NationStates Jolt Archive

So, we agree that there's no edge of if there's no God, but if there is a God, I'm not sure He/She/It will like your line of reasoning here...

if you believe in God so that you have this edge than I agree iwth that it does no good, because that is only serving yourself, I dont believe in and serve God because I am afraid of Hell, I serve God because He is worthy to be served (not meant to argue the general statement of my faith , but in the concept of God knowing our motives)

lol, thank you for the bone, it was an English paper for my required course (yuck) and it was about how the U.S. military subsidizes cosmetic surgery costs for soldiers (some restrictions do apply, but it is the principle that it is supported by the tax dollar) I looked at both sides, and found a pretty nice shade of grey to argue for

And you finished it in all of 10 minutes?

Not quite. Even if there is no God, belief in Him can still provide an edge.
Or it can mess you up.
Basically, without God, the belief in God can go either way.

If God wanted everybody to believe in Him, then everybody would.

You statement was:

Believing in God gives you and edge in life (assuming that God exists), but is not ultimately important.

Which clearly predicates the edge on his existence. If you want to reverse that, that's fine, but please try to be consistent.

So, by your axiom, since not everybody believes in God, God doesn't want everybody to believe in him. Thus, there are some he doesn't want to believe in him.

Therefore, there are some who, by not believing in God, are doing His will. Will they be punished for doing His will?

And you finished it in all of 10 minutes?

not all of it, lol, I am not that good, I started it last Sunday night (although I took a weeklong break, lol) and finished all but the conclusion when I had left, that and I had to find the headset to my cellphone but the paper was almost completely written

You statement was:



Which clearly predicates the edge on his existence. If you want to reverse that, that's fine, but please try to be consistent.

So, by your axiom, since not everybody believes in God, God doesn't want everybody to believe in him. Thus, there are some he doesn't want to believe in him.

Therefore, there are some who, by not believing in God, are doing His will. Will they be punished for doing His will?

Oh that's creative. Well done St Curie.:fluffle:

I believe in this context of "+ means do nothing", it would serve as a unary operator, so your statement might read:

x + = x

1 + 1 is always true, though.
Concept wise, if not symbol wise.

Therefore, there are some who, by not believing in God, are doing His will. Will they be punished for doing His will?

I dont mean to argue, just to clarify what I myszelf believe, but they will be punished for lack of belief, and reception of grace, that they do His will is wonderful, but 'it could be better' if you will (if they did it with the intention to serve Him)

1 + 1 is always true, though.
Concept wise, if not symbol wise.

We follow different rules, which is fine.

1+1 is a value, not a statement, so it has a result, not a "true/false" value, unless you are using a system where zero is false and any non-zero value is true, such as c++.

1 + 1 = 2 is always true, though.
Concept wise, if not symbol wise.

The truth though is only in the concept. It does not reach into the world, or anything beyond the realm of mathematical concepts.

Out of curiosity, if I have 1 drop of water to which I add 1 drop of water, what do I get? The answer is 1 drop of water. 1 + 1 = 1 in this case. As such 1 + 1 = 2 is not always true when you deal with the world.

I dont mean to argue, just to clarify what I myszelf believe, but they will be punished for lack of belief, and reception of grace, that they do His will is wonderful, but 'it could be better' if you will (if they did it with the intention to serve Him)

I only wish to clarify your beliefs as well.

By your statements, their lack of belief is due to His will. He doesn't want everybody to believe. If they all believed, they'd be going against his Will, and perhaps they don't wish to do that.

So they are left with "Be punished for not believing, as I have commanded you to believe, and be punished for believing, as I don't want all of you to do that either".

I can see why many in this thread have observed this view of God to be inconsistent with "logic and common sense". (Said by others, not I, mind you.)

You statement was:
"Originally Posted by The Godweavers
Believing in God gives you and edge in life (assuming that God exists), but is not ultimately important."

Which clearly predicates the edge on his existence. If you want to reverse that, that's fine, but please try to be consistent.

Uh, no.
If I said, "Assuming that it's raining out, it would be better for me to stay home" does NOT, in any way, mean that "it would be better for me to stay at home" hinges on whether it is raining. There are plenty of other times that it would be a good thing to do.

Assuming that God exists, belief in God dives you an edge.
But that does NOT mean that this is the only time when belief in God will give you an edge.

So, by your axiom, since not everybody believes in God, God doesn't want everybody to believe in him. Thus, there are some he doesn't want to believe in him.

Apparently.

Therefore, there are some who, by not believing in God, are doing His will. Will they be punished for doing His will?

Possibly. It's a hard question because it depends on how you define "punished". Christ got crucified because he followed God's will.
Was that "punishment" for doing His will?
The answer depends on semantics.

I will certainly say that I don't think that anybody will go to hell simply for not believing in God.

The truth though is only in the concept. It does not reach into the world, or anything beyond the realm of mathematical concepts.

Out of curiosity, if I have 1 drop of water to which I add 1 drop of water, what do I get? The answer is 1 drop of water. 1 + 1 = 1 in this case. As such 1 + 1 = 2 is not always true when you deal with the world.

Gennady Bachman, a prof I know, is fond of quoting Groucho Marx when discussing Set Theory and various related mathematics...

"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

I only wish to clarify your beliefs as well.

By your statements, their lack of belief is due to His will. He doesn't want everybody to believe. If they all believed, they'd be going against his Will, and perhaps they don't wish to do that.

So they are left with "Be punished for not believing, as I have commanded you to believe, and be punished for believing, as I don't want all of you to do that either".

I can see why many in this thread have observed this view of God to be inconsistent with "logic and common sense". (Said by others, not I, mind you.)

I dont recall any statement that claims that their lack of belief is His will, and I adamantly feel the opposite, but for the sake of understanding I will ask what gae you that impression?

The truth though is only in the concept. It does not reach into the world, or anything beyond the realm of mathematical concepts.

And?

Out of curiosity, if I have 1 drop of water to which I add 1 drop of water, what do I get? The answer is 1 drop of water. 1 + 1 = 1 in this case. As such 1 + 1 = 2 is not always true when you deal with the world.

Good example.
I'm not sure if that would exactly be "1+1" or not, but it's close enough.

I dont recall any statement that claims that their lack of belief is His will, and I adamantly feel the opposite, but for the sake of understanding I will ask what gae you that impression?

Saint Curie seems to have gotten us confused.

Saint Curie seems to have gotten us confused.

the thought actually crossed my mind, it seems a reasonble assumption, but I am sure that all will be revealed

Uh, no.
If I said, "Assuming that it's raining out, it would be better for me to stay home" does NOT, in any way, mean that "it would be better for me to stay at home" hinges on whether it is raining. There are plenty of other times that it would be a good thing to do.

Assuming that God exists, belief in God dives you an edge.
But that does NOT mean that this is the only time when belief in God will give you an edge.



Well, we take the phrase differently, which is fine. I have no problem with your usage, and I can accept it for discussion.


Apparently.

Possibly. It's a hard question because it depends on how you define "punished". Christ got crucified because he followed God's will.
Was that "punishment" for doing His will?
The answer depends on semantics.

I will certainly say that I don't think that anybody will go to hell simply for not believing in God.

In the version of the story I was given, he agreed to be crucified to satisfy his father's need for blood sacrifice, so he was taking somebody else's punishment.

In your view, who goes to Hell?

Gennady Bachman, a prof I know, is fond of quoting Groucho Marx when discussing Set Theory and various related mathematics...

"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

:D

I dont recall any statement that claims that their lack of belief is His will, and I adamantly feel the opposite, but for the sake of understanding I will ask what gae you that impression?

Perhaps I confused you with Godweaver; my apologies.

Somebody had made the statement "If God wanted everyone to believe in him, they would", from which the rest follows.

And?

The discussion of mathematical truth started when Commie Catholics used it as an example of truth that does not depend on faith in some way. I was arguing that if we live our lives seeking truth then we are simply hiding the unquestioning faith behind this explicit goal. If mathematical truths do not reach reality, as it seems they do not, then they can not be used as an example of the type of truth that we seek in life. That is unless you want to live a ife completely detached from reality of course.

And?



Good example.
I'm not sure if that would exactly be "1+1" or not, but it's close enough.

You need a definition for 'a drop' before we can apply mathematics to it.

Perhaps I confused you with Godweaver; my apologies.

Somebody had made the statement "If God wanted everyone to believe in him, they would", from which the rest follows.

indeed, and no apologies needed it happens, although, lol, I clearly don't agree with that statement, lol (again understanding your logical connection to you prior post)

Good example.
I'm not sure if that would exactly be "1+1" or not, but it's close enough.

Its a vital premise, though, that any statement depends on whether certain axioms are accepted, a priori.

Some religion requires a great many, and supports the axioms with one another, which is logically erroneous.

That's not to say that all practice of religion is wrong or false; many just require one to embrace assumptions that are attractive more out of need than inherent plausibility.

then they can not be used as an example of the type of truth that we seek in life. That is unless you want to live a ife completely detached from reality of course.

As I do.

The point was that people ask for truth. Yet we can't give them truth because it doesn't exist in the real world, so to speak.

The discussion of mathematical truth started when Commie Catholics used it as an example of truth that does not depend on faith in some way. I was arguing that if we live our lives seeking truth then we are simply hiding the unquestioning faith behind this explicit goal. If mathematical truths do not reach reality, as it seems they do not, then they can not be used as an example of the type of truth that we seek in life. That is unless you want to live a ife completely detached from reality of course.

Well, some people thrive in grad school...

Well, some people thrive in grad school...

:D

Yes... there could be one, there could be many. It could be God God, it could Allah or Buddha or whoever you want [insert something here] to be.

In the version of the story I was given, he agreed to be crucified to satisfy his father's need for blood sacrifice, so he was taking somebody else's punishment.

That's just guesswork after the fact, as far as I know. I don't recall Christ ever saying that's exactly why he was killed. Even if he did, that doesn't mean that it's true in the way that people think.

In your view, who goes to Hell?

I really don't know. I'm not sure that Hell even exists, and if it does then I'm pretty sure that it isn't like most people think.
The popular concept of Hell doesn't work at all with the idea of God being Good. The point of punishment is to educate people into better behavior, so Hell is more than punishment. Hell lasts forever, so supposedly sinners burn in flames for a hundred years, realize all their sins, and then have to stay there forever?
I don't buy it.

All I can do is guess how things really work, but here are some theories:

1. Earth is essentially Hell. People who reach a certain level of enlightenment get to move on to Heaven. For most people, this is Purgatory (Hell, with time off for good behavior), but there are some people who will NEVER, no matter how many lifetimes they get, EVER learn. For these people, Earth is Hell.

2. Hell isn't a place at all. "Hell" is just oblivion. How many biblical references to Hell are there? One of the few I've found is mention that sinners will be "cast into a lake of fire" or a "furnace" or whatever.
Nothing about that indicates that they'll stay there forever. Usually if you toss something in a fire, it burns up and is destroyed.

