they worship the only thing they can find to credet ther own existence with, science.

Also, my God is the exception because He is REAL.

Actually, not quite. Because everyone believed that the Earth was flat at one point. They did not percieve it as flat, however, they percieved it as we percieve it today. They feared going beyond the map, to be sure, but the earth was still round.
On the same note, God exists, weather you like it or not.
reminds me of

# ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists -- it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

An atheist can be a nihilist. They don't have to believe in anything.

Also, my God is the exception because He is REAL. I'm sure every religious person believes that, no matter if they worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or Wardjinya.

Atheism, to net believe in anything, requires more faith than any other religion I have ever known.

really? you must not know of many religions, i guess. the lack of faith in God doesn't require much faith, after all...does your lack of faith in the existence of Santa require a lot of faith on your part?

Even so, atheists need something to worship, it's hardwired into us, so they worship the only thing they can find to credet ther own existence with, science.

first of all, the need to worship is not hardwired into us. i know this because i personally feel no desire to worship anything (and, indeed, i feel an innate aversion to worshipping anything) and i am as human as they come. second, most atheists don't worship science at all, they simply believe science is more useful and worthwhile than superstition, and if you are going to make that claim then you had best be prepared to support it with empirical data. making wild claims doesn't help your case at all.


Also, my God is the exception because He is REAL.
so's my herd of 2000-ton invincible flourescent centaurs. what's your point?

An atheist can be a nihilist. They don't have to believe in anything.

This would fit the literal definition of "atheist" which would be without belief, (the prefix a-theist would be the source of this) not simply denying the existence of a God (or Gods, if possible)

I'm sure every religious person believes that, no matter if they worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus or Wardjinya.

Again, you don't have to believe it to be real, you can also believe something else, and the true thing remains true.
God and Jesus are REAL. Others believe they are not, still more believe something else is real.

Atheism, to net believe in anything, requires more faith than any other religion I have ever known. Even so, atheists need something to worship, it's hardwired into us, so they worship the only thing they can find to credet ther own existence with, science.

Also, my God is the exception because He is REAL.
re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.


Atheism does not fit that description so is not a religion

And every religion says the same thing as you ... does that make them right as well?

This would fit the literal definition of "atheist" which would be without belief, (the prefix a-theist would be the source of this) not simply denying the existence of a God (or Gods, if possible)

True, but every man has to worship, it's hardwired into his blood. Weather your an atheist or religious, you'll find yourself worshipping something, trust me.

True, but every man has to worship, it's hardwired into his blood. Weather your an atheist or religious, you'll find yourself worshipping something, trust me.
I feel no wish to worship anything

I am human

So your point is disproven ... wish to start a poll?

Again, you don't have to believe it to be real, you can also believe something else, and the true thing remains true. Yes, but God is unprovable, as well as un-unprovable, so I could very well believe in a fantastic intergalactic goat and it would have exactly the same validity.

Again, you don't have to believe it to be real, you can also believe something else, and the true thing remains true.

How do you know what you believe is true? Using the Bible to prove it does not work because that is the religous text of your own religion, and so does not apply to other faiths.

I believe that all religions describe some kind of basic truth about a higher deity (given that he exists, should that prove true) and so one is no more right than another (human sacrifice, mutiliation, etc. espousing religions excluded)

I feel no wish to worship anything

I am human

So your point is disproven ... wish to start a poll?

You defend atheism with vim and vigor, it seems as though you do worship. It doesn't have to be a statue or a god for it to be an obejct of worship.

Yes, but God is unprovable, as well as un-unprovable, so I could very well believe in a fantastic intergalactic goat and it would have exactly the same validity.

Wasn't the god Pan a satyr, kind of like a goat?

no one wins these arguments. i think we should stop having 'debates' about thse topics because all they do is incite hatred and anger for no reason. not that there are reasons for hate and anger.

peace be with you

You defend atheism with vim and vigor, it seems as though you do worship. It doesn't have to be a statue or a god for it to be an obejct of worship.

He doesn't have to believe in anything, nor worship anything. He can even go beyond atheism and be a nihilist.

How do you know what you believe is true? Using the Bible to prove it does not work because that is the religous text of your own religion, and so does not apply to other faiths.

I believe that all religions describe some kind of basic truth about a higher deity (given that he exists, should that prove true) and so one is no more right than another (human sacrifice, mutiliation, etc. espousing religions excluded)
Dadgummit dude, you sound like a New Ager.

I guess I could "worship" the films of the Great Directors... or worship my girlfriend. But I don't believe either of them to be divine beings, if that's what you're driving at.

You defend atheism with vim and vigor, it seems as though you do worship. It doesn't have to be a statue or a god for it to be an obejct of worship.
vim and vigor have nothing to do with worship I do not adore it nor do I devote myself to it ... some of the requirements of religion
so no I still do not worship by the very deffiniton of worship

I guess I could "worship" the films of the Great Directors... or worship my girlfriend. But I don't believe either of them to be divine beings, if that's what you're driving at.
Exactly, that's what I'm trying to do.

vim and vigor have nothing to do with worship I do not adore it nor do I devote myself to it ... some of the requirements of religion
so no I still do not worship by the very deffiniton of worship

Trust me, dude, there is something you follow with extreme devotion. Mayhap it's money?

He doesn't have to believe in anything, nor worship anything. He can even go beyond atheism and be a nihilist.
Hell I haven’t even made it as far as atheism ... agnostic lol

I feel no wish to worship anything

I am human

So your point is disproven ... wish to start a poll?
seriously! i love how some people feel empowered to inform me how i feel, what i think, and how my mind works.

let's make this very clear: there are two definitions of "worship." one is "To honor and love as a deity," or "The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object." i feel very turned off by this concept; i don't believe in dieties, and i don't believe any object or idol deserves "reverent love."

the other definition of "worship" is "To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion." now, in that sense a wife would (hopefully) be "worshipped" by her husband, and a husband by his wife. a child would be "worshipped" by her parents, and a parent "worshipped" by their child. however, i think most people would agree that this definition is NOT the one we are discussing in this case, so let's make sure this won't turn into a semantic bait-and-switch.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to go and rot my mind with some roleplay, then go on with some Halo 2.

See ya later.

Hell I haven’t even made it as far as atheism ... agnostic lol

I guess its a hierarchy of belief systems. I'm agnostic too :cool:

I think in this case 'worship' means "that which you prize above all else." So, by this definition, everyone worships something. However, it's inappropriate if you use this definition to say that if you worship something, then you are religious, because religion implies not just worship, but the worship of some diving being.

Trust me, dude, there is something you follow with extreme devotion. Mayhap it's money?
Nope ... nothing I dedicate my life to really

There are sometimes focuses of life but they change as I grow

Trust me, dude, there is something you follow with extreme devotion. Mayhap it's money?
Main Entry: 1wor·ship
Pronunciation: 'w&r-sh&p
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <worship of the dollar>
It's hardly the same thing as worshipping a God/Gods.

