# What's your religion?



## Crickets (Dec 1, 2008)

I took the religions from factmonster so if they didn't include the religion then I didn't. I'll put an other option too.

Also these pops that the site gives are from 2004 sorry I couldn't find a more update one.

http://www.factmonster.com/toptens/organizedreligions.html


----------



## Bob (Dec 1, 2008)

My vote for Other belongs in category: Burtonism.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 1, 2008)

i'm an atheist going to a catholic school 
i'm not even joking.


----------



## toast (Dec 1, 2008)

Yeah, where's Atheistism? Even if it's not much of a religion.
Because I'm that.


----------



## Fobo911 (Dec 1, 2008)

My religion is Buddhism.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 1, 2008)

I too am an atheist. I see no reason to believe in something that was used millenia ago to explain everything. We have something else to do that now. It's called science. Some religions like Buddhism, I'm OK with, but some that involve a higher being causing catastrophes and disasters are... primitive?

Let the religious debate... Begin!!


----------



## Lofty (Dec 1, 2008)

I am a Christian. 
Christianity isn't about explaining natural disasters its about how man has sinned against God and how we can be reconciled back to Him.
I don't see how you could not believe in anything. Without God why should something even exist at all.


----------



## Ellis (Dec 1, 2008)

Sikhism, Jainism.... no Atheism? WHY?

religion is silly *edit* _in my opinion_. I have no problem with what others believe and I'm sure others would my think beliefs are silly as well


----------



## Faz (Dec 1, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> i'm an atheist going to a catholic school
> i'm not even joking.



amen brother, oops, yeah i'm in that position as well.


----------



## JTW2007 (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm an atheist, but Buddhism is really cool and interesting in my opinion.


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 1, 2008)

Why are there so many Atheists?! :O

Some Atheists became Atheists because they were challenged by other Atheists with Science, and because of their lack of knowledge in Science, they couldn't fight back. Their faith was challenged and they stopped believing in God.

Whereas most are.. just plain ignorant, in my opinion. (No offence) You don't bother to do any research, don't bother to ask others. Just because you find there's _no need_ to believe, you don't.

Well, I think the point here is that, don't be a blind follower. If you're a Theist, make sure your faith is strong. If you're an Atheist, at least back up your claims to why God doesn't exist with logic and scientific facts, not opinion.

PS. Not trying to attack anyone here. I know religion is a rather sensitive issue so... if you have any problems with what I said, please settle it in a sensible, polite manner.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm an atheist, but please people don't turn this into what it became on TP.
For those of you that don't know, the thread was deleted and there were some bans.

Edit: I voted other for pastafaria


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 1, 2008)

Wow. A flame war? :O


----------



## Hadley4000 (Dec 1, 2008)

I am Jewish, but I don't practice really. I very rarely go to temple. I tend to also have some of my own beliefs. I would consider myself spiritual, but not very religious. I also do believe in the science arguments.
I think that Agnostic should be on that list.


----------



## Jai (Dec 1, 2008)

Sikhism!


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 1, 2008)

I have always been an atheist. I've never really believed in anything that can't be backed up by the one who presented it to me. I see how being challenged by other atheists can weaken one's beliefs, but to completely drop all of them?


----------



## JTW2007 (Dec 1, 2008)

DcF1337: I don't believe you are completely rational in making a generalization such as "plain ignorant." I researched, but found atheism to seem the most logical to me. You may disagree, and I have no problem with that. I simply don't care for that generalization. You are entirely right that some atheists are that way, but I (and I'm sure there are others who feel the same) am not. I don't mean to cause any problems or attack anyone either, but I felt I should say this on behalf of those who agree with me. I respect your opinion, but I ask the same of you.


----------



## Kian (Dec 1, 2008)

pcharles, wouldn't you be more accurately described as an "agnostic"?

i mean, it seems that you're not discounting the possibility of a god, just not accepting any paticular beliefs at the moment. 

I could be wrong though, maybe you're saying you absolutely do not belief in the possibility of a God. in which case you are indeed an atheist.

As for me, I am a Christian. And I must agree with lofty's description of what Christianity is. He is absolutely correct.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

Frunkist for life.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 1, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> If you're an Atheist, at least back up your claims to why God doesn't exist with logic and scientific facts, not opinion.


Where did you get that from? Atheists disbelieve that there is, in fact, a supreme being existing. That doesn't mean that they don't think God exists. 

There's no point of believing in something like that without even knowing if it exists, even if such a being did exist, how can you turn to any specific religion for that supreme being, without even knowing anything about the supreme being?

EDIT: Some of you seem to misunderstand the definition of an atheist. Just because an atheist disbelieves the existence of God, doesn't mean they believe that there is no possibility of God existing.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 1, 2008)

I don't really know what my religion is. I'm not an atheist because I don't know whether God exists or not. I can certainly see the possibility that God exists, but if so I don't really picture Him in the sense that is portrayed in the bible. I guess if I do believe in God, it is more of the Deist version of God.

However I also can see the possibility that God does not exist, and that the creation of our universe is some sort of happenstance on some level that we can't or do not yet understand.

As to the argument that I should use science to back on any claims for or against God, I strongly take the belief that proving religion would fall under some sort of similar trouble that is found with Gödel's incompleteness theorems (http://tinyurl.com/2eb9nq). Perhaps the truth about the existence of God is such a truth that a formal system (like the institute of science) is incapable of discovering, no matter how sophisticated. I take two things from this, that religion is based on faith, and that scientists who claim to have disproved God have not really done so - and possibly never could.

I know people love to label people, so label me what you will, but those are my beliefs.

Also, as to the question about how can you not believe in anything, since why then do things even have a reason to exist? My answer. "exactly." If there is a God then clearly there is some reason to existence, whether it is the Deist version of God or the bible's version of God. If there is no God, then yes it seems purely random that things exist, as well as life itself. It seems weird and almost a bit scary to me to picture that life is purely random, and that a true morality does not exist except what people make of morality and what they define as moral. I think philosophers have stewed over this question for years and years. I certainly don't have an answer to that question, and wonder the same exact thing myself.

Chris


----------



## Hadley4000 (Dec 1, 2008)

Kian said:


> pcharles, wouldn't you be more accurately described as an "agnostic"?
> 
> i mean, it seems that you're not discounting the possibility of a god, just not accepting any paticular beliefs at the moment.




A lot of people think that Agnostic just means not accepting a religion. True agnostic is just purely thinking that there you don't KNOW, and there isn't a way to tell.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm an atheist. I have no more reason to believe there is a God than to believe there is a Tooth Fairy.



Lofty said:


> I don't see how you could not believe in anything. Without God why should something even exist at all.


The Big Bang? Evolution? And even if you don't believe in those, you have to realize that as a scientist there are times when you just have to sit down and say "I don't know why X happens". In that case the solution is not to automatically assume some higher power created it, but to do more research until you figure out the reason... We know things now that took thousands of years to figure out (such as the mathematical description of the shape a loose string hung between two points makes).

Anyway, I don't quite understand the logical step from "something must have created the universe" to "this being wrote the Bible, and will let you into heaven if you believe in him and confess your sins". In fact I'd like to put it out there that, even if a God does exist, NO religion has proof that he must have written their holy book and be the God that they think of. It's entirely possible that every existing religion is wrong.


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 1, 2008)

Seriously? I thought Atheism was all about choosing to not believe in God.

I personally think it's all about faith when it comes to religion. Either you have it, or you don't.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

How do you choose one religion over another, though? I mean, they are mutually exclusive, aren't they? Every major religion I've looked into says that you can't be a true believer if you also believe in another religion. So, if you do have faith, how do you know for certain that your religion is the 'correct' one?