3. Hell is simply an absense from God. It would only apply to people who, even after they die and stand in God's presence, will always deny him.

ok, but noiw I need to actually sleep so if I am back again soon... I have aproblem, lol, well there was some good discussion, and I have considered new ideas never before considered (thank you for helping me to compose more of what I believe-as in, regarding different approaches, and ideas that I never thought of before) and I will no doubt 'see' you all 'around'

Well, some people thrive in grad school...

Hey! :rolleyes:

The discussion of mathematical truth started when Commie Catholics used it as an example of truth that does not depend on faith in some way. I was arguing that if we live our lives seeking truth then we are simply hiding the unquestioning faith behind this explicit goal. If mathematical truths do not reach reality, as it seems they do not, then they can not be used as an example of the type of truth that we seek in life. That is unless you want to live a ife completely detached from reality of course.

If there is a reality to be reached, then mathematics reaches it.
That's how we can use math to design real-world stuff.
Of course, if there is no real-world stuff, then it's a moot point.

*snip*
All I can do is guess how things really work, but here are some theories:

*more snipping*



Any of that sounds as reasonable as anything else...at least you know its speculation.

Hey! :rolleyes:

Except, of course, for {insert program in which Xislakilinia resides or graduated from}, which is by far the most relevant, insightful, and vital field of study that humanity has ever explored.

Ever.

Well, some people thrive in grad school...

Yeah, been there, done that, moved country and decided to do it again in another language.

Yeah, been there, done that, moved country and decided to do it again in another language.

I think somebody in Mechanical Engineering is from Brazil...are you near there?

If there is a reality to be reached, then mathematics reaches it.
That's how we can use math to design real-world stuff.
Of course, if there is no real-world stuff, then it's a moot point.

So point to a 4 for me then. Not four objects, (they are real perhaps), nor the symbol 4, but just a simple 4 itself, the reality that the symbol stands for.

I think somebody in Mechanical Engineering is from Brazil...are you near there?

Yes I am in Brazil, but near there would depend upon where in Brazil they are from. I am in Rio Grande do Sul (state), just outside the state capital Porto Alegre

So point to a 4 for me then. Not four objects, (they are real perhaps), nor the symbol 4, but just a simple 4 itself, the reality that the symbol stands for.

Okay, there. Look!

So point to a 4 for me then. Not four objects, (they are real perhaps), nor the symbol 4, but just a simple 4 itself, the reality that the symbol stands for.

Yes, you're right. Godweavers went a bit over the top. Mathematics is a world independent of our own. We just find similarities between our two realities and exploit them.

Yes, you're right. Godweavers went a bit over the top. Mathematics is a world independent of our own. We just find similarities between our two realities and exploit them.

I don't get the distinction.
What about colors, are they real-world?

Except, of course, for {insert program in which Xislakilinia resides or graduated from}, which is by far the most relevant, insightful, and vital field of study that humanity has ever explored.

Ever.

Which happens to be evolutionary biology, btw.

You certainly deserve a fluffle for the best disclaimer ever done in history, ever. :fluffle: And yes, flattery will get you everywhere.

Did I mention that you are one of the most insightful, creative and focussed debater on this side of Sol? Simply awesome. :cool:

I think I'm an ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic).

Any of that sounds as reasonable as anything else...at least you know its speculation.

Most things are.

So point to a 4 for me then. Not four objects, (they are real perhaps), nor the symbol 4, but just a simple 4 itself, the reality that the symbol stands for.

Was it the Ionian, or maybe Pythagorian, School that attributed moral characteristics to certain integers?

4 was "justice" or something, wasn't it?

I don't get the distinction.
What about colors, are they real-world?

Ah. See I'm not questioning what is real and what isn't. I'm making the point that mathematics is something completely abstract. It's something we invent. Like complex numbers.

Was it the Ionian, or maybe Pythagorian, School that attributed moral characteristics to certain integers?

4 was "justice" or something, wasn't it?

Twas the Pythagorians, but what virtue 4 was I never knew as I simply could not take the idea seriously enough. I shall no doubt be condemned to a mathematical hell for that.

Which happens to be evolutionary biology, btw.

You certainly deserve a fluffle for the best disclaimer ever done in history, ever. :fluffle: And yes, flattery will get you everywhere.

Did I mention that you are one of the most insightful, creative and focussed debater on this side of Sol? Simply awesome. :cool:

You're very kind, although I must admit that there are many far better, here on NS and elsewhere.

I once loved biology, but when she introduced me to her sister, Organic Chemistry, I found the family too stern for my meager talents...I took my B and ran...

No, i dont believe there is a god. Our lives are short and miserable, and provide nothing to the universe. We exist solely because of random mutations (and overactive sex organs) and when we die we cease to exist and the galaxy gets a little better.

Twas the Pythagorians, but what virtue 4 was I never knew as I simply could not take the idea seriously enough. I shall no doubt be condemned to a mathematical hell for that.

Heh, yeah, that's where you're in a room with 35 people, and they refuse to see any reason why a/b should not equal (a^2/b^2) for all cases in standard mathematics.

Ah. See I'm not questioning what is real and what isn't. I'm making the point that mathematics is something completely abstract. It's something we invent. Like complex numbers.

Do we invent colors?

No, i dont believe there is a god. Our lives are short and miserable, and provide nothing to the universe. We exist solely because of random mutations (and overactive sex organs) and when we die we cease to exist and the galaxy gets a little better.

Meet Russo-Soviets, everybody.
He's today's motivational speaker!

No, i dont believe there is a god. Our lives are short and miserable, and provide nothing to the universe. We exist solely because of random mutations (and overactive sex organs) and when we die we cease to exist and the galaxy gets a little better.

Oh, I suppose a few can live long and happy without need for a God, but as we've established, "long" and "happy" are neither here nor there.

Do we invent colors?


No. Colours are things we observe. Mathematics is something we create.

hmmmm....in response to the idea that if you add one drop to another drop then you're left with one drop, first of all, i have to agree with Commie Catholics, who said, "You need a definition for 'a drop' before we can apply mathematics to it." Let's go through the drop idea in a little more definition, then:

Statement: If you add one drop (a drop being a set amount of any given substance, much like a mole, or a dozen, etc...) of a certain substance to another drop of a certain substance, assuming that they don't react in any sort of destructive manner, and add peacfully to each others mass, then you will have one quantity of something that is equal (at least in mass) to two drops.

Due to this highly defined statement, it must be concluded that 1+1=2 because when one drop is added to another, they create something equal in mass to two drops. Let's try using something more inherently defined, however. An ocean, for example:

Statement: If you add one ocean to another ocean, the result will be one ocean.

Here, an ocean is not a set quantity, but one that may fluctuate. However, it supports the conclusion made from the first statement in that the resulting ocean will be equal (at least in mass) to two separate oceans.

My point in doing all of this was to give substance to the remark made by Commie Catholics that definition for the term "drop" was needed before applying mathematics, and then to prove that once a "drop" was defined that simple addition still made a true statement when applied to reality.

I thing God may have existed, but we killed him/her with disappointment.

No. Colours are things we observe. Mathematics is something we create.

Then point to a color.
Not just something that is colored, but to color itself.

Then point to a color.
Not just something that is colored, but to color itself.

A colour is an attribute of a particular object. Yes, you may say that there are 4 objects. The diagonal of an 1X1 square is root2 CM. Fine. But that is just taking an abstract quantity and applying it to the real world. You're using only a portion of mathematics to describe reality. Not the same thing as observation.

Then point to a color.
Not just something that is colored, but to color itself.

Ok. You're arguing that all mathematics is observed in the real world. Then you point to an object that has sides of length root(-1).

That seems reasonable. I just find that many religious systems tend to consider their axioms to be universal, and want their axioms to be adopted for reasons that are dependent on the axioms themselves.
RAmen to that. *bows*

Saint Curie seems to have gotten us confused.
Better get used to it. They're more than adept at that. :D

I thing God may have existed, but we killed him/her with disappointment.
Or, as the epitaph has it, "I hadn't thought of that...", and disappeared in a puff of logic.

Or, as the epitaph has it, "I hadn't thought of that...", and disappeared in a puff of logic.

Never put Des Cartes in front of the Des Horse.

When we get together, it always ends up punny.

Or, as the epitaph has it, "I hadn't thought of that...", and disappeared in a puff of logic.
:D

Never put Des Cartes in front of the Des Horse.

When we get together, it always ends up punny.
Nyuk nyuk. :)
You should tie one on with Saint Curie. That entity is particularly dangerous in the wit/intellect arena. :eek:

:D
Strangely enough, the opportunity for that line isn't NEARLY often enough. :)

Nyuk nyuk. :)
You should tie one on with Saint Curie. That entity is particularly dangerousin the wit/intellect arena. :eek:

I know. :rolleyes: He could kill me seven times before I hit the floor. Twice.

I know. :rolleyes: He could kill me seven times before I hit the floor. Twice.
I might think s/he'd let you live just so you could experience more suffering - but yes, at least seven strikes into torpor, as many times as it was funny or valuable in some other sense. In fact, i could see s/he taking on Chuck Norris in at least a thread or two.

I might think s/he'd let you live just so you could experience more suffering - but yes, at least seven strikes into torpor, as many times as it was funny or valuable in some other sense. In fact, i could see s/he taking on Chuck Norris in at least a thread or two.

Not Chuck Norris. He needs a seat beat when taking a dump. To avoid going single-stage-to-orbit.

Not Chuck Norris. He needs a seat beat when taking a dump. To avoid going single-stage-to-orbit.
Saint Curie does, or Chuck Norris does?
Beating seat?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif

Colors exist. They are specific wavelengths of electromagnetic waves which are given off by moving particles.

Mathematics exists. It is not an invention of mankind. If it were, then different people could get different results for 2+2. Mathematics has, in many cases, been able to predict things which could not be experimentally tested for many years to come but which were proven by the experiments.

That said, I believe in God.

Saint Curie does, or Chuck Norris does?
Beating seat?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/arsespank.gif

Chuck Norris, why of course. He would counter a well argued line of reasoning with a a well choreographed line of roundhouse kicks to the face. While brushing his teeth. Inverted.

Chuck Norris, why of course. He would counter a well argued line of reasoning with a a well choreographed line of roundhouse kicks to the face. While brushing his teeth. Inverted.
Ah, that's the difference here though - one that would certainly chagrin Norris to no end.
(Chuch Norris): Die! Why won't you die?
(Saint Curie): Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea, Mr. (Norris)- and ideas are (roundhouse-kick) proof.

Ah, that's the difference here though - one that would certainly chagrin Norris to no end.
(Chuch Norris): Die! Why won't you die?
(Saint Curie): Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea, Mr. (Norris)- and ideas are (roundhouse-kick) proof.

Chuck Norris could roundhouse kick even that! And then some.

Not that I root for Chuck Norris, no sir, that's not my department. It's just that my train of thought has just departed to Vladivostok.

No, I don't think so.