I guess its a hierarchy of belief systems. I'm agnostic too :cool:
I tend to think of it as a sliding bar of belief in deity … though that’s probably not extremely accurate with the cluster of beliefs

Maybe a graph would be more accurate :)

Dadgummit dude, you sound like a New Ager.

No, just really, really laid back, so to speak about religion.

Abraham Lincoln summed up my feelings quite well:
"Whatever you are, be a good one"

vim and vigor have nothing to do with worship I do not adore it nor do I devote myself to it ... some of the requirements of religion
so no I still do not worship by the very deffiniton of worship


Upward, maybe I can help here.

An "atheist" is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods.

Upward does not believe in the existence of any gods, therefore - an atheist.

I think in this case 'worship' means "that which you prize above all else." So, by this definition, everyone worships something. However, it's inappropriate if you use this definition to say that if you worship something, then you are religious, because religion implies not just worship, but the worship of some diving being.
exactly. like i said, semantic bait-and-switch. the religious start the discussion using the first definition of "worship," but then swap over to using the second one to "prove" that everybody worships something (even though there are still plenty of people who don't meet the second definition), and then extend that even further to "prove" that everybody is religious because they all "worship."

it's a lame and cowardly tactic, in my opinion.

Maybe a graph would be more accurate

Maybe even a Cartesian plane, like the Political Compass? That would be pretty cool, the Religion Compass.

I don't mind Christianity or any other form of religion. I do mind however, people who try and force their beliefs on me. Yes you are entitled to your own opinion and your choice in religion but you are not entitled to tell people they are going to hell just because the happen differ in religous beliefs, sexual orientation, culture, etc...Just my 2 cents.

This is a two way street. Yet, we as a country do it. We teach evolution but not creation in state run schools. This is the same as saying your faith is misplaced, this is what really happened, and if you don't agree, you won't pass this school. My experiance is that the faithless scream and yell about how bad Chiristianity is more then the Chrisitans yell about how bad others are.

seriously! i love how some people feel empowered to inform me how i feel, what i think, and how my mind works.

let's make this very clear: there are two definitions of "worship." one is "To honor and love as a deity," or "The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object." i feel very turned off by this concept; i don't believe in dieties, and i don't believe any object or idol deserves "reverent love."

the other definition of "worship" is "To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion." now, in that sense a wife would (hopefully) be "worshipped" by her husband, and a husband by his wife. a child would be "worshipped" by her parents, and a parent "worshipped" by their child. however, i think most people would agree that this definition is NOT the one we are discussing in this case, so let's make sure this won't turn into a semantic bait-and-switch.
Exactly ... if any of thoes other things count as worship then christians who "worship" their spouse could be breaking the 1st commandment right?

Maybe even a Cartesian plane, like the Political Compass? That would be pretty cool, the Religion Compass.
Yeah thats what I was thinking of

It seems that we have 70 pages of everyone bashing everyone. I believe the start of this thing was that Christians were tired of being bashed or someone was tired of being bashed, i don't recall which "party." Knowing the name of the party doens't really matter. This is a message to everyone. I don't care what you believe, i don't care what you don't believe, if you are an atheist, diest, anarchist, christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist, agnostic, etc. We all need to not bash one another. Being disrespectful and rude and argumentative will do nothing but get everyone pissed off at everyone.

Message to Christians (and i can say this because i am one) Jesus didn't say that they(meaning people who don't already believe in God and Jesus....) would believe in Jesus because of miracles, signs and wonders, or any other scientific proof (i know all you non-believers will harp on this saying there is none....well...just please let it go). Jesus said, "They will know you are Christians by your LOVE!!!" Tell me, how are you loving the people on this website by being argumentative and just plain rude. I haven't read this entire thread so maybe there are a few Christians who have been honest and respectful and have tried to add to this thread with good intentions. But to those other Christians who have gotten defensive and acted rudely. All i ask is that you change your attitude and love the people on this site because God loves them too. We all need to know His heart and what He wants to say to everyone. Without our own agendas and feelings attached to them.

I'm sorry to everyone out there who has felt....um.....hurt or bashed by my fellow brothers and sisters. I can't make excuses for them save one. We are still human like everyone else subject to the laws of the flesh.

I guess you could say that i'm being cliche and asking , "can't we all get along" and "can you feel the love?" well if you can't 'feel the love, then there needs to be some more! Thank you for listening/reading and God Bless everyone. =)

Upward does not believe in the existence of any gods, therefore - an atheist.

However, if Upward considers there to be a possibility of a God, he doesn't have to really believe in God and so would be an agnostic. There are several types of agnostic; I'd have to look for them.

This is a two way street. Yet, we as a country do it. We teach evolution but not creation in state run schools.

i don't know where you live, but the public schools i attended taught both. in science classes we learned scientific theories, which meant learning evolution and not creation myths because creation myths are not scientific. in social studies and history classes we learned many different creation myths, including the Judeo-Christian myth.

This is the same as saying your faith is misplaced, this is what really happened, and if you don't agree, you won't pass this school.

schools refusing to teach creation myths has nothing to do with devaluing somebody's faith. our schools don't teach Kosher laws in health class either...does that mean we are telling the Jews they are wrong for following their religious dietary laws?


My experiance is that the faithless scream and yell about how bad Chiristianity is more then the Chrisitans yell about how bad others are.
then you don't get out enough. this past Holiday season there were Christians bitching about how oppressed they were because a department store put up "Happy Holidays" signs instead of "Merry Christmas" signs...it takes a special kind of spoiled brats to cry about oppression of your people when your people dominate all branches of government and almost every major corporation.

Exactly ... if any of thoes other things count as worship then christians who "worship" their spouse could be breaking the 1st commandment right?
yup, along with many other parts of the Bible.

An "atheist" is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods.

Upward does not believe in the existence of any gods, therefore - an atheist.

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god I think that's a pretty apt description of Upward.

I'm sorry. I just lose my temper when people are so blindly arrogant they won't admit any evidence to the contrary then act like they have a solid argument
Don't worry about it, I do the same thing sometimes, I just don't think it's a good thing to do. So yes, I can be a bit of a hypocrit. And yes, at times I'm a bit arrogant. But logically, those arguments are worthless (they go under "tu quoque" and "abusive" ad hominem, respectively) and tend to make people angry.

I think that's a pretty apt description of Upward.
Yup sounds pretty close to me I am sure there are little differences in me and the mainstream but yeah :p

Upward, maybe I can help here.

An "atheist" is someone who does not believe in the existence of any gods.