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 1, 2008)

I guess I'm atheist. I just don't see the point in believing in something that CANNOT be proved. Well I guess that makes me Carlinist (George Carlin). But I like buddhism because it seems peaceful though<(^.^)>


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 1, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> I don't really know what my religion is. I'm not an atheist because I don't know whether God exists or not. I can certainly see the possibility that God exists, but if so I don't really picture Him in the sense that is portrayed in the bible.


Actually, that _is_ what an Atheist is.




qqwref said:


> In fact I'd like to put it out there that, even if a God does exist, NO religion has proof that he must have written their holy book and be the God that they think of. It's entirely possible that every existing religion is wrong.


To expand on that: 
It's kind of funny when you think about how people choose their religion. It comes from where you live, and what your parents believed. It's also kind of funny when you think about how ignorant some people are when they choose one religion over another. Why Christianity > all others?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 1, 2008)

ehh... Christian, I guess, I wish I were more religious and faithful, but if anything i'm drifting from it.



Lt-UnReaL said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really know what my religion is. I'm not an atheist because I don't know whether God exists or not. I can certainly see the possibility that God exists, but if so I don't really picture Him in the sense that is portrayed in the bible.
> ...



From what I've been told, that's Agnostic, no?



Lt-UnReaL said:


> It's kind of funny when you think about how people choose their religion. It comes from where you live, and what your parents believed. It's also kind of funny when you think about how ignorant some people are when they choose one religion over another. Why Christianity > all others?



when your mind is forming and your told something is undoubtedly real, you tend to believe in it.


one last thing to my post:
Theres a lot of discussion of the Bible here [obviously ] and you say the bible is full of crap, blah blah. Personally, I don't believe like 98% of it, however, I feel like the Bible was genuinely written to inspire good and peace in the world. Have you ever heard of an overly-christian man being put away for murder? [with the exceptions on psychopaths]. just a thought


----------



## toast (Dec 1, 2008)

Who says there's a correct religion? Maybe it was a group of gods creating the world. Or it could've been none at all. It's not like we would know.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 1, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> Seriously? I thought Atheism was all about choosing to not believe in God.



Posted before:


Lt-UnReaL said:


> EDIT: Some of you seem to misunderstand the definition of an atheist. Just because an atheist disbelieves the existence of God, doesn't mean they believe that there is no possibility of God existing.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Dec 1, 2008)

I wouldn't define atheism as choosing not to believe in a god. I would define it as not choosing to believe in god. This small word shift is actually a huge difference, because your definition makes it seem like atheists are the ones actually doing something.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 1, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> ehh... Christian, I guess, I wish I were more religious and faithful, but if anything i'm drifting from it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not agnostic. Read my other post, or look at what Ethan posted above to see why.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 1, 2008)

Hmmmm....multiple gods...greekist? romanist?


----------



## toast (Dec 1, 2008)

Egyptian.dsf


----------



## Crickets (Dec 1, 2008)

toast said:


> Who says there's a correct religion? Maybe it was a group of gods creating the world. Or it could've been none at all. It's not like we would know.



This is not what this thread was made to do. And people who are using it for that should stop. I just wanted to know how many people where in what religon basis in here.


@everybody it seems, I didn't put atheist up there cuz in it you literally believe in no God and thats something that every religion I've ever studied seems to have in common.

And I am by no means try to classify any other religion thats not on this list as the same as atheism. "Other" is just saying "I don't believe in any of these other religions. I believe in (W/e ur religion)."


----------



## shafiqdms1 (Dec 1, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> I too am an atheist. I see no reason to believe in something that was used millenia ago to explain everything. We have something else to do that now. It's called science. Some religions like Buddhism, I'm OK with, but some that involve a higher being causing catastrophes and disasters are... primitive?
> 
> Let the religious debate... Begin!!



okay, I have a question for you: How did life began and how did the universe form? Do you seriously believe in the Big Bang theory that a huge random explosion just happened out of nowhere? And about evolution, if you think we came from monkeys/gorilla, where did they come from, and where did the creature they came from come from,etc? Does science really explain that?


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 1, 2008)

The definitions of both atheism and agnosticism are obscure and not exact. I consider myself an agnostic because I can see the possibility of a world with a God and without, and I frankly have no idea which it is. Now, I do lean towards deism, the belief that there is a Spinoza God, that created the universe but does not answer our prayers or is omniscient or omnipotent. I believe both the idea that matter came out of nothing in the Big Bang is equally as incomprehensible as a Creator making matter, and the Creator coming out of nothing. That is what Einstein believed, in a Spinoza God, and that is considered atheism, literally meaning, without religion, because they don't believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful God.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Dec 1, 2008)

shafiqdms1 said:


> okay, I have a question for you: How did life began and how did the universe form? Do you seriously believe in the Big Bang theory that a huge random explosion just happened out of nowhere? And about evolution, if you think we came from monkeys/gorilla, where did they come from, and where did the creature they came from come from,etc? Does science really explain that?



Why don't you ask someone who claims to know the answer?
The answer to your last question though, is yes.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

shafiqdms1 said:


> And about evolution, if you think we came from monkeys/gorilla, where did they come from, and where did the creature they came from come from,etc? Does science really explain that?



yes


----------



## shafiqdms1 (Dec 1, 2008)

Ethan Rosen said:


> shafiqdms1 said:
> 
> 
> > pcharles93 said:
> ...



wow, this forum is fast at responding....

I am not really trying to start any sort of argument its just that I think about what atheist people believe, etc.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 1, 2008)

A couple of the big reasons that I doubt atheism is the concept of morals, consciousness, and the fine tuning of the universe, the fact that if it were at all different, in any way, electrons being 1/1000000th of its mass heavier, nothing could exist, so I think these things help the religious argument, although I think the latter could be debunked if there are proven parallel universes or a cyclical universe.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> ...electrons being 1/1000000th of its mass heavier, nothing could exist...



Suppose there were an infinite number of universes, and only one could support life. Guess which one we'd be on? ;-) It doesn't matter what the probability of the universe 'working' is, because the fact that we exist means we found one.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 1, 2008)

I agree that it can be explained with infinite parallel universes as I mentioned, but it would be nearly inconceivable if that were not true, and that certainly is yet to be proven.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 1, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I'm an atheist. I have no more reason to believe there is a God than to believe there is a Tooth Fairy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, well why did the big bang happen? And if there is a cause for the big bang than what is the cause for that cause. The whole first cause thing. But like I said Christianity isn't my religion because it tells me where the universe came from. I tend to ignore that part actually because no side has adequately convinced me of their account of why life is here from a science pov. Evolution (or I guess abiogenesis to be correct like I learned last we talked about this) I still think has some holes in it and ID people have never adequately explained to me what to believe they have just attacked evolution.
I'm a Christian because I think we all fall short of some moral standard. I know what I should do but I don't do it and then there must be some problem or flaw in people that is causing this. So I believe this is best described by the Biblical model of our fall (whether you take the garden of eden as an allegory or literal isnt really important at this point) and then how we can be saved from this mess we got ourselves into by trusting in the cross of Christ. 
Anyway I wasn't trying to make any logical steps in my first post I was just saying a few things I believe. 
So yea, as for proof for religious books I don't have much at this point but I am a religion major now so I do plan on studying this stuff. For my own religion I know there are quite early surviving works from as early as a hundred years or so after Christ with of course loads of copies of the gospels written quite early. I know this doesn't prove that God wrote them. But if these was no Jesus that did crazy stuff then all the apostles wouldn't have run around willing to die for Him and there would have been no widely spreading religion for these early documents to write about. 
Idk, not much and probably loads of flaws but its a discussion not an end all right here


----------



## Kian (Dec 1, 2008)

at the end of the day we need not try to "prove" anything to anyone else here. (mostly because nobody can)

Frankly, I'm amazed how civil this thread has been, considering the topic.