Colors exist. They are specific wavelengths of electromagnetic waves which are given off by moving particles.

A turtle can see more colours than a human can. Do these colours that humans can't percieve exist? Or do they only exist for turtles and other animals with four different colour rods instead of our three?

A turtle can see more colours than a human can. Do these colours that humans can't percieve exist? Or do they only exist for turtles and other animals with four different colour rods instead of our three?

Depends. What do you mean by exist? Give me a definition in words of existence.

Depends. What do you mean by exist? Give me a definition in words of existence.
If we cannont define it, does existance exist? (excuse the pun).
There is no point asking for a definition of existance Bruce the Coward, its too fandemental. Define "1"...

If we cannont define it, does existance exist? (excuse the pun).
There is no point asking for a definition of existance Bruce the Coward, its too fandemental. Define "1"...

The point I was getting at was that it can't be defined. The idea involved is far too complex for our language to handle. Thus we can only communicate what 'exists' through example. Because of this, existence becomes completely subjective due to the fact that we all form different patterns from different examples. And so it is impossible to analyse existence.

The point I was getting at was that it can't be defined. The idea involved is far too complex for our language to handle. Thus we can only communicate what 'exists' through example. Because of this, existence becomes completely subjective due to the fact that we all form different patterns from different examples. And so it is impossible to analyse existence.
:D You'll like this one:
All that is incomprehensible does not cease to exist
- Pascal

:D You'll like this one:


Yes, I do like that one. Tell it to Ben at some point.

Yes, I do like that one. Tell it to Ben at some point.
The point, however, remains. You sit there and winge about how people use abstract terms that they cannot define like "existance", and yet you base your "rational" (or so you claim) understanding upon something which requires existance. Does this mean your perfectly rational view of the universe is not completely a priori?

The point, however, remains. You sit there and winge about how people use abstract terms that they cannot define like "existance", and yet you base your "rational" (or so you claim) understanding upon something which requires existance. Does this mean your perfectly rational view of the universe is not completely a priori?

What rational view? I know it's impossible to find truth in the universe so I don't look for it. That gives me the right to abuse the poor souls who are stupid enough to try and find it.:rolleyes:

What rational view? I know it's impossible to find truth in the universe so I don't look for it. That gives me the right to abuse the poor souls who are stupid enough to try and find it.:rolleyes:
Here's another one of my favorites:
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
- Isaac Newton

CC, you'll like this:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

If there was a god, how could he do such evil things to good people, and let the assholes and bastards get away with nothing.

First of all, God doesn't do evil to anybody. He allows it to be done for His purpose; ie, if they are a Christian that may just be His means of getting them out of this old world and bringing them home to Him.

Secondly, everyone wants to blame the bad things that happen to us on God, yet when they happen, those people out the other side of their mouth say "there can't be a God to let this happen". So if God creates evil, or doesn't even exist, where does the love, peace, joy, happiness, hope, etc. come from? I guess those are just human concoctions aren't they?

The very existence of good and bad, rather, Righteousness and Evil, points to the existence of a soveriegn God, and that's just minute.

CC, you'll like this:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

That guy was a genius.

What rational view? I know it's impossible to find truth in the universe so I don't look for it. That gives me the right to abuse the poor souls who are stupid enough to try and find it.:rolleyes:


Heh heh this made me laff.

So this person uses a subjective truth(I know it's immpossible to find truth in the universe...) to justify abuse of those deemed stupid enough to try and find other subjective truths.:confused:

Hahhaha.

Cheers Commie Catholics you brighten up my day!

Heh heh this made me laff.

So this person uses a subjective truth(I know it's immpossible to find truth in the universe...) to justify abuse of those deemed stupid enough to try and find other subjective truths.:confused:

Hahhaha.

Cheers Commie Catholics you brighten up my day!
Hey, he can't even prove the people he is insulting exist? Argue down that one Bruce!

First of all, God doesn't do evil to anybody. He allows it to be done for His purpose; ie, if they are a Christian that may just be His means of getting them out of this old world and bringing them home to Him.

Yeah, kind of like how Hitler didn't personally murder the Jews, he just allowed them to be killed for his purpose. Which is why we all honor Hitler for His blessed vision.

I'm telling you, Christianity is just Stockholm syndrome writ large.

It's like watching a bunch of battered wives explain how he really does love them, he just beats them because they make him angry. "He's not really a bad guy, he loves me! He just has a temper. I know he wants what's best for us, it's just that I am so wicked. I shouldn't provoke him. And the kids really should learn to keep quiet when Daddy is around. He wouldn't hit us if he didn't care about us so much. He really does love us."

Hey, he can't even prove the people he is insulting exist? Argue down that one Bruce!

The point is that it doesn't need to be proven. You take the word and define it be example.

Heh heh this made me laff.

So this person uses a subjective truth(I know it's immpossible to find truth in the universe...) to justify abuse of those deemed stupid enough to try and find other subjective truths.:confused:

Hahhaha.

Cheers Commie Catholics you brighten up my day!


Ah it's an objective truth. :rolleyes:

Yeah, kind of like how Hitler didn't personally murder the Jews, he just allowed them to be killed for his purpose. Which is why we all honor Hitler for His blessed vision.

I'm telling you, Christianity is just Stockholm syndrome writ large.

It's like watching a bunch of battered wives explain how he really does love them, he just beats them because they make him angry. He's not really a bad guy, he loves me! He just has a temper. I know he wants what's best for us, it's just that I am so wicked. I shouldn't provoke him. And the kids really should learn to keep quiet when Daddy is around. He wouldn't hit us if he didn't care about us so much. He really does love us.
God: a wife-beating version of Hitler! Well there it is. Thomas Aquinas has nothing on you!

God: a wife-beating version of Hitler! Well there it is. Thomas Aquinas has nothing on you!
:D

Ah it's an objective truth. :rolleyes:
Two points:

Didn't you say objective truth doesn't exist?
Define objective and subjective

Two points:

Didn't you say objective truth doesn't exist?
Define objective and subjective



1) Not that I recall
2) Objective: Use of rationality and logic as opposed to emotion and intuition
Subjective: converse of objective

I HATE this thread. Whenever I read the title I start singing American Pie. :mad:

1) Not that I recall
2) Objective: Use of rationality and logic as opposed to emotion and intuition
Subjective: converse of objective

Which principles of logic did you use to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to find objective truth in the universe? Surely if its an objective truth, you can demonstrate it as being objective in the same way you can any other non-physical but logically contigent belief or any physical thing.

Which principles of logic did you use to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to find objective truth in the universe? Surely if its an objective truth, you can demonstrate it as being objective in the same way you can any other non-physical but logically contigent belief or any physical thing.


Finding a truth in the natural world, ie conservation of energy, universal gravitation, law of inertia, etc, require assumptions. All of them require assumptions because all are observed. We assume our observations are correct. For something to be truth, the assumption must be correct. We can not know if the assumption is correct or not, because it is an assumption. Hence, we can never be certain what is truth and what isn't in regards to the observable universe.

The point is that it doesn't need to be proven. You take the word and define it be example.

Heheh another of your truths? Tell me if you belive that truth cannot be found how can you be certian of.... well... anything?

God: a wife-beating version of Hitler! Well there it is. Thomas Aquinas has nothing on you!
I dunno, I don't think I could ever be as interested in S&M as our boy Tommy. That fellow really understood what it means to be a bottom.

Heheh another of your truths? Tell me if you belive that truth cannot be found how can you be certian of.... well... anything?

No. Not another of my truths. Just a personal joke between EBH and I.


And I don't "believe" truth can not be deduced from the natural world, I showd it in the above post.

Yes, itdoes mean that you can't be certain of anything. I don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow, I don't know that the gravity of tomorrow will be the same strength as it was today. But you get over the uncertainty after a while.

Finding a truth in the natural world, ie conservation of energy, universal gravitation, law of inertia, etc, require assumptions. All of them require assumptions because all are observed. We assume our observations are correct. For something to be truth, the assumption must be correct. We can not know if the assumption is correct or not, because it is an assumption. Hence, we can never be certain what is truth and what isn't in regards to the observable universe.

You just claimed that what you stated was an objective truth that you can demonstrate with logic. Now, you're saying that you can never be cerrtain what is truth or what isn't truth. Which is it?

Ah it's an objective truth. :rolleyes:


Nope if even one person has a differant slant on it or says that it is wrong, then it is not an objective truth it is a personal subjective truth.

You just claimed that what you stated was an objective truth that you can demonstrate with logic. Now, you're saying that you can never be cerrtain what is truth or what isn't truth. Which is it?


Sorry. Obviously a confusion here. I'm not saying you can't know what's true and what's not. I'm saying that you cannot determine truths from the natural physical world.

Nope if even one person has a differant slant on it or says that it is wrong, then it is not an objective truth it is a personal subjective truth.


Well it doesn't matter who has what slant on what. Just because a person doesn't think the pythagoras theorem is truth, doesn't make it so.

Yes, I have unbreakable faith. Its disappointing to see that such a large percentage of the people who voted on this poll don't believe.

Well it doesn't matter who has what slant on what. Just because a person doesn't think the pythagoras theorem is truth, doesn't make it so.


Hey Commie,

My fault for not explaining fully.

You said:

'What rational view? I know it's impossible to find truth in the universe so I don't look for it. That gives me the right to abuse the poor souls who are stupid enough to try and find it.'

I found this funny and pointed out that you used a subjective truth to justify abuse of those trying to find other subjective proofs.

Why did I say your subjective proof? I think it is possible to find objective proof in the universe, and seeing as the title of the tread is 'do you have faith in God' then I assumed that the proof you where talking about not finding was on a subjective nature.(as the whole God thing is subjective, I belived I made a correct assumption)

Why did I say others subjective proof. for the same reason as I said your subjective proof.

Now of course I realise we may have crossed wires, but then again reading the other posts of yours it is evidant that you belive that no evidance can be proved to be fully objective and so all truths are subjective(I agree on that score BTW) so I'm going to stick by my assumptions.

OCR']Yes, I have unbreakable faith. Its disappointing to see that such a large percentage of the people who voted on this poll don't believe.


Why is it dissapointing?

i have an absolute faith that there are all sorts of things no one has ever even begun to immagine, and absolutely none that any of them have to begin and end with what anyone chooses to immagine they know about them

=^^=
.../\...

I don't believe because it isn't benificial. I'm not going to reward god with faith when personally I think 'its' performance has been incredibly sub par over the last few millenia.

Well it doesn't matter who has what slant on what. Just because a person doesn't think the pythagoras theorem is truth, doesn't make it so.
*Stares into space thoughtfully*

Could God create a right triangle for which the Pythagorean Theorem would not hold true?

I don't believe because it isn't benificial. I'm not going to reward god with faith when personally I think 'its' performance has been incredibly sub par over the last few millenia.

Ahah so you do belive, you just don't like GOD?