Upward does not believe in the existence of any gods, therefore - an atheist.
Agnostic ... but close ... thanks for trying though :) I know you were trying to come help me with not worshiping :p :fluffle:

I'm sorry to everyone out there who has felt....um.....hurt or bashed by my fellow brothers and sisters. I can't make excuses for them save one. We are still human like everyone else subject to the laws of the flesh. Nice to hear a civil arguement. Don't blame your side entirely though, both are guilty of ill-manners and bad strategies. We're all human after all.
Thank you for listening/reading and God Bless everyone. =) You're welcome! And may the Fantastic Intergalactic Goat grant you every happiness! :)

Agnostic ... but close ... thanks for trying though :) I know you were trying to come help me with not worshiping :p :fluffle:
hahaha. yay for agnosticism!

given how much the Christians tend to yammer about being humble, i'm surprised at how hostile many of them are toward agnosticism...one would think they would love us, since we are the most "religiously" humble people :).

Oh sweet Jesus.
Someone remind me why I don't take drugs.

Your post is total, unadulterated, Grade-A bullshit. Sol is expanding. Not shrinking. The rate of change is also so small to be negligible. Stop reading Kent Hovind and look at a science book. Please. For your mind and my continued sanity.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read my above post, instead of assuming that you're blatantly attempting to ruin this thread. While I may agree with your sentiments, your methods could use some work. Also, there are different definitions of "getting smaller"... Sol is losing mass, and has been since its birth, and thus billions of years ago would have been more massive. However, several pages up, someone who actually bothered to do some research calculated it out, and the change in size would have been a relatively small percentage of the Sun's total mass, and so would not, in fact, have burned the entire Earth. The premise was correct, but the conclusion drawn was false.

hahaha. yay for agnosticism!

given how much the Christians tend to yammer about being humble, i'm surprised at how hostile many of them are toward agnosticism...one would think they would love us, since we are the most "religiously" humble people :).
Yeah but to be fair we tend to be the most "PROVE IT!!! type" because we know they cant :p

Atheists just dont argue with us because they know they can not prove it and know we know it :p

Your post is total, unadulterated, Grade-A bullshit. Sol is expanding. Not shrinking. The rate of change is also so small to be negligible. Stop reading Kent Hovind and look at a science book. Please. For your mind and my continued sanity.

Wow, that's pretty rough. So much for a civil discussion :rolleyes:

Yeah but to be fair we tend to be the most "PROVE IT!!! type" because we know they cant :p

plus, we're more humble than they are! we're the humblest! we're like a bazillion times more humble, so humble we pwnzerize all their humble asses! TAKE THAT!

tee hee.

Atheists just dont argue with us because they know they can not prove it and know we know it :p
i dunno, some nutter atheists have fought tooth and nail with me, claiming that they can definitively prove there is no God. they're just as silly as the people who claim to know there is a God, in my opinion, and the yelling atheists are often even more annoying because they are more inclined to misquote Nietzsche.

plus, we're more humble than they are! we're the humblest! we're like a bazillion times more humble, so humble we pwnzerize all their humble asses! TAKE THAT!

tee hee.

i dunno, some nutter atheists have fought tooth and nail with me, claiming that they can definitively prove there is no God. they're just as silly as the people who claim to know there is a God, in my opinion, and the yelling atheists are often even more annoying because they are more inclined to misquote Nietzsche.
Hmmm I have not had the same experience with atheists ... most of the ones I deal with are "soft" athiests not hard atheists though

faith is not supposed to "prove" anything, to have faith means to believe in something that can't be fully proven.
We've gone over this, you can't prove God and you can't dis-prove Him.


yes I am tried of all these ppl who call me a "bible thumper". im proud to be one.
<snip>

i don't care if ppl call me a bible basher or thumper or a jesus geek etc., im a glad im those things.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist on that. No offense meant.


<snip>
im not in favor of forcing my beliefs on anyone. Jesus didn't, so christians shouldn't either. ( im a Christian).

Thank you. Because of that, there are very few (if any) people on this thread who dislike you for your religion.


Just last week, a friend of a friend, who is 2 years older than i am, pratically attacked me because i was a christian. She accused me of being a "Holocaust Denier" and a "gay-lesbian hater". I hardly said a word to her except hi or yes, im a christian, and she blew up on me. y do ppl call christians these things? because all they want to do is break apart from this fallen world? because they desperatly want to be saved from sin? because what they believe is different to the world's beliefs?
It's horrible when people do these things. I assure you that they must have had some sort of traumatic experience with a Christian who was not like what you described before.

And to the atheists : I have a question. Where do you go after you die?
Do we just rot into dust and blow in the wind until the end of time? I wonder how you guys get up everyday if after a few decades, you believe we just die and thats the end...then everything is pointless.
First of all, I'm agnostic, but I can still answer this question. We live on, not in a "heaven", per se, but through our deeds on Earth, which will not be erased until all of Humanity dies. If there is no God, we have nobody to live for but ourselves, and the rest of our global community of all life. In that sense, the only part of us that we care about does continue.


I used to be an atheist until i began going to church with my parents. When Jesus saved me, well..a wave of relief just floored me. My whole body just got this jolt and i felt suddendly light headed. and i started crying for no reason at all. i stopped making perverted jokes at school, i stopped swearing and cursing. my life changed a lot, yet only a little because i was just a kid, the road to recovery was short.
That's a great thing for you. It has been said many times, by believers and non-believers, that Christianity can do great things for peoples' lives. Some believe it's the Spirit, others believe that you're scared straight by the thought of Hell or by your love for God and Jesus. I wish you luck.

Hmmm I have not had the same experience with atheists ... most of the ones I deal with are "soft" athiests not hard atheists though
well, i made the mistake of taking a theology course at university...that's where the real crazies hang out, i guess, because i've never seen so many foam-at-the-mouth I HATE GOD atheist types in one place before. half of the class was them, the other half was fanatical Christians. great fun.

well, i made the mistake of taking a theology course at university...that's where the real crazies hang out, i guess, because i've never seen so many foam-at-the-mouth I HATE GOD atheist types in one place before. half of the class was them, the other half was fanatical Christians. great fun.

There are fanatics on both sides, but I don't think they are represenatitive of either. I'd just kick back and watch the fun if I had a class like that :)

There are fanatics on both sides, but I don't think they are represenatitive of either.

agreed.


I'd just kick back and watch the fun if I had a class like that :)
yeah, that's pretty much what i did. though i did manage to divert about a third of the class discussions onto the subject of human sacrifice...i consider that time well spent.

well, i made the mistake of taking a theology course at university...that's where the real crazies hang out, i guess, because i've never seen so many foam-at-the-mouth I HATE GOD atheist types in one place before. half of the class was them, the other half was fanatical Christians. great fun.
Did the same ... and a religious philosophy course as well they were a little heated but no outright hate god stuff

Dont know oh well :)

yeah, that's pretty much what i did. though i did manage to divert about a third of the class discussions onto the subject of human sacrifice...i consider that time well spent.