If you believe there isn't a God, you're whatever you want to call yourself and if you believe there is a God you are whatever you want to call yourself.

At the end of the day however, I think truly denying any possibility of a god requires as much faith as any religion.

Also, I do think that the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" should not be disregarded because of simplicity. It is really an unbelievable complicated 7 word question.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 1, 2008)

I agree that that question is indeed worthy of thinking about. When I consider a universe without life, it really doesn't make sense to me, what purpose would a universe serve if not for life. So I see why people are religious in that regard because it gives a reason why there is life, sort of, and science doesn't, yet, just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I should jump to the conclusion of a God, so I'm truly torn on the matter.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 1, 2008)

Well I think most people here respect each other. And well if I'm to try and argue for a book I should probably attempt to do what it says and mine tells me to answer with gentleness and respect. So I will try to do that and I apologize if I do not. 
Yea, that question is a big part of why I am religious. However I do not think we can purely argue this with scientific facts we have to allow for some kind of supernatural happenings at some point. Like having God intervene in peoples lives to assist them in their belief of Him.


----------



## DavidWoner (Dec 1, 2008)

Bob said:


> My vote for Other belongs in category: Burtonism.



same here.


----------



## Rama (Dec 1, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> Why Christianity > all others?



I really have no idea, maybe you should check out Jesus' grave.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

Rama said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > Why Christianity > all others?
> ...



Because it's empty? What if it was grave robbers? I could find an empty cave and call it Bob's tomb, and you'd have the same amount of proof that he is God.


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 1, 2008)

blade740 said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



Please show some respect. I'm no Christian but I'm pretty sure that would offend lots of Christians.


----------



## Dene (Dec 1, 2008)

If you're about to get offended, you're in the wrong thread.

I'm a Christian, I won't get into the complications, but I have very much my own set of beliefs, that would never ever fit into any subcult.

I will say this to the agnostics/athiests or whatever/however you want to define yourself: Kierkegaard argues convincingly in the "Either" that with a belief comes a doubt, and the stronger the belief, the stronger the doubt. With no belief there is no doubt. These two opposites always go together. Therefore, if you doubt the existence of a God, does that also mean you have stronger belief? If you have strong doubts, is your belief also strong?
What I'm trying to say is, if you have doubts, perhaps it is just a show of the strength of your belief.

I'm sure I didn't say that how I intended to (as usual), so if I have to re-phrase or re-word it to make it clearer, don't get all antsy-pantsy cry-babies about it.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...



This is the internet. If you are prone to offense, I am the least of your worries.


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 1, 2008)

Oh, alright. But I just want to clarify this: I'm not even Christian, so nothing you can say about Jesus Christ or Christianity as a whole will offend me. 

I respect everyone, regardless of who you are or what you believe in.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Dec 1, 2008)

Atheism isn't a religion, which is why it's not on the list.

I'm a Christian. Jesus is my hero 

EDIT:



DcF1337 said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...



Yeah. There's no need for that kind of talk.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

DAE_JA_VOO said:


> Atheism isn't a religion, which is why it's not on the list.
> 
> I'm a Christian. Jesus is my hero
> 
> ...



What kind of talk? I was refuting his claim. If you can't handle a few challenging words, you should not be on the internet.


----------



## VirKill (Dec 1, 2008)

Islam....


----------



## VirKill (Dec 1, 2008)

double posted...sorry


----------



## Rama (Dec 1, 2008)

blade740 said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=MATTHEW 28:1-10


----------



## (X) (Dec 1, 2008)

OK, any christian here (or someone that has other beliefs), please tell why god is real and not St. Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, also please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents


----------



## cookingfat (Dec 1, 2008)

When people ask what religion I am, I always say 'none'. I've never called myself an Athiest or Agnostic or whatever. 

Basically I'm just lucky to be alive in this world. It isn't going to last that long, so I make the most of it without dwelling on what started it all.


----------



## Pedro (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm a christian too (protestant, not catholic)

couple years ago, a preacher at our church said the scientist who presented the Genoma project with Bill Clinton (sorry, can't remember his name) has become a christian, and written a book about it

one of the things the preacher mentioned from the book is that the scientist, being a "man of science", for many many time believed there was no God at all. But one of the things that made him "convert" himself, as some of us call it, was that "if there's hunger and there's fruit (or food), then there's God..."

something interesting to think about, I guess...if there was no food, the first hunger would never be satisfied and there would be no life after that


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 1, 2008)

Buddhism is cool... but I'm still atheist.

Please stop trying to pull off the cosmological argument. There was another thread that meandered into religion. Luckily, this one was much more civilized.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 1, 2008)

Pastefarianism


----------



## qinbomaster (Dec 1, 2008)

Hail velociraptor jesus


----------



## Rama (Dec 1, 2008)

(X) said:


> OK, any christian here (or someone that has other beliefs), please tell why god is real and not St. Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, also please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents



Because I am *blessed* to have parents that have faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 1, 2008)

qinbomaster said:


> Hail velociraptor jesus


isn't it just Raptor Jesus?

also, if that count, how about ceilingcat?


----------



## Rama (Dec 1, 2008)

Maybe you guys should try to convert cannibal tribes to atheism, just to see how it works out.


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 1, 2008)

Other = cubing 

Mordern northen Europeans simpy are not religious anymore, they give us education istead of the Bible nowdays.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 1, 2008)

> Luckily, this one was much more civilized.



I take back what I said.


----------



## Ville Seppänen (Dec 1, 2008)

My religion is carrot. Now lets talk about mushrooms.


----------



## MAHTI-ANSSI (Dec 1, 2008)

A walrus ate bananas. Wrong. Carrotshrooms eated Tanzania. Poop exploded. Hamster. Carrot. Hamster. Carrot. Carrot. Donkey. Carrotshroom. Shroomrotcar. Carmageddon. Get on, Karma. Carrot + Carrot + Carrot? Pacific Bearways roar activation Carrot.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 1, 2008)

MAHTI-ANSSI said:


> A walrus ate bananas. Wrong. Carrotshrooms eated Tanzania. Poop exploded. Hamster. Carrot. Hamster. Carrot. Carrot. Donkey. Carrotshroom. Shroomrotcar. Carmageddon. Get on, Karma. Carrot + Carrot + Carrot? Pacific Bearways roar activation Carrot.


Fascinating.


----------



## cookingfat (Dec 1, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> Pastefarianism




I am completely converted. This is my new religion. I always wanted a religion that I actually believed in and here it is. Thanks for spreading the word, and please always obey your noodly master.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Dec 1, 2008)

JTW2007 said:


> I'm an atheist, but Buddhism is really cool and interesting in my opinion.



I am agnostic/atheist, but in the same position as you. In fact, I would really like to become Buddhist. My parents have a lot of influence on me, and my Mom is STRICTLY atheist, coincidentally, she is also a biologist xD My Dad is nothing really. He was born in India, and Hindu, but when he came to America, I guess he sort of lost that. But he goes to lots of Buddhist and Hindu cultural and religious events.


----------



## Sin-H (Dec 1, 2008)

I am a Christian, though not really practicing. I hardly ever attend services. Actually, this is what a lot of people in Middle Europe are.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 1, 2008)

Rama said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...







Rama said:


> Maybe you guys should try to convert cannibal tribes to atheism, just to see how it works out.





What do either of those have to do with anything, and what do they even mean?