I believe that there is a God. Christians and other faiths everywhere acknowledge that bad things do happen to good people, however people will not stay dead and will come back in the next world (ie: heaven), bad things happen in this world but not in the next one.

I did vote "NO", I know myself too well, I can't believe in myself..

How as an high priest could believe in what I sale?
Do you believe in the sh*t you sale? Ba serious...
No, it can't exist any deity, that would mean the end of my job!!!

Let's pray together for thus who believe.
Amen


Jesuites
High Priest
Commander of the Faith
Ruler of your after-life
Father of your children

your Brother in heaven and earth.

Ahah so you do belive, you just don't like GOD?

I believe that if there is a god in charge of everything they're not doing a very good job.

I believe that there is a God. Christians and other faiths everywhere acknowledge that bad things do happen to good people, however people will not stay dead and will come back in the next world (ie: heaven), bad things happen in this world but not in the next one.
Well gosh, that's convenient. God lets bad things happen to good people, but they're going to come back as really really happy zombies, so it's all ok.

Never said you had to believe it, just said what I believe and what many others believe and IMO it makes atleast as much sense as the "you're dead so you're gone" theory.

Honestly, people ask questions such as "why would God allow.....?" and when they are given an answer they throw it back in your face. :rolleyes:

Honestly, people ask questions such as "why would God allow.....?" and when they are given an answer they throw it back in your face. :rolleyes:

It's because we're not satisfied with "god works in mysterious ways." What in the hell kind of answer is that? Just come out and say it "Honestly, we don't know."

Never said you had to believe it, just said what I believe and what many others believe and IMO it makes atleast as much sense as the "you're dead so you're gone" theory.

Yes, I realize that these two ideas seem equally logical to you. That's pretty much the problem, isn't it? I mean, people who say that Santa Claus is as rational as gravity are going to be on a bit of a different wavelength, right?


Honestly, people ask questions such as "why would God allow.....?" and when they are given an answer they throw it back in your face. :rolleyes:
Yeah. Sometimes, people ask, "Why did that ball fall to Earth after I threw it up in the air?" And when I tell them that magic invisible fairies grabbed the ball and pulled it down, they throw it back in my face. Jackasses.

Nobody does know any of this for definite, but religion is not about knowing, its about faith. You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine but I was giving the answer that I believe in to a question which was asked.

So let us not question the answer given.

You don't have to accept the answer but it is pointless to whine as its the only answer anyone can give you.

Nobody does know any of this for definite, but religion is not about knowing, its about faith.

This is both totally irrelevant and also a cheap cop-out.


You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine but I was giving the answer that I believe in to a question which was asked.
Whether or not somebody can prove or disprove God is irrelevant to a discussion about the logical soundness of your stated beliefs.

Yes, you believe. Okay. If you don't want to talk about your beliefs, why are you here? If you are just looking for people to nod and smile, why are you here? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this forum, but this is not a place where people are prone to simply nodding and smiling at each other :).

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this forum, but this is not a place where people are prone to simply nodding and smiling at each other :).

Fluffling and huge ammounts of sarcasm however exist in abundance here. :p

You don't have to accept the answer but it is pointless to whine as its the only answer anyone can give you.
Now THAT is arrogance! Plenty of people have come up with far better answers, and this includes religious scholars and God-believers. If you are satisfied with somebody saying, "He works in mysterious ways," that's your business, but even during the Dark Ages there were people coming up with better explanations and excuses for the evil in God's creation.

This is both totally irrelevant and also a cheap cop-out.


Whether or not somebody can prove or disprove God is irrelevant to a discussion about the logical soundness of your stated beliefs.

Yes, you believe. Okay. If you don't want to talk about your beliefs, why are you here? If you are just looking for people to nod and smile, why are you here? Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this forum, but this is not a place where people are prone to simply nodding and smiling at each other :).

That is all irrelevant and also a cheap attempt to discard anyone willing to oppose your opinion.

The topic says 'Do you have faith in God' so I am giving my reasons as to why I have faith in God.

Now THAT is arrogance! Plenty of people have come up with far better answers, and this includes religious scholars and God-believers. If you are satisfied with somebody saying, "He works in mysterious ways," that's your business, but even during the Dark Ages there were people coming up with better explanations and excuses for the evil in God's creation.

Give me one explaination with any more proof behind it than my own.:rolleyes:

Even if there is a god, how do you know you're worshipping the right one(s)?

Even if there is a god, how do you know you're worshipping the right one(s)?

Most major religions these days believe that there is one God, if they are right in believing there is only one guy up there than surely everything said by any religion is sent straight to him anyway.:D

For myself I was raised roman catholic and for the most part stayed it for a while. I never really got anything profound out of it, and for the most part it bored the hell out of me. Eventually I came to realize there is as much chance for god to exist out there as any other religious diety and thus moved on to become an agnostic. I figure I'll live my life now and worry about what happens after I die well after I die.

Even if there is a god, how do you know you're worshipping the right one(s)?


Hahah coz God told me:p

That is all irrelevant and also a cheap attempt to discard anyone willing to oppose your opinion.

Honey, I know you are trying to be witty, but it just doesn't work here.

For one thing, everything I said is quite obviously relavent to the point I was making. For another thing, I am quite clearly not trying to "discard" you for opposing my opinions. Indeed, I am going out of my way to engage you in conversation. You are the one who seems eager to divert attention from the discussion provoked by your original post.


The topic says 'Do you have faith in God' so I am giving my reasons as to why I have faith in God.

Yes, and that is step one of a conversation. Step two is where people respond to what you said. Step three is where you respond to the points they raise, rather than yelping about how it's just what you believe and nobody gets to say anything about it. See how this works?


Give me one explaination with any more proof behind it than my own.:rolleyes:
What would you like me to explain?

Even if there is a god, how do you know you're worshipping the right one(s)?
Accident of birth.

See, studies have shown that the vast majority of believers (well over 90%) belong to the same religion as their parents. In other words, all these people believe that they just happened to be lucky enough to be born into the Real Religion. This phenomenon is not unlike the studies which show approximately 85% of people believe themselves to be of "above average" intelligence.

What would you like me to explain?


I would like you to explain why it is fine for a girl to adress either man or woman as honey in casual conversation, but If I tried to it first to another bloke I'd get hit and called queer, or to a woman my wife would hit me for being to friendly?

Just as well I don't mind the odd bit of pain huh!!? Seeing as people are determined to dish it out to me hahahahah

I would like you to explain why it is fine for a girl to adress either man or woman as honey in casual conversation, but If I tried to it first to another bloke I'd get hit and called queer, or to a woman my wife would hit me for being to friendly?

Probably because you are hanging around with gits. Where I live, men and women are equally free to refer to others as "honey." It is sometimes perceived as an insult, if the tone is sufficiently condescending, but that's pretty much the only case in which somebody would get pissy about it.

Men who call other men "queer" are not to be bothered with. The poor darlings are so terrified about their own masculinity that they really should be pitied and given hugs until they feel better.

If your wife slugs you for innocently refering to other women with casual pet names, and if you choose put up with it, then I guess that's your problem because you are choosing to accept that behavior. However, you might want to consider that your "innocent" use of the word "honey" might actually not be so innocent, and your wife may be reacting to subtext that you are choosing to deny. You might also want to consider that she is (for whatever reason) insecure about either your relationship or herself, or both. Or you could just have a beer. All of the above have been known to work.


Just as well I don't mind the odd bit of pain huh!!? Seeing as people are determined to dish it out to me hahahahah
They have some excellent leather-based nightclubs for people like you...not that I would know anything about THOSE...;)

Accident of birth.

See, studies have shown that the vast majority of believers (well over 90%) belong to the same religion as their parents. In other words, all these people believe that they just happened to be lucky enough to be born into the Real Religion. This phenomenon is not unlike the studies which show approximately 85% of people believe themselves to be of "above average" intelligence.

Like any belief it is largely passed by word of mouth, everything believed by the Native Americans was done in that way. Yes as a general rule people will follow the religion they are brought up with as it is what they are taught but there many case of people turning to (or infact away) from this religion for one reason or another.

Like any belief it is largely passed by word of mouth, everything believed by the Native Americans was done in that way. Yes as a general rule people will follow the religion they are brought up with as it is what they are taught but there many case of people turning to (or infact away) from this religion for one reason or another.
Forgive me, but I haven't the faintest idea what your point is.

Probably because you are hanging around with gits. Where I live, men and women are equally free to refer to others as "honey." It is sometimes perceived as an insult, if the tone is sufficiently condescending, but that's pretty much the only case in which somebody would get pissy about it.

Men who call other men "queer" are not to be bothered with. The poor darlings are so terrified about their own masculinity that they really should be pitied and given hugs until they feel better.

If your wife slugs you for innocently refering to other women with casual pet names, and if you choose put up with it, then I guess that's your problem because you are choosing to accept that behavior. However, you might want to consider that your "innocent" use of the word "honey" might actually not be so innocent, and your wife may be reacting to subtext that you are choosing to deny. You might also want to consider that she is (for whatever reason) insecure about either your relationship or herself, or both. Or you could just have a beer. All of the above have been known to work.


They have some excellent leather-based nightclubs for people like you...not that I would know anything about THOSE...;)


Yes some excelent answers there. Hehh and I see that you saw right through me, yes damnit I do it on purpose, I LIKE IT!!:D

Forgive me, but I haven't the faintest idea what your point is.

The point he is making is that normally people will follow the same religion as their parents but in many cases, that it is not the rule.

Sorry, I do have a tendancy to ramble on at times. :confused:

But Corneliu knew what I was on about atleast:D I was brought up in Christianity and have stayed that way but my Grandparents aren't religious as far as I know.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

She sounds like a very warm and wonderful person, and the world is diminished at her loss.

It's a common thing, to question one's beliefs when we see such an apparent lack of justice or fairness in life. Often, the people we think the most kindly of are the ones taken away while the ones who seem to deserve death linger.

Just try to consider that Heaven, or the afterlife or whatever you choose to call it, is a place where your friend, along with all of our loved ones, lives on in a form where the sickness that took her is never, ever going to trouble her again. It's a place that is far more beautiful and serene than this world, and so when yuo mourn for her, you mourn for yourself and for her family, but not for her. She is happy now. You will see her again.

I know many people don't believe that, but the thread asked why we believe or don't, so this is my response.

This is not a world of fairness. Maybe that's for the best. If we paid the penalty for absolutely every bad thing we did, most of us would be miserable indeed. Instead, we live, with good and ill coming our way without regard for what, exactly, we deserve. Instead, think of the happiness and warmth your friend brought you during her life, and know that was a gift from her as much as it was from God, and if she's as awesome as you describe, and I believe she was, then you were blessed to have such a friend, whether you deserved it or not. I have lost people I care about too, and I know that if my life gave me what I deserved, I would never have known them to begin with, being unworthy as I am.

But yes, there's a God, who loves your friend, and you, and every single person who reads this post, and every person who did not. Believe it or don't, the choice is yours. Your friend is with Him now, because from what you've said, she deserves no less.