That had to be hilarious! :D Remember any responses?

That had to be hilarious! :D Remember any responses?
i've still got my class notes some place...i know there was one memorable discussion during which one of the religious folk admitted he couldn't prove God exists but insisted he could conclusively prove God doesn't favor human sacrifice. meanwhile, one of my friends tried to rile up the atheists by suggesting that they "sacrifice the believer to our non-Gods!"

one of my friends tried to rile up the atheists by suggesting that they "sacrifice the believer to our non-Gods!"

That'd be a great bumper sticker! I'd probably get a few one-finger salutes on the highway however....

You people must have been posting all weekend. Ffc2, I'll make this short and sweet. You're entitled to your beleif, but it's unethical to try to force it on others for the following reasons.

1 It's based on the bible, which is full of proven mistakes and contradictions. The following site contains some of the contradictions. www.infidels.org/lobrary/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

2 You are making a positive claim, god exists and christianity is the true religion. You haven't proven this statement. That puts your statement on the same level as me saying I own a live Tyrannosaurus Rex, and his name is fluffy.

3 Your arguments have all the logic of a severely retarded monkey who learned to type.

4 For the above reasons it's probable that your beleifs are a big lie, and spreading it is unethical.

You people must have been posting all weekend. Ffc2, I'll make this short and sweet. You're entitled to your beleif, but it's unethical to try to force it on others for the following reasons.

1 It's based on the bible, which is full of proven mistakes and contradictions. The following site contains some of the contradictions. www.infidels.org/lobrary/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml

2 You are making a positive claim, god exists and christianity is the true religion. You haven't proven this statement. That puts your statement on the same level as me saying I own a live Tyrannosaurus Rex, and his name is fluffy.

3 Your arguments have all the logic of a severely retarded monkey who learned to type.

4 For the above reasons it's probable that your beleifs are a big lie, and spreading it is unethical.



I love how the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Or not.

There should still be equal treatment for other religions. If muslims get the privelage of a dedicated prayer room, so should everyone else.
My highschool had christian and muslim prayer groups. Every day we'd get announcements about them. It got rather annoying.

Now, back to my normal self. As I see it, science is just as much a religion as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It's just become such a normal piece of our lives, because of the pervasive intrusion of athiest fighters, that we assume that it isn't. I, myelf, would need much more faith than I have now to believe that we, the only speicies on the whole planet capable of thinking beyond our own instincts, sprouted out of primordial ooze reminescint of the stuff that McDonalds dips their fries in.
Hahahahahaha.

Right.

Do me a favour, will you? Look up the definition of religion. There is no way that science fits the definition.

But notice that I did NOT say that prayer has no place in schools. As long as there are math tests, there will always be prayer in schools.
Hahaha.
I actually remember in grade 11, I prayed that one of my friends would pass the history exam before we went in.

He didn't.

Hahahahahaha.

Right.

Do me a favour, will you? Look up the definition of religion. There is no way that science fits the definition.
Correct ... science is only a method ... a process ... a guideline for study of things

Fake characters have very little ability to think, no matter weather or not you say they do.
That's the whole point. Look up solipsism in the dictionary.

www.infidels.org/lobrary/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml


that link doesn't work :(

Wow, that's pretty rough. So much for a civil discussion :rolleyes:
When you've heard that same assertion several hundred times, you start to get pissy.

And I'm wrong on the sun issue. I must have been thinking of something else. I think that the sun is expanding, which is what I meant by getting bigger. I could still be wrong.

It doesn't have to be the truth from your point of view, it's just the truth.
Did people believe that the earth rotated the sun when Copernicus and Galileo said so? No.
Did people believe that the earth was round when Columbus, or that ancient Greek mathemetician, said so?
That doesn't mean they aren't true just because people didn't believe that they were.

I understand your argument, Betulguese. This shows that beliefs about Christianity should not be dismissed as definitely not true. Many things have been said over the years that have not been believed. Some have been true, some have not been true. Just because an individual does not believe in something, does not disprove it. However, just because you do believe in it does not prove it.

that link doesn't work :(
Try this one. It's a different list, but it should work. www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Hahahahahaha.

Right.

Do me a favour, will you? Look up the definition of religion. There is no way that science fits the definition.
I'd agree that the scientific method, in itself, cannot be considered a religion. There is, however, a philosophy known as scientism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism for the Wikipedia defn.). It can be, and often is, combined with humanism, materialism, rationalism and/or reductionism to form a belief system functionally equivalent to many religions.

Plenty of people say they "believe in science", but when you ask them a few probing questions, you find they don't understand the scientific method.

God exists in reality, to be true to you. Many religions, including atheism, I might add, only exist because there are people who believe they are real. Such existence thus makes them false and, as a result, nonexistent. My God is the exception.
How is it that all other religions are false, but yours, which fulfills the same criteria for falsehood, is the "exception"? This requires substantial proof for you to declare this. Since proof is not available for either side of this argument, please help your cause by avoiding such sweeping and, to tell the truth, offensive, claims.

I'd agree that the scientific method, in itself, cannot be considered a religion. There is, however, a philosophy known as scientism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism for the Wikipedia defn.). It can be, and often is, combined with humanism, materialism, rationalism and/or reductionism to form a belief system functionally equivalent to many religions.

Plenty of people say they "believe in science", but when you ask them a few probing questions, you find they don't understand the scientific method.

So essentially, we should condemn belief, rather than science or religion. However, since religion has nothing but belief to support it, where as science relies heavily on fact (and don't talk to me about theory. I'm an engineer. No-one hate physicists more than us), that would leave religions high and dry (and deal with those damned physicists. Quantum my arse.).

Belief really causes all the trouble, doesn't it? I'm what you'd probably term a 'soft' atheist, since I don't believe in God as there's no proof. 'Hard' atheists believe there is no God. See the difference? I DON'T believe anything, where as the hard atheist believes just as thoroughly as any religious type. Hypocritical, really.

...such sweeping and, to tell the truth, offensive, claims.

You forgot to mention arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical, idiotic and irrational.

So essentially, we should condemn belief, rather than science or religion. However, since religion has nothing but belief to support it, where as science relies heavily on fact (and don't talk to me about theory. I'm an engineer. No-one hate physicists more than us), that would leave religions high and dry (and deal with those damned physicists. Quantum my arse.).