----------



## Erik (Dec 1, 2008)

My religion is irrelevant, I just want to say that I seriously do not like people who are offending people or other peoples' religion those people have or when they compare any religion to something crazy or weird or make fun of any religion. 

People are free to believe what they want to believe, don't bother them trying to convince their religion is wrong or untrue. It will only cause trouble, plus: you will not reach your goal anyway. They will not change their religion just because Joe from the friend of the neighbours (in other words: a random guy) wants it.

On the other hand I also seriously don't like it if people are harrasing obstructing or damaging other people because of their own religion. Or in other words because they think their religion tells them to do the actions which would cause that.

In other words: *show some f***ing respect*


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm do not believe in god, but LOL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I


----------



## (X) (Dec 1, 2008)

what about an apple...


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 1, 2008)

(Not my currency)


----------



## Dene (Dec 1, 2008)

(X) said:


> please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents



A lot do, but a lot also don't. Especially with Christianity, a lot of people "come to faith" through experiences in life or convert from other religions with absolutely no Christian background. I don't find your jest convincing.


----------



## MTGjumper (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm... agnostic, I presume. Although I don't practice any religion as such, if I were to believe in a god, it would be God; Christian influences are everywhere in British society (well, at least where I am) but I know few people who consider themselves Christians.

I've just realised, I never really took much of a thought whilst singing the national anthem (God Save the Queen), which undoubtedly conflicts with many British people's beliefs but they sing it regardless as a matter of patriotism. Same thing goes with British bank notes or basically any form of oath I've taken in my lifetime.

Also, I agree with Erik's sentiments that arguing about other people's religions in unjustified and often insulting.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

Erik said:


> People are free to believe what they want to believe, don't bother them trying to convince their religion is wrong or untrue. It will only cause trouble, plus: you will not reach your goal anyway.
> 
> ...
> 
> In other words: *show some f***ing respect*



I assume this is directed at me. I assure you, I mean no respect to anyone. I simply disagree with the presenting of circumstantial evidence as factual proof. I am not attempting to dissuade anyone from their religion. But it's called "faith" for a reason. If you believe it, you believe it, and that's all the proof you need. If you don't, then any "proof" anyone can submit is invalid. You can't prove religion with bible passages to someone who doesn't take the bible as fact.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 1, 2008)

Dene said:


> (X) said:
> 
> 
> > please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents
> ...



That's very true.
I think Atheism is very much a religion.
A lot of scientific evidence can be used to support/refute many religions and atheism. But no beliefs are definite. Everyone has different beliefs.
My parents are raised Atheist, turned Christian, yet never go to church and never talk about religion.
I had been Atheist since the beginning. Some Christian thinkings are interesting, but many of the popular Christians are just way too uninformed about real science.
I feel silly to believe in something just to believe it. That's why I'd consider myself not Atheist. I don't believe in disbelief of God.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 1, 2008)

/b/ said:


> Atheism is as much a religion as not stamp collecting is a hobby


----------



## brunson (Dec 1, 2008)

shafiqdms1 said:


> pcharles93 said:
> 
> 
> > I too am an atheist. I see no reason to believe in something that was used millenia ago to explain everything. We have something else to do that now. It's called science. Some religions like Buddhism, I'm OK with, but some that involve a higher being causing catastrophes and disasters are... primitive?
> ...


Where did god come from?


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 1, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> /b/ said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is as much a religion as not stamp collecting is a hobby



Stamp collecting isn't a hobby, so of course not ddoing it is also not a hobby.

If you really believe that you don't belive in good, that is a religion, but if you just don't care, then that is not a religion.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > /b/ said:
> ...



I don't believe in a god. This is a firm belief. However, religion has one main requirement: faith. To believe in any religion, you have to take some supposition on faith. An atheist takes nothing on faith, so it's not a religion.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Dec 1, 2008)

"The less you know, the more you believe."
(yes or no question)Can god heat a burrito so hot, even he cannot eat it?


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 1, 2008)

If god created the universe, etc....
Then what created god?


----------



## Kurzeja (Dec 1, 2008)

I am agnostic. I believe that there could be some higher being, but they are not any that we currently know of.

Also, why did anything have to be created? Couldn't the universe have always existed? I doubt anything came from nothing.


----------



## JLarsen (Dec 1, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> i'm an atheist going to a catholic school
> i'm not even joking.


I'm an atheist. Are your parents force feeding crap to you or does it appeal to your future college applications?


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 1, 2008)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > i'm an atheist going to a catholic school
> ...



I don't mind people teaching me about God (I just don't care what they say). The theology classes are easy and add to my GPA A LOT! So its good for college. The reason I chose a catholic school is that my school gives full scholarships to the top 25% of the graduates and I'm pretty much set.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 1, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> I'm do not believe in god, but LOL:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I



Behold, the pineapple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HW06Wz_R74


----------



## (X) (Dec 1, 2008)

You can't say that many people turns to christianity, if you compare the number of religios people with religios parents, to the ones without religios parents you would see that almost no one "gets" religios, religion is something that "has" to be learned. Why is everyone in the middle-east religios, and almost no one in Norway religios? Beacause religion is taught and it's the tradition in the middle-east.


----------



## CAT13 (Dec 1, 2008)

My parents aren't religious, so I never was either. My grandma goes to Church every Sunday, though and she gave me a Bible once. Now it sits beside my bed, but I have never read it...


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 1, 2008)

In my country, everyone is a "so called Muslim", but most of the people don't do their duties as a Muslim, its funny.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Dec 1, 2008)

The thing about Buddhism, is it's almost more of a philosophy than a religion. I do a lot of things that Buddhism teaches, but myself am not Buddhist. 

Any about everyone in a pissing match. The reality is, there is no PROOF of existence OR lack there of. Which is why we call it faith. I do BELIEVE in some sort of higher power, but it cannot be proved.


----------



## CharlieCooper (Dec 1, 2008)

i am an atheist. at school there was always a christian element to my learning as is often the case in england, and i have studied the bible extensively as part of my degree.

i have taken some brief interest in christianity in the past, but i am now very certain of my views, and that is that i simply do not believe in any supreme being. i have nothing against religion, and if anything i love the community that surrounds it (or at least in my experience has). i think that christian morals, for example are a very good thing. i just think that i can lead an equally moral life without religious guidance.

one thing i despise, is somebody telling me i am wrong for being an atheist. i have made the effort to really think about and investigate my views, which is a lot more than many other atheists. i would never impose my atheism on somebody, and i see it to be as offensive as somebody enforcing their religion on me. 

i have equal respect to all people regardless of their religion. i do hope i didn't offend anybody.. :/


----------



## MistArts (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm a (light) Buddhist. I don't do anything. I just believe in it.


----------



## F.P. (Dec 1, 2008)

Agnostic.

There are also a lot of religious scientists.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 1, 2008)

Interesting website: http://godisimaginary.com/all-videos.htm
The website tries to prove that God is imaginary through the sentences in the Bible. Are those sentences really in the Bible, if so, do you think that the Bible is not as it was originally?


----------



## jcuber (Dec 1, 2008)

Lofty said:


> I am a Christian.
> Christianity isn't about explaining natural disasters its about how man has sinned against God and how we can be reconciled back to Him.
> I don't see how you could not believe in anything. Without God why should something even exist at all.



I am a cubist, and that's what I belive in (well, that and girls). That is the true purpose of life and everything in it. 

Actually, my mom is christian and my dad is jewish, we celebrate both religion's holidays, but I consider myself to be nothing. I do belive in a heaven though, because after you get to old to do fingertricks there has to be something to look foward to. I also belive in doing the right thing or else it will come back to bite you, in laymen's terms, karma of sorts.