But yes, there's a God, who loves your friend, and you, and every single person who reads this post, and every person who did not. Believe it or don't, the choice is yours. Your friend is with Him now, because from what you've said, she deserves no less.

This is why the Patriarchal Religions held sway for a few thousand years! Come on sciencey people, let's find a way to incorporate all this love- compassion-respect-hope aspect into the scientific endeavor. It can be done!

Sorry, I do have a tendancy to ramble on at times. :confused:

But Corneliu knew what I was on about atleast:D I was brought up in Christianity and have stayed that way but my Grandparents aren't religious as far as I know.

It wasn't that hard to figure out :D

The point he is making is that normally people will follow the same religion as their parents but in many cases, that it is not the rule.
Which I stated clearly in my post, when I specified that MOST people follow their parents' religion. If I had meant to say that all people follow their parents' religion, I would have said so. :)

To all those who say there is no god, I leave you with these quotes:

"Mere unbelief in a personal god is no philosophy at all"

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind"

-Albert Einstein

To all those who say there is no god, I leave you with these quotes:

"Mere unbelief in a personal god is no philosophy at all"

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind"

-Albert Einstein

Wasn't Einstein a Pantheist?

To all those who say there is no god, I leave you with these quotes:

"Mere unbelief in a personal god is no philosophy at all"

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind"

-Albert Einstein

Einstein was a genius as a physicist, but he's no philosopher.

...Why were there only two periods and a comma among hundreds of words?
why the ... in a statement? this is a posting site not an english exam.

im a bit suprised that I am in the minority on this one!

Quick question; has anyone put forward the agreed definition of God for the purpose of this survey?

Probably not. (to the OP, not the question before mine)

is there evidence for such a god existing? no.
do i have any reason to believe in god? no.
hence do i believe in god?

no.



if someone could prove he/she/it existed then i would be only too happy to believe. i can't say it would change that much in terms of my daily life, but... meh *shrugs*

I do not believe in a god or an deity. I do not believe in anything supernatural. I do not believe Jesus Christ ever existed.

That's pretty much where I stand, and that is pretty much where I have always stood.

I believe God exists, but is not omnipresent and we should build quite literally a "house" for god (IE the third temple for you christians). Jesus did exist, in my view, but was not the son of god - he couldn't have - it proves it in the bible! jesus was not the king of the jews, he could not have been. In order to be a jewish king, you HAVE to be a decendant of King David. Joseph was, but Joseph was NOT jesus' father according to the bible. Jesus could have been a jewish Rabbi, because In order to be a Jewish Priest you are SUPPOSED to be a Levite. Mary's cousin was John the Baptist, a known levite. What I think happened was Jesus became a priest, and all hailed him, but he got to powerhungry and declared himself king of the jews as well, (because there wasnt one since the Roman occupation). The Jews got mad and killed him. 250 years later a nice story of fabrication was made to give aristocrats more power and money - and thus emerged the modern church.

(IE the third temple for you christians)
Dangerous. You know how excited those Christian "fundamentalists" get at the prospect of the end times.

[QUOTE=Soheran]Oh, lots of reasons.

1. I completely reject the idea that Jesus was divine;
2. I refuse to repent for a sin I didn't commit ("Original Sin");
3. I refuse to repent for sins I don't think were sins (lots of these);
4. I don't believe that any entity can somehow absolve me of sin;
5. I don't believe any being is worthy of worship;
6. I question God's existence;
7. If God does exist, I reject his superiority over me.
[QUOTE]

Sounds like you've got personal problems. I gather you are putting your limited human reasoning against Almighty God's and hoping, believing yours is superior. I'm afraid you're gravely mistaken and are in for the surprise of your life, err, death once the grave overtakes you. For once in your life you might try rejecting your own pride and "sensiblity" instead of God superiority. I wager you'd be a much happier person and would find true meaning in life.

is there evidence for such a god existing? no.
do i have any reason to believe in god? no.
hence do i believe in god?

no.



if someone could prove he/she/it existed then i would be only too happy to believe. i can't say it would change that much in terms of my daily life, but... meh *shrugs*


Yeah you say that but let me ask do you belive in love?

A lot of people are attacking or supporting the notion of afterlife and post-life judgement in this discussion.

What does life or death have to do with the existence of God?

What happens in death and life is related to the existence of divinity only by the flimsiest of human supposition. In the question of God, afterlife is at best a very weak tangent; at worst a blatent and harmful distraction.

Yeah you say that but let me ask do you belive in love?
yes. i experience love, as do others. i do not experience god.

i can see where you're coming from with the question and the similarity between the two, good try, but one is something that has no basis in reality and must be conciously believed, while the other (love, in case you couldn't tell) is a tangible, real emotion and state of mind, collection of thoughts... whatever (arg this is going back into the realms of that "what is love?" thread!) that is experienced, willingly or not, by practically everyone on the planet at some point in their lives, and which is core to the human experience.

It's really sad to see so many people who have nothing permanent to have faith in these days. Many who believe in God, or even a god, would tell you to look around at our world and see how miraculous it is in itself. In my opinion, something so miraculous has absolutely no chance involved, and thus leads us to look to a higher, omnipotent and omniscient power to see everything through.

It's really sad to see so many people who have nothing permanent to have faith in these days. Many who believe in God, or even a god, would tell you to look around at our world and see how miraculous it is in itself. In my opinion, something so miraculous has absolutely no chance involved, and thus leads us to look to a higher, omnipotent and omniscient power to see everything through.
it is only miraculous because we have evolved to suit this environment, and good things (perhaps the wonderous things that make the world such a miraculous place) please us as part of an evolution of behavioural patterns both instilled at genetic and societal level.

and its evolved, not "involved", for the record...

though, also, your logic is flawed. but i'm nitpicking. and irritated :p
(welcome to NS :P )

Well I can only say that I have never, nor will ever, believe in any sort of evolution in the sense of one species or group becoming another species or group. Adaptation and evolution are commonly misrepresented, I believe that is your flaw and with it bringing a flawed outlook on life as we know it.

i can see where you're coming from with the question and the similarity between the two, good try, but one is something that has no basis in reality and must be conciously believed, while the other (love, in case you couldn't tell) is a tangible, real emotion and state of mind, collection of thoughts... whatever (arg this is going back into the realms of that "what is love?" thread!) that is experienced, willingly or not, by practically everyone on the planet at some point in their lives, and which is core to the human experience.
Neither are experiences. They are interactions. Love and God are instances of the same connection with different things; where Love is a specific connection with an individual, God is a more general connection with the world we live in. And just like in Love, our understanding of God is twisted by our own perspective.

Well, here’s why I'm an atheist, though I'm actually a "weak atheist"
I cant prove or disprove the Christian God, or Allah (yeah, I know, same basic god), or Vishnu or Loki or Hera, etc...
How am I supposed to know which, if any, or perhaps another we don’t know, exists? I cant.
What I do know a bit about is religion. Which arose to explain the world, control people, and take some of the fear out of death. With this in mind it seems highly unlikely that any deity/ies exist (at least it seems that way to me). I am 99.9% sure of this, so it just isn’t worth my while believing. To me a deity existing seems no more plausible than any number of mythical beings existing. Some have said "but these beings didn’t supposedly create the whole universe, God did, so that’s special", well there are plenty of deities out there who also, didn’t create the whole universe. Anyway, to sum up, here is a quote from Bertrand Russell
“I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.”

oh, and whilst looking for that I came across this one

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them.”


And tehhaxors, do you even know what evolution is? Can you correctly define it?

That's called "agnosticism", Vejar

Vejar:
William Clifford's writings might be of interest in your exploration of this issue.
Good Luck

It's defined differently depending on the context used, for my purposes it was as I said, a change from one species to another in response to "evolved" versus "involved"

Well I can only say that I have never, nor will ever, believe in any sort of evolution in the sense of one species or group becoming another species or group. Adaptation and evolution are commonly misrepresented, I believe that is your flaw and with it bringing a flawed outlook on life as we know it.

Never? Not even in the face of strong evidence? Not even to save your life?

“I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them"
In my view, all of the above exist. Why shouldn't they? Gods are an abstraction of reality to match a human perspective, and both the concept and the aspects of reality they describe have a very real state of being.

Whether or not these are accurate abstractions doesn't take away from the physical existence that they seek to describe. In every sense, Gods and God exist. All we need to do is decide how we wish to use them, if at all, in viewing the world we live in, since even if they exist, they will not always be correct.

Well I can only say that I have never, nor will ever, believe in any sort of evolution in the sense of one species or group becoming another species or group. Adaptation and evolution are commonly misrepresented, I believe that is your flaw and with it bringing a flawed outlook on life as we know it.
i think believing that something is too complex to have come about via natural means, and thus assigning some creator is foolhardy and baseless in its assumptions.
how much do you actually know about evolution, out of curiosity?

Neither are experiences. They are interactions. Love and God are instances of the same connection with different things; where Love is a specific connection with an individual, God is a more general connection with the world we live in. And just like in Love, our understanding of God is twisted by our own perspective.
that isn't the same as believing in an omnipotent being who created the universe. its not even the same as simply believing in his existance. that "more general connection with the world we live in" could be assigned any other number of terms: optimism for example. if it is belief in god that grants you that connection and viewpoint on the world, then that still leaves one's fundamental belief in god unfounded.

that said, i understand belief in god is highly subjective and different for believers. nonetheless, the fact remains to believe in god you must believe in his existance.



*wonders why the hell he started debating religion when he knows it never leads anywhere but round in circles*

yes. i experience love, as do others. i do not experience god.


you know, that feeling of love is nothing more than a big chemical reaction in your brain? you relase chemicals akin to dopamine, which are only a few carbons away from tryptophan and a few functional group different than LSD.

and now back to your regularly scheduled debate

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]i think believing that something is too complex to have come about via natural means, and thus assigning some creator is foolhardy and baseless in its assumptions.
how much do you actually know about evolution, out of curiosity?

Enough that there's more historical evidence for a Creator and God than there is for a bunch of organisms evolving by random mutations into you and I today. Please don't try to bring up Lucy or any scientists zeal for that missing link that will never be found. And Yes, I do in fact base my life on it.

In my view, all of the above exist. Why shouldn't they?

why should they?
the old 'prove me wrong' arguement in another guise.

Gods are an abstraction of reality to match a human perspective, and both the concept and the aspects of reality they describe have a very real state of being.

Whether or not these are accurate abstractions doesn't take away from the physical existence that they seek to describe. In every sense, Gods and God exist. All we need to do is decide how we wish to use them, if at all, in viewing the world we live in, since even if they exist, they will not always be correct.
so they exist because people believe? we choose for them to exist and believe in them, so hence in practical terms or from an individual's perspective, god(s) exist? have i understood at all right or missed your point?

so in the same way, if i choose to believe there's a cheeseburger (which i can very well describe in both abstract, conceptual, and practical senses) on my desk next to me, does that make it real?