Belief really causes all the trouble, doesn't it? I'm what you'd probably term a 'soft' atheist, since I don't believe in God as there's no proof. 'Hard' atheists believe there is no God. See the difference? I DON'T believe anything, where as the hard atheist believes just as thoroughly as any religious type. Hypocritical, really.
I kind of walk the soft atheist/agnostic line myself (more agnostic then anything so thats what I call myself) but yeah :p

I myself hate it when the religious types classify all atheists are one giant homogenous groups, I’ve also had some who have compared atheists to the third Reich and soviet Russian because they where atheist too, hell from now on no more use of the word atheist unless all the world religions are happy being bunged together as theists, there’s humanists existentialists, communists, socialists just to name a few, I imagine most people calling them selves atheists are in fact humanists, so call your self it damn it and be proud you have a theory based on justifiable beliefs.

So essentially, we should condemn belief, rather than science or religion. However, since religion has nothing but belief to support it, where as science relies heavily on fact (and don't talk to me about theory. I'm an engineer. No-one hate physicists more than us), that would leave religions high and dry (and deal with those damned physicists. Quantum my arse.).

Belief really causes all the trouble, doesn't it? I'm what you'd probably term a 'soft' atheist, since I don't believe in God as there's no proof. 'Hard' atheists believe there is no God. See the difference? I DON'T believe anything, where as the hard atheist believes just as thoroughly as any religious type. Hypocritical, really.
I haven't condemned anything here; I'm just making the observation that, for some, a belief in science functions as their religion, whether they think of it like that or not.
My faith in God has plenty of subjective evidence that confirms His love for me. I can also see objective signs of God in the world, but you probably interpret them differently to me.
Even engineers have beliefs. I bet you believe that practical results are more important than theories (you nearly said this in your post), you definitely seem to believe that engineers are more valuable to a society than physicists (I'm a mathematician by training, so I'm staying out of that one!), you probably believe that hard atheism is illogical.
These are beliefs. They may be loosely held, you may be willing to adapt or relinquish them based on new data, but they are still beliefs.

I haven't condemned anything here; I'm just making the observation that, for some, a belief in science functions as their religion, whether they think of it like that or not.
My faith in God has plenty of subjective evidence that confirms His love for me. I can also see objective signs of God in the world, but you probably interpret them differently to me.

Almost certainly do. These objective signs can't be even close to proof, which I generally count as the most important basis for accepting something. Belief leads to all sorts of problems, like not accepting when you're answer is just plain wrong (anyone remember what the catholic church decided to do to Galileo?)

Even engineers have beliefs. I bet you believe that practical results are more important than theories (you nearly said this in your post), you definitely seem to believe that engineers are more valuable to a society than physicists (I'm a mathematician by training, so I'm staying out of that one!), you probably believe that hard atheism is illogical.

Hypocritical, not illogical. It tends to go on and on about facts, but ignores any that don't quite fit in with it's own answers. 'Hard' atheists have one hell of a problem with answering where life came from, since no-one has any solid ideas on that at all. I'm happy enough to say 'no idea, but don't just assume God was in on it'.
As for engineers being more useful that physicists, I'd be letting the side down if I said anything else, wouldn't I? Hell, I have to say bin men and tax collectors are better. ;)


These are beliefs. They may be loosely held, you may be willing to adapt or relinquish them based on new data, but they are still beliefs.

I wouldn't necissarily place these sorts of belief in the same frame as religious-type ones, though; these are more values than beliefs.

These objective signs can't be even close to proof, which I generally count as the most important basis for accepting something.

Could you give me your definition of proof, i.e. the standard of proof that you require to accept the truth of a proposition?


I wouldn't necissarily place these sorts of belief in the same frame as religious-type ones, though; these are more values than beliefs.
Ahhh, the delights of the English language!
All depends how you use words, really. I tend to use the verbs "to know", "to believe", and "to assume" as virtual synonyms in this kind of discussion, 'cause I think they come down to the same thing.

God exists in reality, to be true to you. Many religions, including atheism, I might add, only exist because there are people who believe they are real. Such existence thus makes them false and, as a result, nonexistent. My God is the exception.

:headbang:

In order to justify having the government promote their religion (typically Christianity), some people are reduced to arguing that atheism and secularism are religions which the government is already promoting. Therefore, promoting Christianity is just a matter of fairness - if not a preferable religion overall.
Of course, such an argument is nonsense - atheism and secularism are as much religions as bald is a hair color. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone..

There is a subtle but important difference between "believing there is no God", and "not believing there is a God". The first is a belief, the second is a lack of that belief. I don't know any atheists who "believe" God (take your pick, there are plenty) does not exist. All the atheists I know simply do not believe God does exist.

There is a big difference between positively believing that a thing does not exist, and simply lacking belief in it's existence. In many cases, atheists will say "That God does not exist", not because they choose to do so, but because, from the description of the God, it cannot exist due to contradictory attributes. In the same way that a square circle cannot (and therefore does not) exist, a God defined as (for example) all-knowing, yet cannot see into the future, cannot and does not exist because the definition is self-contradictory. If you describe your God with self-contradicting attributes which make it logically impossible, then I may safely say that such a thing does not exist as described. This is not faith - this is reason.

Simply put, atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods.. There is no "code of conduct" in existence to dictate the views of the individual atheist. Religions have such things.. Ruling councils, governing bodies.. etc.

Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the happy freedom from them. Declaring it to be otherwise, sadly, will not make it so.

In reason,

The Most Serene Republic of Brain Death

Nice, but there are few ways to decisively prove anything that can bend your life around. We cannot observe evolution, but we see it's 'results.' We did not see the "Big Bang," but somehow we can calculate it out.

Likewise, we cannot see God, but we can see what He does; we have no definate proof for God, only a strong argument.

So the option is up to you. Do you want to think that you dissapear at death, or do you want to think that, although your life ends, your soul, your mind, continues?
That you for a (relatively) reasonable post. However, in my experience, it is not what we want to believe, but, rather, what we think is true. Not what we want to be true. So the pleasantness of the possiblility of Heaven is not an argument for existance. The despair that accompanies some people when they think of disappearing after death does not make that an unviable possibility. Not everything in the world is perfect.

atheism and secularism are as much religions as bald is a hair color.

damn, i'm running out of room in my sig for quotes like these.

Atheism, to net believe in anything, requires more faith than any other religion I have ever known. Even so, atheists need something to worship, it's hardwired into us, so they worship the only thing they can find to credet ther own existence with, science.
No, it is not hardwired into us. It is just very common. I, for one, do not worship anything.

Also, my God is the exception because He is REAL.
I hope you realize that this is rediculously circular reasoning. Why is your God not false? Because He's real! Those are the same thing. You're saying "A is true because A is true". I think the previous poster wanted something a bit more than that, and your sincere belief.

You defend atheism with vim and vigor, it seems as though you do worship. It doesn't have to be a statue or a god for it to be an obejct of worship.
You don't seem to be listening. (S)he doesn't worship anything. And neither do I. There are things that I am thankful for, but there is nothing I worship. Just because you assert that something is Universal, because you believe it to be true, does not make it true. Reminds me of some other things you've argued...