----------



## Dene (Dec 1, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> (yes or no question)Can god heat a burrito so hot, even he cannot eat it?



These basic contradiction-type arguments are possibly the worst arguments against the existence of God. They can be used to disprove almot anything. If your logic is so witty, then try this:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed (basic physical fact).
Therefore, energy must have always existed.

Yes or no? If yes, prove it, if no, how is that possible in a purely physical world?


----------



## Faz (Dec 1, 2008)

Why has no-one said.......

Cubist!


----------



## pelnied (Dec 1, 2008)

damn whats with all the athiest?? i just saw like 6/7 of these guys are

rock on dudes, i am too one of your kinsmin


----------



## Lotsofsloths (Dec 1, 2008)

Dene said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > (yes or no question)Can god heat a burrito so hot, even he cannot eat it?
> ...



Then how did god create earth?


----------



## MistArts (Dec 1, 2008)

jcuber said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > I am a Christian.
> ...





fazrulz said:


> Why has no-one said.......
> 
> *Cubist!*



Apparently, you haven't been reading.


----------



## pelnied (Dec 1, 2008)

yeah ive said im a cubist like i said the cube is my holy artifact and stuff haha its been funny but really i love my cube but to get into a religious argument not to offend anyone

religion is man-made, as so are many things on Earth. Many people make mistakes and have funny ways to describe them. So when first civilizations were being formed, somebody asked why are we here. This led to people thinking and MADE UP the first 3 semetic relgions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Therefore no evidence was here when first people arrived there is no possible way religion is real. Its made up just like stories are made up. Just a story that billions of people believe in for some reason.


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2008)

I am a Christian, and although I could argue this topic all day, I really don't feel like doing it right now and I know that these debates will never end.

One thing I would like to point out, however, is that there are tons of prophecies in the Bible and many of them are very accurate as to what is happening in this day and age.


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Lotsofsloths said:
> ...



The reason pointing to a supernatural being is more reasonable than assuming that an explosion came from nothing is this: everything of this world is governed by laws and time - that is to say, everything created has a creator. But if we take a figure that is not governed by these laws of science, who is above the limitations of our existence, a God who had no beginning is possible (although we can't comprehend it).

What I am saying is there must be some supernatural force or being that is beyond time and the physical laws everything we see in our universe is subject to.


----------



## tim (Dec 1, 2008)

riffz said:


> One thing I would like to point out, however, is that there are tons of prophecies in the Bible and many of them are very accurate as to what is happening in this day and age.



Could you provide us with some links?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 1, 2008)

I made some jokes here (pastafarian and atheism related)
But I'm atheistic agnostic: You can never be sure, but there's probably nothing

My parents, or atleast my dad is theistic agnostic, there must be something, but I have no idea what
and my sister is just agnostic: who cares if god exists
grandparents christian, mother's side: catholic, father's side: protestant

my family is both confused and confusing


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 1, 2008)

there are two religions that may sway me
1) cubist
2) pastafarianist


----------



## Escher (Dec 1, 2008)

d4m4s74, i think your sister is closer to apathetic


----------



## Jhong253 (Dec 1, 2008)

This whole debate is totally pointless. I'm a Christian, yes. But personally I really don't care what others believe in. I make no efforts to try to persuade anyone into believing in Christianity or anything of that sort. I always say, 'you go your way I go my way.' This whole debate about whether God exists or not and all that stuff is never going to end. 

Like Erik said earlier, show some respect to other people. If they want to believe in something, let them. Don't go around saying what's wrong and what should be believed, it's VERY offensive to some people. Just let other people do what they think is right.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 1, 2008)

Cubism is an ART movement, not a religion...
If it is really religion, then Picasso is the prophet...


----------



## riffz (Dec 1, 2008)

tim said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I would like to point out, however, is that there are tons of prophecies in the Bible and many of them are very accurate as to what is happening in this day and age.
> ...



I will list some websites:

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/prophecy.html

http://www.100prophecies.org/ (contains unfulfilled ones as well)

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm


----------



## Erik (Dec 1, 2008)

blade740 said:


> I assume this is directed at me.



I didn't really mean anyone specific. If you think what I said is directed to you then you probably have doubts about the way people think about things that you said, if not then I don't know why you assumed it's directed to you  ...
That's complicated I know 

Or to make it more concrete and put it to the case of your (I quote yourself here) 'challenging words' (which is why I assume you are assuming I ment you), you probably (I don't say you do) think that your challenging words might be taken as disrespect which rises the question why you said something of which you know people will take it as disrespect. Perhaps you like to argue? 
Ok that were some complicated, yet quite accurate sentences I think 

And please correct me if I'm wrong, assumptions are a dangerous things to make at all times


----------



## blade740 (Dec 1, 2008)

Erik said:


> blade740 said:
> 
> 
> > I assume this is directed at me.
> ...



I think I get what you're trying to say. If I thought it was directed at me, I thought people might get offended. If I thought people might get offended, I shouldn't have said what I said.

To be fair, I only thought people got offended when I saw the two replies asking me to "have a little respect." I didn't think anyone would be offended when I posted.


----------



## Siraj A. (Dec 1, 2008)

Islam ftw.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 1, 2008)

(X) said:


> OK, any christian here (or someone that has other beliefs), please tell why god is real and not St. Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, also please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents



I don't think it's necessary for religious people to explain themselves to you because you don't believe in the same things. This conversation should be kept positive, not bashing and so insulting.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 2, 2008)

I don't understand how one can be a Christian and not care about trying to convert people. If you are a Christian I am assuming you will believe one of the more basic doctrines that if you do not believe in Jesus you will go to hell. If you believe you have the news to keep them out of hell you should probably tell them about it. Its like curing cancer only then not telling anyone you did, only worse cause hell lasts longer then cancer. 
Anyway, it will eventually come down to faith yes but proofs can be made to show that you are not putting faith in something contrary to reality. Like if I have faith in my cube to heal my wounds that would not be very well placed faith and I would expect someone to tell me that that is a foolish thing to do, I may run out to my death expecting my cube to keep me safe. 
So if someone could prove quite certainly that Christianity was foolish then they should probably let me know and I should do the same to other people if I think they are trusting in something they shouldn't be. So it will come down to faith but facts do help.
Edit:
God can have existed forever while the universe or some kind of matter could not have because entropy would built up over time wouldn't it? But God not being matter will not build up entropy. 
Believing there is multiple universes if making just as many or more leaps of faith as a religious person. We can't observe these other universes we are just assuming they exist to make the probabilities come out possible same as a religious person does the same with God.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 2, 2008)

Lofty said:


> I don't understand how one can be a Christian and not care about trying to convert people. *If you are a Christian I am assuming you will believe one of the more basic doctrines that if you do not believe in Jesus you will go to hell*. If you believe you have the news to keep them out of hell you should probably tell them about it. Its like curing cancer only then not telling anyone you did, only worse cause hell lasts longer then cancer.
> Anyway, it will eventually come down to faith yes but proofs can be made to show that you are not putting faith in something contrary to reality. Like if I have faith in my cube to heal my wounds that would not be very well placed faith and I would expect someone to tell me that that is a foolish thing to do, I may run out to my death expecting my cube to keep me safe.
> So if someone could prove quite certainly that Christianity was foolish then they should probably let me know and I should do the same to other people if I think they are trusting in something they shouldn't be. So it will come down to faith but facts do help.



so... if you are totally a thoughtful, caring, nice, and well behaved person. your whole life you work hard, help others around you and make a difference. Just because of a change in BELIEF you get sent to so called "Hell"? :confused:

thats harsh..