In my view, all of the above exist. Why shouldn't they? Gods are an abstraction of reality to match a human perspective, and both the concept and the aspects of reality they describe have a very real state of being.

Whether or not these are accurate abstractions doesn't take away from the physical existence that they seek to describe. In every sense, Gods and God exist. All we need to do is decide how we wish to use them, if at all, in viewing the world we live in, since even if they exist, they will not always be correct.

That is very similar to my view. I believe that Gods exist as long as substantial number of believers exist, that God is an socio-emergent property from the belief system and behavior of followers. Because the believers exist, they can set up self-fulfilling prophesies of mutual support and violence against outsiders. The power of God comes from the power of supporters.

that isn't the same as believing in an omnipotent being who created the universe. its not even the same as simply believing in his existance. that "more general connection with the world we live in" could be assigned any other number of terms: optimism for example. if it is belief in god that grants you that connection and viewpoint on the world, then that still leaves one's fundamental belief in god unfounded.

that said, i understand belief in god is highly subjective and different for believers. nonetheless, the fact remains to believe in god you must believe in his existance.
I never said God was an omnipotent being. I have my own ideas about what God is, as you'll see above. How people view it/them is simply a reflection of their own personal love of existence itself designed to make it easier to relate to. That is in itself the foundation of one's belief in God - Love of the World. You can hold this with or without an actual opinion of the existence of the omnipotent creator; it's up to you.

[QUOTE=Pure Metal]i think believing that something is too complex to have come about via natural means, and thus assigning some creator is foolhardy and baseless in its assumptions.
how much do you actually know about evolution, out of curiosity?

Enough that there's more historical evidence for a Creator and God than there is for a bunch of organisms evolving by random mutations into you and I today. Please don't try to bring up Lucy or any scientists zeal for that missing link that will never be found. And Yes, I do in fact base my life on it.

You are funny guy. A comic relief, my friend ;)

you know, the felling of love is nothing more than a big chemical reaction in your brain? you relase chemicals akin to dopamine, and few carbons away from tryptophan and a few functional group different than LSD.

and now back to your regularly scheduled debate
all perception is nothing more than chemical reactions. the entire universe is made up of nothing more than chemicals and interactions. your point?


Enough that there's more historical evidence for a Creator and God than there is for a bunch of organisms evolving by random mutations into you and I today. Please don't try to bring up Lucy or any scientists zeal for that missing link that will never be found. And Yes, I do in fact base my life on it.
circumstancial evidence, abstraction and reasoning. not evidence.
evidence is something that can be observed, measured and documented (and if necessary, repeated). there is no evidence in this way for the existance of god, while there is plenty for evolution.

now if you'll excuse me, i have to get back to work :(

You are funny guy. A comic relief, my friend ;)
him, or me? if him... is he just winding me up? :confused:

I never said God was an omnipotent being. I have my own ideas about what God is, as you'll see above. How people view it/them is simply a reflection of their own personal love of existence itself designed to make it easier to relate to. That is in itself the foundation of one's belief in God - Love of the World. You can hold this with or without an actual opinion of the existence of the omnipotent creator; it's up to you.
this is so far removed from the realm of evidence and reason on which i base my belief in anything and understanding of the world that i cannot comment. evidently we simply see things very differently. if that is enough for you to believe, then so be it - good for you.

i could argue specifics about "love of the world", and the rest, but i can't be bothered.

Just wondering, what exactly have we observed evolving into another viable lifefrom? Random question, duckbill platypus much?

all perception is nothing more than chemical reactions. the entire universe is made up of nothing more than chemicals and interactions. your point?


whoa, didn't mean to come off on the defensive- more so i was just making an off-handed comment- you are right, when it all comes down to it, everything is a bunch of chemical reactions. i'm sorry, meant to be funny, maybe to early in the morning for that on my end of the ocean.

why should they?
the old 'prove me wrong' arguement in another guise.
Because they're an explanation. Explanations always exist, otherwise they wouldn't be explanations. It's that simple.

so they exist because people believe? we choose for them to exist and believe in them, so hence in practical terms or from an individual's perspective, god(s) exist? have i understood at all right or missed your point?

so in the same way, if i choose to believe there's a cheeseburger (which i can very well describe in both abstract, conceptual, and practical senses) on my desk next to me, does that make it real?
It's more in the sense that you can look at a cheeseburger and interpret it in many different ways. To say that the cheeseburger is a beef sandwich is entirely correct. To say that the cheeseburger is two bits of bread, some cooked cow meat and some melted processed cow juice is also entirely correct.

Were you to name each of these aspects something, then it would be fair to say that all of those aspects existed both simultaneously and independently.

Were you to define another way of looking at the cheeseburger wherein it had a personified identity then it would be similarly true that that existed too. It might not be the case that the identity you assign it is in any way reflective of its physical composition, but the personification you assign it, the concept you hold of it and the physical structure are all there. They exist. Who knows; they might even have some use in dictating how the burgers are made, eaten and sold, how the cows are looked after, how the providers are treated or any other random relationship.

Gods are of this sort of nature; reflections of aspects of reality that allow you to relate to those aspects on a personal level. Some people try to look at it by considering one big personification, others subdivide it, and more create various tales to provide some way of considering them as simultaneously legion and unity.

As long as people retain the different ways of personifying reality, Gods and God will exist.

him, or me? if him... is he just winding me up? :confused:


this is so far removed from the realm of evidence and reason on which i base my belief in anything and understanding of the world that i cannot comment. evidently we simply see things very differently. if that is enough for you to believe, then so be it - good for you.

i could argue specifics about "love of the world", and the rest, but i can't be bothered.

Yup I was talking about Tex. And yup he is winding you up, methinks.

I do have an issue with the "everything is chemical reactions" bit though. With increasing complexity of organizational levels from atomic to cellular, different emergent rules appear. What applies to chemicals may be inapplicable to the living system. Or irrelevant. The interaction map is crucial. Can't be too greedy reductionist.

Just wondering, what exactly have we observed evolving into another viable lifefrom? Random question, duckbill platypus much?

You mean who is a million years old? Maybe you, mate ;)

im a bit suprised that I am in the minority on this one!

I'm not surprised at all that we are both in the minority.

Dangerous. You know how excited those Christian "fundamentalists" get at the prospect of the end times.

Which is coming. Don't know when but it is coming.

It's really sad to see so many people who have nothing permanent to have faith in these days. Many who believe in God, or even a god, would tell you to look around at our world and see how miraculous it is in itself. In my opinion, something so miraculous has absolutely no chance involved, and thus leads us to look to a higher, omnipotent and omniscient power to see everything through.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Well I can only say that I have never, nor will ever, believe in any sort of evolution in the sense of one species or group becoming another species or group. Adaptation and evolution are commonly misrepresented, I believe that is your flaw and with it bringing a flawed outlook on life as we know it.

Considering that DNA kinda disproves that we evolved from apes as we do have different genetics. Share some yes but not all of it.

whoa, didn't mean to come off on the defensive- more so i was just making an off-handed comment- you are right, when it all comes down to it, everything is a bunch of chemical reactions. i'm sorry, meant to be funny, maybe to early in the morning for that on my end of the ocean.
Y'all are saying this like it is a big bummer...perception and emotions are "nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions." Forgive me, but as somebody who studies those boring old reactions for a living, I fail to see why the amazing process of neurotransmission is regarded as somehow less beautiful or wonderous or fascinating.

People seem to think that some hazy, bland concept of "a soul" is more interesting than the actual workings of their brains! As though knowing how their brain works will somehow make it mundane and worthless, or as though science is somehow stripping away the wonder from the human condition. Are people really so delighted with random assertions that God stuck emotions in our heads, or that demons and magic spirits control our feelings, or that our thoughts are manefestations of some goofy ghost-like "soul" that flutters in and out of our pitiful mortal body?

That's one of the reasons I've never bought into the God myths: they're just too dull and lifeless and unimaginative to mesh with the world that science has shown me. The Christian God, in particular, is a clumsy and awkward figure who has been given over-blown superpowers and a crushing ego in a failed attempt to mask his apparent inability to perform even the simplest of tasks. Nature provides far more elegant solutions in the simplest bacteria. If I found myself inclined to worship something, I would go with the bacteria over God any day of the week. I most certainly would sooner worship a neuron than some wacky demi-god S&M freak. :)

Never? Not even in the face of strong evidence? Not even to save your life?

Not even to save my life will I ever believe that we evolved from Apes as Darwin describes it.

I definitly do not believe in God. His overal being is i belive either impossible or something I would not follow anyways. For why would i want a leader that allows the suffering and killings of say the Holocaust. Or taking lives that so much potenial. Or "condoning" such atrocites as the Catholic Church. Let me clarify why is the Catholic Church one of the richest entities in the world. Yet their priests have to take a word of poverty. Howmuch money does the chuch need reallly. How could anyone follow the guidleines placed before us by the church when they have priests who are pedophilesand to top it off the church just pays off the families, corrupt use of money.If God existed he could not allow people to follow a church like this and say he accepts it as his way of showing faith.
:( :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

W00T!!111 Thanks Corneliu. That's enough for me for the day, thought I'd hop into one of these forums, not sure if I'll be back due to overwhelming worldly ideas, such is life. Good day to all.

Just wondering, what exactly have we observed evolving into another viable lifefrom? Random question, duckbill platypus much?
Every living population on Earth is undergoing evolution right now. Every time you see a living thing, you witness a step in the evolutionary process. Evolution is occuring all around you, at all times, regardless of whether or not you happen to understand it.

Isn't that COOL!?!

Never? Not even in the face of strong evidence? Not even to save your life?
Oh, rest assured: people who deny evolution will be very quick to use medications and treatments developed using the principles of evolutionary biology. They will let evolutionary theory save their lives time and time again, and they will feel no guilt as they continue to insist that evolution isn't real.

Every living population on Earth is undergoing evolution right now. Every time you see a living thing, you witness a step in the evolutionary process. Evolution is occuring all around you, at all times, regardless of whether or not you happen to understand it.

Isn't that COOL!?!

DNA does not change.

Oh, rest assured: people who deny evolution will be very quick to use medications and treatments developed using the principles of evolutionary biology. They will let evolutionary theory save their lives time and time again, and they will feel no guilt as they continue to insist that evolution isn't real.

Ah my friend. There's nothing wrong against taking medication to save one's life. Even back in the Bible days they had doctors.

Considering that DNA kinda disproves that we evolved from apes as we do have different genetics. Share some yes but not all of it.

That is a bizarre statement. We share 99% coding sequence identity with chimpanzees. Many of the proteins we have are identical with chimps. Share some genetics?

Anyway no human evolved from chimpanzees. To get the best guess at our last common ancestor, we need the Chimp genome and annotation to do alignments and a get a consensus sequence.

That is a bizarre statement. We share 99% coding sequence identity with chimpanzees. Many of the proteins we have are identical with chimps. Share some genetics?