Oh, yeah, that's right. "God and Jesus are true". Well, we can more or less prove that Jesus existed. Son-of-God we can't prove, but whatever, that never stopped you. However, we can't prove God at all. And as you suggested, we could look for signs of the work of God. What's one example of something God did? That we can prove was done by God?

No, it is not hardwired into us. It is just very common. I, for one, do not worship anything.

I hope you realize that this is rediculously circular reasoning. Why is your God not false? Because He's real! Those are the same thing. You're saying "A is true because A is true". I think the previous poster wanted something a bit more than that, and your sincere belief.
You'd think indeifing an circular argument you prove your point these days, but im afraid logic is good and dead to most people.

I think the key word here is belife, its just that belife that word carries with it the idea of uncertainty, I know god dose not exist, i know this as i have based it on empircal evidence that leads to come to the conclusion he is no benovolent, therefore he dose not exist. Not to mention the whole idea of causality being a flaw in human preception, that basically gave birth to the god idea.

Oh and the belife that god is innate died about 200 years ago with the birth of empiricism, if your looking for ansers go read A Treatise of Human Nature, or for the lazy man heres a wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

bah im ranting happens when im tired.

This is a two way street. Yet, we as a country do it. We teach evolution but not creation in state run schools. This is the same as saying your faith is misplaced, this is what really happened, and if you don't agree, you won't pass this school. My experiance is that the faithless scream and yell about how bad Chiristianity is more then the Chrisitans yell about how bad others are.

There are some tolerant and some intolerant people on both sides. However, I don't see many atheists bombing churches, while I see some fanatics bombing abortion clinics, killing innocent doctors, mothers, and fathers for the sake of "preserving life".
The reason that you don't learn about Creation in Science class is that there is no scientific support for Creation. That doesn't prove that it's wrong. It just means that it is misplaced in a Science class. In my school (a highschool), everyone is required to take at least one religion or philosophy course. If you wish, you can choose from a variety of Bible studies. But they also offer Asian religions, Judaism, Islam, Paganism, and many others under "Religion", as well as several great philosophers and a course in Logic under "philosophy". You can learn about Creation all you want, but in the proper context (religion) and you aren't forced to learn that particular religion if you don't want to.

There are some tolerant and some intolerant people on both sides. However, I don't see many atheists bombing churches, while I see some fanatics bombing abortion clinics, killing innocent doctors, mothers, and fathers for the sake of "preserving life".
The reason that you don't learn about Creation in Science class is that there is no scientific support for Creation. That doesn't prove that it's wrong. It just means that it is misplaced in a Science class. In my school (a highschool), everyone is required to take at least one religion or philosophy course. If you wish, you can choose from a variety of Bible studies. But they also offer Asian religions, Judaism, Islam, Paganism, and many others under "Religion", as well as several great philosophers and a course in Logic under "philosophy". You can learn about Creation all you want, but in the proper context (religion) and you aren't forced to learn that particular religion if you don't want to.

If only all school systems were so progressive.. Might solve a lot of problems. :cool:

It seems that we have 70 pages of everyone bashing everyone. I believe the start of this thing was that Christians were tired of being bashed or someone was tired of being bashed, i don't recall which "party." Knowing the name of the party doens't really matter. This is a message to everyone. I don't care what you believe, i don't care what you don't believe, if you are an atheist, diest, anarchist, christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist, agnostic, etc. We all need to not bash one another. Being disrespectful and rude and argumentative will do nothing but get everyone pissed off at everyone.

Message to Christians (and i can say this because i am one) Jesus didn't say that they(meaning people who don't already believe in God and Jesus....) would believe in Jesus because of miracles, signs and wonders, or any other scientific proof (i know all you non-believers will harp on this saying there is none....well...just please let it go). Jesus said, "They will know you are Christians by your LOVE!!!" Tell me, how are you loving the people on this website by being argumentative and just plain rude. I haven't read this entire thread so maybe there are a few Christians who have been honest and respectful and have tried to add to this thread with good intentions. But to those other Christians who have gotten defensive and acted rudely. All i ask is that you change your attitude and love the people on this site because God loves them too. We all need to know His heart and what He wants to say to everyone. Without our own agendas and feelings attached to them.

I'm sorry to everyone out there who has felt....um.....hurt or bashed by my fellow brothers and sisters. I can't make excuses for them save one. We are still human like everyone else subject to the laws of the flesh.

I guess you could say that i'm being cliche and asking , "can't we all get along" and "can you feel the love?" well if you can't 'feel the love, then there needs to be some more! Thank you for listening/reading and God Bless everyone. =)
Yup. A few people, including me, have said something to that effect, just not from the Christian point of view, as I'm not. Trust me, there has been a lot of general rudeness both ways. Some of it funny, some of it not. Some of it "all in good fun", some of it not.

You forgot to mention arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical, idiotic and irrational.
Please read. I spent a whole long post a while back explaining why it's a bad idea to post things like this. While I appreciate the attempted show of support, you are undermining my point by calling names without anything relevant to provide.

You'd think indeifing an circular argument you prove your point these days, but im afraid logic is good and dead to most people.

I think the key word here is belife, its just that belife that word carries with it the idea of uncertainty, I know god dose not exist, i know this as i have based it on empircal evidence that leads to come to the conclusion he is no benovolent, therefore he dose not exist. Not to mention the whole idea of causality being a flaw in human preception, that basically gave birth to the god idea.

Oh and the belife that god is innate died about 200 years ago with the birth of empiricism, if your looking for ansers go read A Treatise of Human Nature, or for the lazy man heres a wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

bah im ranting happens when im tired.

Yes, it's frustrating when people don't recognize the flaws of circular reasoning. However, it is important for us to remember that proving their argument faulty does not disprove their point. You could have a worthless argument for a true point. Also, as I said before, you cannot disprove something that could cause you to hallucinate, or cause records to be changed, or cause anything. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" would counter any such argument. Because of this, I'm agnostic. I recognize that we can't know anything about this topic for certain, and don't have any particular strong beliefs to draw me to a certain religion. I'm a Unitarian Universalist (there are Christian UUs, Jewish UUs, Muslim UUs, Atheist UUs, you name it. It's basically just the belief that we should be good to people and not bash people because of their religious beliefs).

If only all school systems were so progressive.. Might solve a lot of problems. :cool:
Yes... I'm on the East Coast (and, for some people on this thread, just because I live on the East Coast does not mean I'm on a first-name basis with Satan) and it's a very progressive school. What I like about it is that it's generally liberal, but liberal in the true sense, meaning you're allowed to learn about conservative things if you want, and they aren't portrayed as bad or evil.