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 2, 2008)

Lofty said:


> If you are a Christian I am assuming you will believe one of the more basic doctrines that if you do not believe in Jesus you will go to hell. If you believe you have the news to keep them out of hell you should probably tell them about it. Its like curing cancer only then not telling anyone you did, only worse cause hell lasts longer then cancer.



That's one thing I like and hate about Christianity. It's using fear to persuade people. That would persuade me to be a Christian if it's true, but is that a real fear or just me being paranoid? One argument is that if you believe and it's true, you are saved. If you don't believe, you go to Hell. If it's not real, you are being silly and if you don't believe, it doesn't matter any way. By this logic, believing is the way to go. 
But my questions:
Is this the right reason to believe? Is this reasoning flawed? Why should I believe in a manipulative god and hope that he will spare us if we worship him, shouldn't we band together and revolt, if he exists?


Lofty said:


> Believing there is multiple universes if making just as many or more leaps of faith as a religious person. We can't observe these other universes we are just assuming they exist to make the probabilities come out possible same as a religious person does the same with God.


This is a nice way to agree that atheism is a faith.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 2, 2008)

@Derrick: Yes, you would do that. Most Christians need to step up there game in telling people about Jesus. Myself included but that is why I am saying here now what I am saying instead of just saying "I'm a Christian but you just do your own thing." Its not a harsh life, I plan on majoring in religion and then going to seminary. If you think your life is making an eternal impact and you enjoy living for Christ its not harsh at all. 
No you get sent to Hell for your sin. All the wrong things you have done. The belief gets you the pardon from the penalty of your sin. 
@fanwuq- well one would have to actually have to believe in hell for it to cause fear in them. And if you believe in hell why would you not also believe that Christ died to provide a way out of hell for you? So are you believing because of fear or because you think it was an amazingly loving act for God to save you when He could have just let you go on your way and end up in hell and love Him for that? 
If you believe in a God that created everything good luck trying to rebel against a Being that powerful, especially when if you believe in the Christian God you are rebelling against a God who has provided a way out for you, why would you want to do that?


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 2, 2008)

Christians know only part of the Truth. The Cross is only the first part of the Algorithm.

All Sub-10 shall go to Heaven.
Practice!


----------



## blade740 (Dec 2, 2008)

Lofty said:


> If you believe you have the news to keep them out of hell you should probably tell them about it. Its like curing cancer only then not telling anyone you did, only worse cause hell lasts longer then cancer.



That's not exactly a valid comparison. Chances are, in the areas any of us live in, they've already heard about Christianity. It's like if I were to tell every person I saw coughing on the street that they've made a flu vaccine. They already know. They've most likely already made their decision on whether or not to believe.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 2, 2008)

blade740 said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > If you believe you have the news to keep them out of hell you should probably tell them about it. Its like curing cancer only then not telling anyone you did, only worse cause hell lasts longer then cancer.
> ...



Well they may have heard of it but they may have false views about it or no actual information except that it exists. They may not know that they need Christianity. 
The people coughing may not know where to get a flu shot. They may not get one for fear of needles or something...


----------



## brunson (Dec 2, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> That's one thing I like and hate about Christianity. It's using fear to persuade people. That would persuade me to be a Christian if it's true, but is that a real fear or just me being paranoid? One argument is that if you believe and it's true, you are saved. If you don't believe, you go to Hell. If it's not real, you are being silly and if you don't believe, it doesn't matter any way. By this logic, believing is the way to go.


Google: pascal's wager


Derrick Eide17 said:


> so... if you are totally a thoughtful, caring, nice, and well behaved person. your whole life you work hard, help others around you and make a difference. Just because of a change in BELIEF you get sent to so called "Hell"? :confused:
> 
> thats harsh..


I have a different kind of wager. I choose not to believe in a god, but I work very hard to live by a moral code of doing good when I can, showing kindness and respect in all my affairs and practicing acceptance whenever possible. If I'm wrong and there is a god, any god I would want to spend eternity with would take that into account.


----------



## Dene (Dec 2, 2008)

Lotsofsloths said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Lotsofsloths said:
> ...



You avoided the problem. I can explain the universe with God - he is supernatural, and infinite.
However, if you refuse to believe in anything non-physical, then you cannot explain anything.
You cannot have a beginning or an end - how is that possible?
It is a direct contradiction of existence. Everything must have an opposite. With existence there must be non-existence (for a physicalist). A physicalist cannot explain it - it is impossible and out of reach of resolution.
It defies laws of logic. You could in fact say, that by becoming a physicalist, one also makes physicalism impossible.

EDIT: Oh and I wanted to say something else about the whole "how to get to heaven" thing. I like how it is portrayed in the Chonicles of Narnia. At the end, the Tashbaan man (worshipper of another God - Tash (who is also the devil)) meets Aslan (God). The Tashbaan man says that he doesn't worship Aslan, and Aslan says that everything good the man has done in the name of Tash, Aslan takes in the name of himself. As in - you don't have to worship God necessarily - being a good person matters more.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 2, 2008)

brunson said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > That's one thing I like and hate about Christianity. It's using fear to persuade people. That would persuade me to be a Christian if it's true, but is that a real fear or just me being paranoid? One argument is that if you believe and it's true, you are saved. If you don't believe, you go to Hell. If it's not real, you are being silly and if you don't believe, it doesn't matter any way. By this logic, believing is the way to go.
> ...



Thanks!

Edit:
There are many religions. Most frown upon worshipping idols. This provides a new twist. So if believing in right god that exist is +infinite, not believe is -number, and believe wrong god is -infinite, then most people would probably stay safe by not believing in anything. This reminds me of the little bit of game theory we learned in AP economics.

Edit2: Ahh... religions might not be mutually exclusive. This is even more to take account of. I can't think too much about this. This problem is way too complicated.


----------



## badmephisto (Dec 2, 2008)

Oh common where is the church of the spaghetti monster?


----------



## Lofty (Dec 2, 2008)

Haha. I don't think FSM has enough followers to make it on the list.
Dene: Most Christians would not agree with a lot of C.S. Lewis's ideas, myself included. But I guess this isn't a theology debate among Christians but about religion in general. I like your post before the edit tho


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 2, 2008)

We can't all agree on something. In fact, no group can. There will always be some sort of disagreement somehow.

I think this thread will result in more harm than good. It's better off locked.


----------



## Dene (Dec 2, 2008)

Lofty: The part before the edit is so messy even I won't attempt to clean it up >.<

I think C. S. Lewis has some good ideas, personally. Very more accepting that a lot of Christians.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 2, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Edit:
> There are many religions. Most frown upon worshipping idols. This provides a new twist. So if believing in right god that exist is +infinite, not believe is -number, and believe wrong god is -infinite, then most people would probably stay safe by not believing in anything. This reminds me of the little bit of game theory we learned in AP economics.
> ...



I think the upshot is... believing in any God is better than believing in none, because you have some chance of getting eternal bliss... so you should choose the religion with the MOST deities, because then you have the highest chance of a good afterlife!


----------



## qinbomaster (Dec 2, 2008)

^^ lol i like that logic

i wonder why religion is so institutionalized though. i mean, i've gone to church a few times despite being a strong aethist and i have always wondered why there was a church at all. and where do churches get money from anyway?


----------



## Kian (Dec 2, 2008)

donations. some churches demand tithes, most just request them. 

i know my church passes around a collection plate and people give what they can.


----------



## Rikane (Dec 2, 2008)

I'm a Christian btw. 

Although I believe that the church is not necessarily the building, but the people within, I'd just like to point out that, in the secular mind, the church is a building. Like all buildings, there are things you need to pay for, energy/water, etc. 