Anyway no human evolved from chimpanzees. To get the best guess at our last common ancestor, we need the Chimp genome and annotation to do alignments and a get a consensus sequence.

Point of fact is, we did not evolve from apes as traditional Darwinists stated.

DNA does not change.

Another bizarre statement. In the general population on average 0.1 percent (or 3 million base pairs) of human genomic DNA is different due to single nucleotide polymorphisms, repeat elements and others. Latest literature on copy number polymorphisms suggest that the sequence difference between two select individuals could be even higher...

Wait a sec... you're just fucking with me right?;)

this is so far removed from the realm of evidence and reason on which i base my belief in anything and understanding of the world that i cannot comment. evidently we simply see things very differently. if that is enough for you to believe, then so be it - good for you.
The point is that reality is itself the source of evidence, while Gods are attempts to rationalise reality in a way humans can identify with and relate to. There exists a connection between individuals and the world and existence, not dissimilar to that of love, that is what Gods exist to explain. This sort of interrelation between people and things unifies Love, Self and God under a single banner, and is the key element that links all religion, all spiritual belief and all theological philosophy. You hear about someone "having an experience" and this is what they're having - a connection with society, reality and nature that is fairly and honestly attributable to both God and Not God.

It's my opinion that this connection is something that could be viewed as utterly mundane; simple systemic emergent behaviour. Everyone feels like they're part of a big picture because, in the way we interact with each other and the world around us, we are. The entire of religious sentiment is the result of self-analysing pack behaviour on a massive scale.

But calling this God is entirely reasonable. So is splitting it up into many different Gods. So, even, is holding both ideas simultaneously (especially within the context of that same systemic emergence).

You don't need to even acknowledge any of these - your way of looking at it is one that may being you more than enough understanding. However, I am of the mind that people are being honest in their subjective experience of God and have come to the inevitable conclusion that Theism and Atheism are merely two sides of the same coin; the truth of which lies in its composition between its faces.

Do I believe that the world was created by some supernatural being of indescribable power? No I don't. But I still believe that the basis on which the being's existence is founded is entirely correct.

Might I suggest a little light reading? It has very little to do with religion (with the exception of a slight Buddhist undertone) and all to do with the differences in which people perceive the world around them. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. It's facinating musing, if you can get your head around it.

Point of fact is, we did not evolve from apes as traditional Darwinists stated.

You ARE fucking with me.

Did you hear the latest news about Chuck Norris?

You ARE fucking with me.

Did you hear the latest news about Chuck Norris?

what? He has cancer?

Point of fact is, we did not evolve from apes as traditional Darwinists stated.

heh, thats a good one...

If there is a God, it/he/she is all powerful.
That being so, God is omniscient, knowing all things, past present and future.
If there is a heaven, God knows whether any individual will enter heaven, before that individual exists.
If there is a hell, God knows whether any individual will enter hell, before that individual exists.
If I believe in God, that is part of God's plan for me.
If I do not believe in God, that is either part of God's plan for me, or because there is no God.
I do not believe in God. I am master of my own destiny, rather than a pawn in a cruel game. I live my imperfect life according to my own conscience. Religion truly is the opium of the masses.

what? He has cancer?

No. Hey look! It's a stationary van!

whoa, didn't mean to come off on the defensive- more so i was just making an off-handed comment- you are right, when it all comes down to it, everything is a bunch of chemical reactions. i'm sorry, meant to be funny, maybe to early in the morning for that on my end of the ocean.
no, don't worry, i was just getting wound up with the other posts and it kinda spilled across into my reply to yours. my apologies if i was a little too harsh :fluffle: (you even get fluffles - how's that? :D)


i decided quite some time ago to not get involved with these religious debates as they're like two people speaking different languages trying to argue which one is better... pointless. and they end up irritating the hell out of me (not to mention hurling rocks at each other lol)... i think i'll go back to my nicely a-religious life now :) ;)

DNA does not change.
?!?!?!?!

Your DNA is mutating at this very moment. Various cells within your body will actually have slightly different DNA, due to individual mutations that occur in different cells and at different times. Most of these mutations won't result in anything changing significantly, but some very well might.

If you ever (heaven forbid) were to develop cancer, you would come to understand how very profoundly DNA does change, and how these changes can radically impact you. DNA can be changed by a host of environmental factors, many of which are serious hot-button issues in the world today. You know those things call "carcinogens"? Well, a great many of them work by disrupting our cells' ability to cope with the mutations they experience, or their ability to screen the transcription process. If DNA were unchangeable, carcinogens wouldn't be of any concern.

Of course, all of this is just talking about the sequence of the DNA...we're not getting in to the structural changes of DNA that MUST occur for you to be alive in the first place. You better be damn glad your DNA can change, because if it couldn't you would never have been born! DNA must change every time a cell divides, which means the DNA in your intestine is changing at a phenomenal rate at this very moment.

And that's just within YOUR body.

DNA passed on to your biological offspring (if any) will be radically different from the DNA in your body, and will itself undergo countless modifications and mutations within each offspring. Across a population, changes in the DNA give rise to both the biological diversity we love so much and also the adaptability of the species as a whole. Selective pressures can create a variety of novel populations for a given trait or family of traits.

DNA changes, my friend, and we should all throw up our hands and dance for joy that it does. :)

Point of fact is, we did not evolve from apes as traditional Darwinists stated.
Evolutionary theory does not claim that humans evolved from modern apes. Evolutionary theory states that we share a common ancestor.

You and your cousin share a common ancestor (a grandparent or two), but this does not mean you are descended from your cousin. That's how it works with humans and apes, except we are much more distant cousins :).

*snip*

But to say that we evolved from tree dwelling animals is way to far fetched. It really does fall apart when you try to disect it.

Ah my friend. There's nothing wrong against taking medication to save one's life. Even back in the Bible days they had doctors.
I have no problem with people taking medicine. I simply have a problem with people who insist there is no such thing as evolution, but then go on to make use of treatments that were only developed because of our understanding of evolutionary biology. I have a problem with people who seek to strip away science education or undermine the progress of biological sciences, yet who want to reap all the benefits of those very sciences.

That, my friend, is hypocritical. I will not begrudge you medicine, regardless of your beliefs, but I will also not hesitate to point out how weak and pitiful your principles really are.

?!?!?!?!

Your DNA is mutating at this very moment. Various cells within your body will actually have slightly different DNA, due to individual mutations that occur in different cells and at different times. Most of these mutations won't result in anything changing significantly, but some very well might.

If you ever (heaven forbid) were to develop cancer, you would come to understand how very profoundly DNA does change, and how these changes can radically impact you. DNA can be changed by a host of environmental factors, many of which are serious hot-button issues in the world today. You know those things call "carcinogens"? Well, a great many of them work by disrupting our cells' ability to cope with the mutations they experience, or their ability to screen the transcription process. If DNA were unchangeable, carcinogens wouldn't be of any concern.

Of course, all of this is just talking about the sequence of the DNA...we're not getting in to the structural changes of DNA that MUST occur for you to be alive in the first place. You better be damn glad your DNA can change, because if it couldn't you would never have been born! DNA must change every time a cell divides, which means the DNA in your intestine is changing at a phenomenal rate at this very moment.

And that's just within YOUR body.

DNA passed on to your biological offspring (if any) will be radically different from the DNA in your body, and will itself undergo countless modifications and mutations within each offspring. Across a population, changes in the DNA give rise to both the biological diversity we love so much and also the adaptability of the species as a whole. Selective pressures can create a variety of novel populations for a given trait or family of traits.

DNA changes, my friend, and we should all throw up our hands and dance for joy that it does. :)

Erm... good post... but I don't think Corneliu is really debating.

But to say that we evolved from tree dwelling animals is way to far fetched. It really does fall apart when you try to disect it.
Please, demonstrate.

Please, demonstrate.

Nope I won't because frankly it isn't worth my time. I know the truth.

Erm... good post... but I don't think Corneliu is really debating.
Perhaps not. But perhaps somebody else will be interested. I am always delighted to talk with other people about the terrific workings of the human body. DNA is marvelous and fascinating, and it will remain so even if some people plug their ears and sing "La la la, I can't HEAR you!"

Nope I won't because frankly it isn't worth my time. I know the truth.
Yes, it is quite clear that you don't believe the truth is worth your time.

But to say that we evolved from tree dwelling animals is way to far fetched. It really does fall apart when you try to disect it.

:D ha, try to say that to a couple anthropologists...

Yes, it is quite clear that you don't believe the truth is worth your time.

I believe in what the Bible says and since the bible is truth, I'll believe the Bible and not in a theory.

:D ha, try to say that to a couple anthropologists...

If they are Christians, they'll agree with me. If they are evolutionists, they won't./

I believe in what the Bible says and since the bible is truth, I'll believe the Bible and not in a theory.
So you believe in the Bible because it is true, and because it is true you believe in the Bible.

I'm curious: do you ever find yourself getting motion sickness in the midst of such circular thinking?

If they are Christians, they'll agree with me. If they are evolutionists, they won't./

i guess youve never heard of christian evolutionists?

So you believe in the Bible because it is true, and because it is true you believe in the Bible.

I'm curious: do you ever find yourself getting motion sickness in the midst of such circular thinking?

I'll forgive you for your doubts.

i guess youve never heard of christian evolutionists?

If they believe in evolution then they are contradicting their beliefs.

I believe in what the Bible says and since the bible is truth, I'll believe the Bible and not in a theory.

my friend beleives in the koran because it is truth. so who is right, you or him?

If they are Christians, they'll agree with me. If they are evolutionists, they won't./
Darling, Christian =/= moron. There are plenty of Christians who are able to understand the concept of a metaphor, and thus have no problem understanding why Biblical literalism should be left in the Dark Ages.

Honestly, I thought it was secularists who were supposed to always be insulting Christians...how come we've got a Christian here who is determined to prove that all Christians are idiots?

Perhaps not. But perhaps somebody else will be interested. I am always delighted to talk with other people about the terrific workings of the human body. DNA is marvelous and fascinating, and it will remain so even if some people plug their ears and sing "La la la, I can't HEAR you!"
Quoted for W00tness. Informed yet unaggressive enthusiasm! Hooray!:D

I'll forgive you for your doubts.
Doubt requires no forgiveness. Doubt is the great gift of the bulging human cortex, the feature which separates humans from all other known forms of life. Without doubt, we might as well be up a tree flinging our crap at one another :).

my friend beleives in the koran because it is truth. so who is right, you or him?

Since the Koran and the Bible do mostly match up (differ in some places) we both are though I personally accept Jesus as my Lord and savior and because of that, I will go to heaven.

Darling, Christian =/= moron.

Oh brother. I never said that.

I dont believe in a God that gives cancer to good people either. I believe in a God who intended this world to be a good and happy place. I also believe in the fact that humans have destroyed that world. God did not give cancer to your friend, the sin of all of humanity past and present did.

I also desire to ask another question.