Yes, it's frustrating when people don't recognize the flaws of circular reasoning. However, it is important for us to remember that proving their argument faulty does not disprove their point. You could have a worthless argument for a true point. Also, as I said before, you cannot disprove something that could cause you to hallucinate, or cause records to be changed, or cause anything. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" would counter any such argument. Because of this, I'm agnostic. I recognize that we can't know anything about this topic for certain, and don't have any particular strong beliefs to draw me to a certain religion. I'm a Unitarian Universalist (there are Christian UUs, Jewish UUs, Muslim UUs, Atheist UUs, you name it. It's basically just the belief that we should be good to people and not bash people because of their religious beliefs).

Otherwise known as Secular Humanism... which I agree with. Just be good to people. I am non-denominational Christian, do not believe in creationism, nor a good share of the bible, nor in many of the tenets of the religion I was brought up in. I guess it's safer to say I'm a spiritual Christian. Spiritualism, is more important than any religion, whether you worship something or nothing at all. Being a secular humanist is spiritual in itself... Just MY OPINION... I will NOT get into the whys and wheres... ;)

:confused: As a species,we have been unable to quantitatively explain how our life began or our "reason" for being here.
If there is a God,They have not cared enough to absolutely and categorically prove to their "highest?" creation that they exist.

Isms produce schisms.While we have life,ability,breath and purpose.Let's help one another.If you will notice,all the religions and philosophy's that have lasted began with a teacher that was able to elevate people through an ideal that became a meme and produced corporate activity.

Peace and Love to all
PC :fluffle:

No, let me reiterate: where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a pope? He was merely the leader of <i>one Christian SECT that became dominant.</i> For that matter, here's some interesting trivia that'll strike a nerve: how many brothers and sisters did Jesus have? Because that's something the Bible DOES have verses about and something the Catholic Church still seems to be in denial about.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think any type of Christianity is greater than another - I think most of them are pretty wrapped up in politics of some sort. I think you need to question why you believe some of the things that you do. A lot of what the Catholic Church teaches is an oral tradition that has nothing to do with what's in the Bible.


Side Note: I'm sorry, I was out of town and I didn't get back on the forums until today. That's why I hadn't gotten back to you on this. Cookies and fiance called, and I answered.

What you're saying about Peter being merely the leader of one sect is true. However, that particular sect calls their leaders "Pope." Besides, if Jesus said that he would found his own Church on Peter, and Peter led a certain sect, does that not make it his church? And thereby Jesus'?
Strike a nerve? My nerve? Your nerve? Not mine.... I have not the slightest problem with siblings of Jesus - the Bible says Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, not that she remained that way her entire life. So long as you're not going to expect me to believe he was the youngest of twelve or something, that's not even an issue.
The Catholic Church has many issues. I freely admit this - so do most Catholics. For that matter, whether they'll admit it or not, most people have some reservations, at least some of the time, about their church - not the faith and ideals behind it, but the hierarchy and dogma. I don't agree with the Church on many things - abortion, birth control, homosexuality, stem cell research, and the best reaction to clerical misconduct being the first few to come to mind.
A lot of what every church teaches is oral tradition - so are many, many things. Human religions are flawed, as are the humans that created them. We can only see so far, just barely beyond our noses.

Nobody knows exactly what happened 2000 years ago. Records were forged, or burned (accidental and purposefully), or lost. Entire books of the bible were destroyed. We only know this because they failed to find some of them ("they" being whoever was in authority of the Church at the time). There was a lot at stake, and everyone wanted to be in power. Ironic, given what Jesus stood for. Anyway, I don't think that after 2000 years anything could remain uncorrupted as an institution. We have to make the best of what we've got, and work to make it better and change with the times.

Nobody knows exactly what happened 2000 years ago. Records were forged, or burned (accidental and purposefully), or lost. Entire books of the bible were destroyed

There are dozens of "gospels", writings, and other works by many other members of the early church, and many of these were stricken from the Bible because of contradictory views. However, many of them are not religously "threatening" to Christian theology but express a different viewpoint. The "heresy" seems more rootd in political power than any real concerns over dogma.

Yeah, I think that's what we're all getting at. That's something that's at least a little bit true about any religion. Well, I have no personal knowledge of them all, so I can't really claim that. But it seems to be a theme.

That's something that's at least a little bit true about any religion. Well, I have no personal knowledge of them all, so I can't really claim that. But it seems to be a theme.

That's what I believe. I think all religions (God(s) existence permitting) describe the same supreme being(s) and so no one is superior to the other.

That's what I believe. I think all religions (God(s) existence permitting) describe the same supreme being(s) and so no one is superior to the other.
Or maybe they are just explaning a facet of ourself that we in the past have needed (may still need ... whatever thats not the arguement) maybe there are just some people who can not cope without

A survival mechanism

Or maybe just a benificial trait (in evolution by stephan baxter he described it as a socialy evolutionary trait that allowed people to gather in purpose in large groups for abstract purposes ... combined with zeal may have been a trait that promoted survival of members therefore got passed down in the gene pool ... intresting pov)

A survival mechanism

This is the position I lean toward of the two.Intriguing, especially given the competitive edge a society unified around a strong, bonding system like religion would have over those without.

Or maybe just a benificial trait (in evolution by stephan baxter he described it as a socialy evolutionary trait that allowed people to gather in purpose in large groups for abstract purposes ... combined with zeal may have been a trait that promoted survival of members therefore got passed down in the gene pool ... intresting pov)

Since humans are the only organisms that have religion, it is entirely possible that religion is a beneficial trait that developed through evolution, given the advantages I mentioned above. The competitive edge would be a kind of natural selection that eliminates the disunited groups in favor of the united, whose survival and propagation of the genetic code are much higher (may sound somewhat callous to describe humans in such a way, but it is the way we are as a species. Our primary instinct, if we still have any, is survival through one way or another.)

This is the position I lean toward of the two.Intriguing, especially given the competitive edge a society unified around a strong, bonding system like religion would have over those without.



Since humans are the only organisms that have religion, it is entirely possible that religion is a beneficial trait that developed through evolution, given the advantages I mentioned above. The competitive edge would be a kind of natural selection that eliminates the disunited groups in favor of the united, whose survival and propagation of the genetic code are much higher (may sound somewhat callous to describe humans in such a way, but it is the way we are as a species. Our primary instinct, if we still have any, is survival through one way or another.)
Yup thats the idea ... unifying social structure

While it has been (and may be ... could not say without more study) a benificial trait it does not make it true :) infortunatly for the religious out there

That's an interesting theory... quite possibly accurate. Religion does provide an excellent way to bring a community together. I guess the flaw in the plan is when one such community comes against another such community. I don't think it was designed for that. Endless wars and strife, from a survival mechanism. Incredibly ironic, in my book.
To me, it seems like human nature. With intelligence comes curiosity, and there are many things in nature which, if you have a primitive base of knowledge, seem to be explainable only by the divine. Thus the ancient pagan and polytheistic traditions: anything that is impressive or life-giving and unexplainable using their knowledge, they (imagine that!) had a God or Goddess for. Of course, this gets a bit fishy... if they're all omnipotent and omniscient, or at least all immortal, how do they not contradict each other? What if they were to disagree? So "head gods" came into being, such as Zeus/Jupiter and Thor, generally either the God of the Sun or of Lightning, depending on the area (and thus which was the difining element of their life... be it fear or gratitude). However, there was still the issue of enforcing the rules of the high god. Immortality prevents the smiting of those who try to rebel. And so the monotheistic religions kicked out the polytheistic religions, because their faith was stronger, more focused, less confused, and held a higher promise for the afterlife. Thus we have the dominant monotheistic world religions. Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, they were all out of the sphere of influence of the Fertile Crescent. You can blame the Romans and the Chinese for that.
Ah well, that's just what I think. And I really haven't studied it much. I just sit and think about things sometimes, and this is what popped out about this particular issue.