I'm pretty sure that the church is there to educate and for us to grow in our faith, whatever it may be. 

Also, 


nitrocan said:


> Interesting website: http://godisimaginary.com/all-videos.htm
> The website tries to prove that God is imaginary through the sentences in the Bible. Are those sentences really in the Bible, if so, do you think that the Bible is not as it was originally?


I'd just like to say, Context. I'm really a bit lazy right now to watch and find them, but I may end up doing it.

Lastly, I've been having my own doubts lately, but I was thinking... If you believe in Jesus and that he's the only way to heaven, and if you didn't believe in him and was going to hell...and if you don't or whatever...I know it's confusing, but it's pretty much an ideal solution to me. You don't have anything to lose by being a nice person, but you have everything to gain, i.e. Heaven and eternal life.

Hope I wasn't offensive >_<.


----------



## CymbalMonkey (Dec 2, 2008)

Yeh, I'm an agnostic buddhist. I use Buddhism as a guide in life and refuse to go any further! To quote: "I preach the gospel of _I Don't Know_!"–Bill Mahr


----------



## qinbomaster (Dec 2, 2008)

maybe a change of pace here in this discussion?

anyone here a Satanist? (Leveyan, Theistic, etc.?)

i thought about being one, but it seems kind of the same fundamentally at least as being any other religion. That and it seems like it was created basically to provoke Xns


----------



## Ellis (Dec 2, 2008)

gogozerg said:


> Christians know only part of the Truth. The Cross is only the first part of the Algorithm.
> 
> All Sub-10 shall go to Heaven.
> Practice!


I know where I'm spending my eternity. I hope they allow cubes there. Not fire ones though, I'd suck with those... plus the silicone would just explode when you try to lube it.


----------



## Musselman (Dec 2, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> i'm an atheist going to a catholic school
> i'm not even joking.



catholic school made me a atheist.....


----------



## Faz (Dec 2, 2008)

Musselman said:


> waffle=ijm said:
> 
> 
> > i'm an atheist going to a catholic school
> ...



excactly, more than half the kids in my class are athiest, because they hate religion classes. If they had freedom of religion, i bet some would choose to be christian.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 2, 2008)

> Interesting website: http://godisimaginary.com/all-videos.htm
> The website tries to prove that God is imaginary through the sentences in the Bible. Are those sentences really in the Bible, if so, do you think that the Bible is not as it was originally?



That website is guilty of bad logic too. "They claim he exists, but can't prove it, therefore he doesn't" That's the same as the argument that says because we can't disprove him, he exists. They seem to make the jump from "Christians use bad logic" to "God is Imaginary" without any sort of reason why one implies the other.



qinbomaster said:


> anyone here a Satanist? (Leveyan, Theistic, etc.?)



Thinking of being one of which? LaVeyan and Theistic are two completely opposite ideas. Theistic satanists believe in God, but choose to worship the Devil. LaVeyan satanists are, for the most part, atheists. The "religion" involves instead making the most out of your earthly life, because there's nothing else that matters.


----------



## riffz (Dec 2, 2008)

qinbomaster said:


> ^^ lol i like that logic
> 
> i wonder why religion is so institutionalized though. i mean, i've gone to church a few times despite being a strong aethist and i have always wondered why there was a church at all. and where do churches get money from anyway?



The Bible says quite clearly that believers should come together and be united as a community. 

And most churches rely on tithes or offerings from those who attend it.


----------



## iGoRawr (Dec 2, 2008)

Proud Roman Catholic :]]
[ Philippines ftw  ]


----------



## joey (Dec 2, 2008)

Nothing...
edit:
Anssi has a point.


----------



## infinitus (Dec 2, 2008)

I have a question that I'm interested to hear from the POVs of fellow atheists.

Where do you go after you die?

My simple explanation - the same as before you were born. You don't exist before your birth date (the day when the egg got fertilised to be exact) and you don't exist after your death date.


----------



## brunson (Dec 2, 2008)

qqwref said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks!
> ...


Which *is* "Pascal's Wager".


----------



## brunson (Dec 2, 2008)

Dene said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...


First of all, to quote My Cousin Vinny: Your honor, it's a ******** question.

You are asking him to provide a logical argument against a premise unfounded in logic. You have proscribed a supernatural being as the creator of the universe. You may as well say it was magic. Why does fire burn? Magic. Why do the stars shine? Magic. Why does light behave both as a wave and a particle? Magic. Why do people get sick and die? Black Magic.

We could simply say, the universe always existed, is bounded and cyclic. There, I've just sidestepped the origin question as neatly as you do. Where did god come from? He didn't, he's always existed. Where did the universe come from? It didn't, it's always been there. See how fun circular logic is?

You can't argue science against religion. Science is, by definition, the quest for non-supernatural explanations of physical phenomena. Religion is, by definition, ascribing unexplainable phenomena to a supernatural being.

I'm not saying you're wrong to believe in god, I'm not saying I'm right not to, but don't try to support your faith with logic, that's an oxymoron.


----------



## ManuK (Dec 2, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I think the upshot is... believing in any God is better than believing in none, because you have some chance of getting eternal bliss... so you should choose the religion with the MOST deities, because then you have the highest chance of a good afterlife!



LOL!
Following that reasoning, you could subscribe to Hinduism which is supposed to have 330 million deities (33 groups of gods), which I suppose would be the highest for any religion.


----------



## Escher (Dec 2, 2008)

i think we can safely say that we CANNOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A GOD OR GODS.
on a personal level, i think that faith is a wonderful thing, but i dont have it. simple as that. i think that religion is based on faith; faith is based on having a belief 'without logical reason', so there is little point in attempting to prove it, especially as it is not empirically verifiable either way. 
EVERY logical argument for and against has a weakness or weaknesses. Ultimately, it is down to pure opinion. get over it, and dont try to convince me any other way.
i am fine with people having any belief they like, as long as it does not infringe on the autonomy of me or on other people. 
religion and state should be seperate. 
but religion is something that everybody should be entitled to have.


but i am an atheist, just to clear this up


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 2, 2008)

A lot of you STILL don't get this...



Lt-UnReaL said:


> Just because an atheist disbelieves the existence of God, doesn't mean they believe that there is no possibility of God existing.



How many times do I have to quote that post?...
I'll try to use an example: I don't believe that the name of this guy sitting next to me is Richard Carr, but I still think there it is possiblility that his name is Richard Carr.


----------



## F.P. (Dec 2, 2008)

Physics/science is based on "not asking certain questions"...that's why we got philosophy. 
Otherwise physics, maths etc. couldn't exist (check out Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker probably).

And the rules we use/have at the moment are only there, because they are the best we know at the moment to explain the world, they just fit best. That doesn't mean that they are right/true/correct.

There are certain things we can't even imagine; we can't imagine the non-existence...there are the boundaries of our mind/intelligence.
It's not like nature is giving us the rules...we are just creating the rules which fit best to our perception of nature, which is probably biased anyway.


----------



## hermat (Dec 2, 2008)

*take it or leave it...*



infinitus said:


> I have a question that I'm interested to hear from the POVs of fellow atheists.
> 
> Where do you go after you die?
> 
> My simple explanation - the same as before you were born. You don't exist before your birth date (the day when the egg got fertilised to be exact) and you don't exist after your death date.



And you'd be correct, as Genesis states "from dust you came, to dust you will return." Or maybe you could go with Ecclesiastes 9:5, which states that "the dead are conscience of nothing at all", Or Ezekiel 18:4, which states that "the soul that is sinning, it itself will die."