Why is it that people are so quick to blame God for the bad stuff that happens yet so reticent to thank God, instead of themselves, for the GOOD that happens in their life. Be consistent. If you think your successes and joys are your own doing, than you MUST accept the blame for your failures and your pain.

All praises be to Jesus Christ, the true Head of all states.

God Bless you all.

Doubt requires no forgiveness. Doubt is the great gift of the bulging human cortex, the feature which separates humans from all other known forms of life. Without doubt, we might as well be up a tree flinging our crap at one another :).

I forgive your doubts of the Biblical Truth.

Since the Koran and the Bible do mostly match up (differ in some places) we both are though I personally accept Jesus as my Lord and savior and because of that, I will go to heaven.
I really should stop feeding the troll, I know, but I just get such a kick out of this.

"The Bible is true. Yeah huh, is so! I know it is, but I'm not going to tell you how I know. I could so do it, I just don't wanna. It's not worth my time, because I'm too busy going to heaven because I know the Sky Fairy likes me best. So there. I forgive you all for not agreeing with me, for you know not what you do. That's what a good Christian does, you know: he refuses to learn anything about God's creation, and then goes around forgiving the poor saps who waste their lives learning about stuff. Praise Jeebus."

I dont believe in a God that gives cancer to good people either. I believe in a God who intended this world to be a good and happy place. I also believe in the fact that humans have destroyed that world. God did not give cancer to your friend, the sin of all of humanity past and present did.

I also desire to ask another question.

Why is it that people are so quick to blame God for the bad stuff that happens yet so reticent to thank God, instead of themselves, for the GOOD that happens in their life. Be consistent. If you think your successes and joys are your own doing, than you MUST accept the blame for your failures and your pain.

All praises be to Jesus Christ, the true Head of all states.

God Bless you all.

Well said. Very well said

*hands you a cookie*

Oh brother. I never said that.
You said that Christians cannot believe in evolution. Why not?

I really should stop feeding the troll, I know, but I just get such a kick out of this.

"The Bible is true. Yeah huh, is so! I know it is, but I'm not going to tell you how I know. I could so do it, I just don't wanna. It's not worth my time, because I'm too busy going to heaven because I know the Sky Fairy likes me best. So there. I forgive you all for not agreeing with me, for you know not what you do. That's what a good Christian does, you know: he refuses to learn anything about God's creation, and then goes around forgiving the poor saps who waste their lives learning about stuff. Praise Jeebus."

Now your mocking. I do not know why I try to tell the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ. I guess I just can't help myself in spreading his Good Word. It is my hope that people come and see the Light before it is to late to save them from the horrors of Hell.

Since the Koran and the Bible do mostly match up (differ in some places) we both are though I personally accept Jesus as my Lord and savior and because of that, I will go to heaven.

::shocked::

you know they differ on one of the most important doctrine in all religion? islam says jesus was nothing but a prophet, christianity says he was god in the flesh. yeah, your right, not much difference there...

I dont believe in a God that gives cancer to good people either. I believe in a God who intended this world to be a good and happy place. I also believe in the fact that humans have destroyed that world. God did not give cancer to your friend, the sin of all of humanity past and present did.

I also desire to ask another question.

Why is it that people are so quick to blame God for the bad stuff that happens yet so reticent to thank God, instead of themselves, for the GOOD that happens in their life. Be consistent. If you think your successes and joys are your own doing, than you MUST accept the blame for your failures and your pain.

All praises be to Jesus Christ, the true Head of all states.

God Bless you all.

Well, if the sin of all humanity past and present did, that's unjust, isn't it? People say life isn't fair. In my opinion, if there was an all-powerful, all-good higher power, life would be fair. How does someone accept the blame for getting cancer? (unless you're a smoker or did something which was likely to cause cancer)

You said that Christians cannot believe in evolution. Why not?

Because it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches.

::shocked::

you know they differ on one of the most important doctrine in all religion? islam says jesus was nothing but a prophet, christianity says he was god in the flesh. yeah, your right, not much difference there...

As I said Mostly Matches up. I think you need to look up the definition of the word Mostly. I do know they believe Jesus to be a Prophet. Its one of the key reasons why I know that Jesus existed.

You said that Christians cannot believe in evolution. Why not?

because evolution is teh evil of satan...

Why is it that people are so quick to blame God for the bad stuff that happens yet so reticent to thank God, instead of themselves, for the GOOD that happens in their life. Be consistent. If you think your successes and joys are your own doing, than you MUST accept the blame for your failures and your pain.

All praises be to Jesus Christ, the true Head of all states.

God Bless you all.
It's funny, but I see the opposite happening. God gets thanked by the winning team of every football game, yet the losing players never blame God for their loss. God gets thanked every time a little kid survives cancer, but when a little kid dies of cancer people just mutter about "thy will be done" and move on without a peep. Every time a miner is rescued from a cave in, people cry out that it is a miracle, and praise Jesus, but nobody much mentions the 11 other miners who died horribly because I guess God wasn't inclined to save them.

I think people should take responsibility for the good and the bad that they do. I think it is cowardly for somebody to claim that God ordered them to kill, and I think it is equally cowardly for somebody to give God credit for a masterpiece that they painted themselves. Take the credit and the consequences for your own actions, and don't worry about crediting God...He can look after himself.

Now your mocking. I do not know why I try to tell the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ. I guess I just can't help myself in spreading his Good Word. It is my hope that people come and see the Light before it is to late to save them from the horrors of Hell.
Ignore the tone and read it, I recommend. She has a good point; interest in learning about how the world works, however it came to be, should not be frowned upon just because it is the creation of the all-powerful.

As I said Mostly Matches up. I think you need to look up the definition of the word Mostly. I do know they believe Jesus to be a Prophet. Its one of the key reasons why I know that Jesus existed.

no they dont. here is a side by side comparison... http://dianedew.com/islam.htm

Because it flies in the face of what the Bible teaches.
Where? Please cite passages, so we can see what you are talking about. I'm sure you know them by heart, so it won't take you any time to do this.

Where? Please cite passages, so we can see what you are talking about. I'm sure you know them by heart, so it won't take you any time to do this.

Read the Book of Genisis. Mostly Chapter 1 as it talks about the Creation of the planet as well as the stars.

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was shapeless and void and the spirit of God hovered over its waters. Then God said, let their be light and there was light. And God saw that the light was good and he called the light day and the darkness he called night. There was morning and there was evening, the first day."

Exactly, free will corresponds directly with responsiblity. Putting the burden of the act back on god is completely contradictory. Man performs miracles, not god.

What is after this world is ruled by "god". This world itself is ruled by man.

Now your mocking. I do not know why I try to tell the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ. I guess I just can't help myself in spreading his Good Word. It is my hope that people come and see the Light before it is to late to save them from the horrors of Hell.
Yes, I am mocking, because you go out of your way to avoid learning about the world you claim to believe was created by the all-good ruler of the universe. If you care so much about God, why will you not even trouble yourself to look upon His works? Why is it not worth your time to learn about the glory that He has placed in every living cell? Why do you fixate on one book, written by men, when there is the whole of Creation to read in every strand of DNA and every drop of water? God places you in the middle of his most glorious laboratory, and you sulk in the corner with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

I don't believe for one tiny moment that you actually worship God. You worship your own selfish image, projected on to some magical fairy that you claim the right to define and own. You worship your own excuses. You worship your own lazy ignorance.

I may not have much respect for superstition, but I can at least respect sincere belief from those who have really put thought and effort into their beliefs. There are people who hold profound and meaningful religious beliefs that help to connect them with the world around them. There are people who use religion to find their strength and purpose, and use that strength to do amazing things. You shame them by association. I think that is a serious insult, and I don't have much patience with it.

Exactly, free will corresponds directly with responsiblity. Putting the burden of the act back on god is completely contradictory. Man performs miracles, not god.

Name me one miracle that man did and not God.

Read the Book of Genisis. Mostly Chapter 1 as it talks about the Creation of the planet as well as the stars.

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the Earth was shapeless and void and the spirit of God hovered over its waters. Then God said, let their be light and there was light. And God saw that the light was good and he called the light day and the darkness he called night. There was morning and there was evening, the first day."
Yes, and this is where the "moron" part comes in. You appear to be stating that all Christians are incapable of grasping the concept of the metaphor. You also seem to believe that all Christians are too stupid to have read in a few more pages, where they would have encountered a second (and totally contradictory) description of Genesis.

Well, if the sin of all humanity past and present did, that's unjust, isn't it? People say life isn't fair. In my opinion, if there was an all-powerful, all-good higher power, life would be fair. How does someone accept the blame for getting cancer? (unless you're a smoker or did something which was likely to cause cancer)
because if "we" hadnt disobeyed god back in the garden of eden we would still be living in paradise and no bad thing would ever happen to us. its all our OWN fault for falling into god's trap --telling people will no knowlege of good and bad that they can do ANNNNNYYYTHIIIING they want but they better not eat that apple!. youd think that an all knowing being would know how "reverse psychology" works.

its not a mater of fault. god set up an imperfect world. bad things happen to everyone regardless of their behavior or beliefs. god doesnt give his followers a pain free life here, he gives a perfect life in heaven.

Name me one miracle that man did and not God.

If you truly believe in god then believe that god gave us the ability to commit miracles. In committing miracles of good one must understand the surrounding world in which to do so. You are worthless if you stick your head in the sand, utter a prayer, and expect god to save you.

Aside from every life saved through medicine and science.

How can you serve god when you utterly fail to serve mankind?

Do you have faith in God?

more to the point, does god have faith in me?

Yes, I am mocking, because you go out of your way to avoid learning about the world you claim to believe was created by the all-good ruler of the universe.

You should not mock other people's religion.

If you care so much about God, why will you not even trouble yourself to look upon His works?

I look upon His works daily and thank Him for giving us the environment that we live in today. That is why I am out to protect His environment.

Why is it not worth your time to learn about the glory that He has placed in every living cell?

Never said that we shouldn't.

Why do you fixate on one book, written by men, when there is the whole of Creation to read in every strand of DNA and every drop of water? God places you in the middle of his most glorious laboratory, and you sulk in the corner with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

The Bible is a collection of books so what book are you talking about?

I don't believe for one tiny moment that you actually worship your God. You worship your own selfish image, projected on to some magical fairy that you claim the right to define and own. You worship your own excuses. You worship your own lazy ignorance.

I worship the Lord God and have accepted His Son Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. He restoreth my soul and though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Death I shall fear no evil, for He is with me. Do not mock my faith in the Lord.

I may not have much respect for superstition, but I can at least respect sincere belief from those who have really put thought and effort into their beliefs. You shame them by association. I think that is a serious insult, and I don't have much patience with it.

You do not know nothing about what I do in the Name of the Lord. I worship Him and Praise His Holy Name. I maintain his commandments and I will not compromise my beliefs for anyone as that is being a hypocrit. I will gladly lay down my life in Defense of Him. As a God fearing person, I am going to forgive you for your mockery. I will keep you in my prayers and hope that you see the light to save your soul from eternal damnation.