That's an interesting theory... quite possibly accurate. Religion does provide an excellent way to bring a community together. I guess the flaw in the plan is when one such community comes against another such community. I don't think it was designed for that. Endless wars and strife, from a survival mechanism. Incredibly ironic, in my book.

Yes but in the time of development humanity was ... well rather spread out is a word for it

Seperate tribes

Besides religion was a good tool to have when your tribe ran into another tribe that was trying to take over resources in your "area"

So just like a stone axe it helped compete with nature but also other intruders as well

snip..

Of course, this gets a bit fishy... if they're all omnipotent and omniscient, or at least all immortal, how do they not contradict each other? What if they were to disagree? So "head gods" came into being, such as Zeus/Jupiter and Thor, generally either the God of the Sun or of Lightning, depending on the area (and thus which was the difining element of their life... be it fear or gratitude). However, there was still the issue of enforcing the rules of the high god.

Even a single omnipotent being contradicts itself much less more then one

I happen to agree with your sentiments, but I'm just curious, do you have a logical proof or support for your determination that an omnipotent being contradicts itself?
It sure didn't in the eyes of the Ancients, and that's what we're really discussing. I agree with your points on that.

If we look at the early religions, say when this beneficial trait was more "useful" than it is no, they were almost all polytheistc. Generally, polytheistic religions can easily fit in to one another without any real conflict, since they accept the presence of multiple deities and so believe it possible for these others to exist (in Athens, as it is mentioned in the bible, there was an altar to "an unknown god" just to cover the possibility of others. That went away after Christianity set in, however). Thus, the earlier religions did not inspire the same emnity and disunity later monotheistic religions did. Monotheism could therefore be seen as the "appendix" of the beneficial religious trait, with no real utility or benefit although it can cause problems.

If we look at the early religions, say when this beneficial trait was more "useful" than it is no, they were almost all polytheistc. Generally, polytheistic religions can easily fit in to one another without any real conflict, since they accept the presence of multiple deities and so believe it possible for these others to exist (in Athens, as it is mentioned in the bible, there was an altar to "an unknown god" just to cover the possibility of others. That went away after Christianity set in, however). Thus, the earlier religions did not inspire the same emnity and disunity later monotheistic religions did. Monotheism could therefore be seen as the "appendix" of the beneficial religious trait, with no real utility or benefit although it can cause problems.

Another good point. Polytheistic religions wouldn't interfere with one another, while still providing a benefit.
Monotheistic religions aren't a purely "bad" thing, though, as a survival trait. It solidifies the society, pulling it together, much more strongly than polytheistic religions ever could. However, it also creates conflict with surrounding states. This combinations serves as a sort of consolidation, where nations are focused inwards and strengthened, while simultaneously losing the freedom of exchange previously enjoyed with surrounding countries, or surrounding spiritual areas.

Readin' the last couple of pages, it seems that the argument over religion has become a bit one-sided now, and you all agree with each other. No serious debating going on here.

But I have a question that remains unanswered by anybody I know: What was God doing before He started to make the universe?

I think He made an earlier one, but it screwed up, or it just ended, so He makes a new one, ours! But He loves us all the same, weather we be typical or absolutely original creations.

Readin' the last couple of pages, it seems that the argument over religion has become a bit one-sided now, and you all agree with each other. No serious debating going on here.

But I have a question that remains unanswered by anybody I know: What was God doing before He started to make the universe?

I think He made an earlier one, but it screwed up, or it just ended, so He makes a new one, ours! But He loves us all the same, weather we be typical or absolutely original creations.

That is the problem with any "origin" theory. Ok, so say God made another Universe before ours.... which screwed up despite His omnipotence... well, what did He do before He made that one? On, and on, and on.... where did the matter/energy come from that made the Big Bang? Ok, and then what did that come from? On, and on, and on. What are atoms made of? Protons, Neutrons, Electrons... the down into quarks, but then what are they made of? Some say "strings". But what are they made of? On, and on, and on.
And you're right, it's changed from a debate to throwing ideas back and forth, trying to understand things better.

That is the problem with any "origin" theory. Ok, so say God made another Universe before ours.... which screwed up despite His omnipotence... well, what did He do before He made that one? On, and on, and on.... where did the matter/energy come from that made the Big Bang? Ok, and then what did that come from? On, and on, and on. What are atoms made of? Protons, Neutrons, Electrons... the down into quarks, but then what are they made of? Some say "strings". But what are they made of? On, and on, and on.
And you're right, it's changed from a debate to throwing ideas back and forth, trying to understand things better.

strings make up the membrane which isn't made up of anything, it just vibrates. not quite shure how, as a theoretical physisist. when two membranes collide it creates a new membrane, that's the big bang of that universe.

strings make up the membrane which isn't made up of anything, it just vibrates. not quite shure how, as a theoretical physisist. when two membranes collide it creates a new membrane, that's the big bang of that universe.
Yes, that's a part of String Theory (don't feel bad, nobody quite understands it, and very few people are even close). However, if membranes are made of nothing, then how can they create matter? If they are pure energy, then, sure, that might work. But they can't be "nothing".

Yes, that's a part of String Theory (don't feel bad, nobody quite understands it, and very few people are even close). However, if membranes are made of nothing, then how can they create matter? If they are pure energy, then, sure, that might work. But they can't be "nothing".

I thought that i once heard someone say it was another form of existance like matter and energy, but that doesn't make sence to me if it makes up both matter and energy. in the string theory, energy is some obscure form of matter, like gravitrons i guess. maybe like how energy is a form of matter, matter is a form of string-things?

I just hate all this fighting between the
Religious and Non-Religious

I just hate all this fighting between the
Religious and Non-Religious
Holy gravedigging batman

3 months

Holy gravedigging batman

3 months

Not to mention - 77 pages!

I just hate all this fighting between the
Religious and Non-Religious

Oh, holy f***.... if you hate it that much, why go back all that time to revive that thread????