As you may have guessed, I'm not an atheist. However, many teachings that most churches endorse are NOT Bible teachings. If you actually READ and STUDY the Bible... it might actually surprise you....

Ahhh... and to escher.... you described is BLIND Faith. And you're right, that is a load of garbage. Instead, Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as "the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities thought not beheld".... You're thinking, "where do i get 'evident demonstrations'"... read the bible.... account after account of where God has provided lots of demonstrations. As you'll notice, God has a pretty good record of taking care of his people... therefore, you can have FAITH that he'll do it again....


----------



## blade740 (Dec 2, 2008)

hermat said:


> As you'll notice, God has a pretty good record of taking care of his people... therefore, you can have FAITH that he'll do it again....



God had a pretty good record of taking care of his people 2000 years ago. Since then, though, he's mostly left them to their own devices. Why was there no Moses to lead the Jews out of Auschwitz?


----------



## Escher (Dec 2, 2008)

sorry to disappoint, but i dont think blind faith is a little garbage 
what i meant to describe was _intuitive_ faith. i cant remember the name for the life of me, but a 14th C italian theologian described his way of thinking which was much closer to intuitive belief than trying to logically prove something. he argued that trying to 'grasp' something that was totally ineffable was pointless - he said that rather we should try to intuit a 'knowledge of God'.

this is also more evidence as to why intuitive f2l is better


----------



## SkateTracker (Dec 2, 2008)

I'm a Christian. Not a religion, a relationship.

Religion is man made. God is not.


----------



## Rama (Dec 2, 2008)

SkateTracker said:


> I'm a Christian. Not a religion, a relationship.
> 
> Religion is man made. God is not.



I agree.


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 2, 2008)

badmephisto said:


> Oh common where is the church of the spaghetti monster?



another pastafarian??? joy to me. I recently became one


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 2, 2008)

If people pray for someone to get better in illness, or be lucky, and they get it, it's god, but if they don't get it, they don't connect it to god in any way?


----------



## cookingfat (Dec 2, 2008)

waffle=ijm said:


> badmephisto said:
> 
> 
> > Oh common where is the church of the spaghetti monster?
> ...



me too. I'm glad you've been touched by His noodly appendage. 

RAmen.


----------



## Rama (Dec 2, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> If people pray for someone to get better in illness, or be lucky, and they get it, it's god, but if they don't get it, they don't connect it to god in any way?



If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.

God can use illness *and* bad luck to put your faith to the test, just read The book of Job.

''Joy is not the absence of pain, but the presence of God'' - Teilhard de Chardin


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 2, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> If people pray for someone to get better in illness, or be lucky, and they get it, it's god, but if they don't get it, they don't connect it to god in any way?


It is of course statististically very obvious that praying gods is useless (at least directly, because prayer can have other sociological and personal virtues), but people keep praying. Such blindness is so unbelievable. I'm suspecting that people who believe that prayer works know they're lying to themselves, but I don't know how unconscious this lie can be.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 2, 2008)

Rama said:


> If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> 
> God can use illness *and* bad luck to put your faith to the test, just read The book of Job.
> 
> ''Joy is not the absence of pain, but the presence of God'' - Teilhard de Chardin



sometimes having faith and believing in things like that can help you through illnesses, without the presence of a supernatural being. 

also, it's hard to convince atheists to read the book of Job. lol


----------



## qqwref (Dec 2, 2008)

brunson said:


> Which *is* "Pascal's Wager".



Isn't. I've read the original text (translated of course) and it says nothing that suggests he considered polytheism as even better than monotheism.



Lt-UnReaL said:


> A lot of you STILL don't get this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ever thought that maybe other people don't agree? Just because you said it doesn't mean it's right. Anyway I think of the possibility of God existing as the same as the possibility of cancer being caused by aliens, the Tooth Fairy existing, there being some planet in our galaxy with intelligent life, et cetera. These things may be *theoretically* possible (in fact everything is theoretically possible if you accept the possibility that everyone is untrustworthy and everything you thought was true is wrong!) but there is no evidence to back any of them and in my view you'd be silly to spend time proclaiming your belief and thinking about the consequences (except for the God one, apparently that's the exception and believing that is not silly at all!).



infinitus said:


> I have a question that I'm interested to hear from the POVs of fellow atheists.
> 
> Where do you go after you die?



Why do I have to go somewhere? The information just disappears. If you destroy a computer and wipe the hard drive with a magnet, where does the information 'go'? Is there a heaven for the souls of computers? I think nobody would say yes... well, for me it's the same thing.



Rama said:


> If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> 
> God can use illness *and* bad luck to put your faith to the test, just read The book of Job.



It's not much of a test if you end up dying. At least Job got his stuff back at the end. (Yes, I have read Job. It's one of the better and more readable books in the Bible in my opinion.) If prayer really works, why do good Christians still die of cancer?

I know this website is biased against religion, but you should really take a look at http://godisimaginary.com/i2.htm. They provide several examples of *scientific* studies which show that there is no correlation between prayer and mortality rate. In other words, praying can make you feel better, but it's not going to save your life.


----------



## Kian (Dec 2, 2008)

whoa whoa whoa there.

are you implying that there is no tooth fairy?!?


----------



## blade740 (Dec 2, 2008)

And if you tell me that frank isn't real, I'll kill you.


----------



## brunson (Dec 2, 2008)

qqwref said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > Which *is* "Pascal's Wager".
> ...


You're right, I missed the salient point in your posting. 


blade740 said:


> And if you tell me that frank isn't real, I'll kill you.


Even if Frank wasn't real... he'd still kill you.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 2, 2008)

Kian said:


> whoa whoa whoa there.
> 
> are you implying that there is no tooth fairy?!?



haha that made me laugh.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 2, 2008)

if you pray for something, if you don't get it, it's because it's god's will, so why pray at all, it's god's will anyway


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 2, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of you STILL don't get this...
> ...


If people don't agree with that then they are wrong.

Dictionary definition:
a⋅the⋅ist[ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

By that definition, an atheist isn't someone who believes that there is no possibility of God existing. It means that they do not 100% believe that there is definitely a God existing.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 3, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



Disbelieve---to refuse or reject belief; have no belief.

By that definition, an atheist rejects the existence of a god. If they aren't sure, they aren't atheist.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Dec 3, 2008)

I'm technically Hindu, but I'm really more of an Athiest...


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 3, 2008)

ManuK said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I think the upshot is... believing in any God is better than believing in none, because you have some chance of getting eternal bliss... so you should choose the religion with the MOST deities, because then you have the highest chance of a good afterlife!
> ...



The problem with multi-god religions is that the gods aren't supreme. If they do exist, then I'll just have to side with anyone of them randomly right on the spot when I need to make that decision. Then, me and that random god would team up to defeat the other gods.
Scary thing about the Christian God is that he has absolute power over every thing.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Dec 3, 2008)

Well, I think what you learn in school and all is sort of misleading.
They say that there are millions of gods, but most people only pray to a few. 
And there are sort of three "Supreme" gods that are better than all the rest.
Most people worship one of them.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 3, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...


No. An atheist rejects _belief_ in the existence of a god. If they only reject _belief_, then that means that they could still think that there is a possibility of supreme beings existing, because they aren't going to believe in it if they aren't sure.


----------



## infinitus (Dec 3, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



"a person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

I think that means atheists DO NOT BELIEVE that there are supreme beings.

I'm sure you have heard of agnostics?


----------



## blade740 (Dec 3, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> By that definition, an atheist isn't someone who believes that there is no possibility of God existing. It means that they do not 100% believe that there is definitely a God existing.



I am an atheist, not because I don't believe in any specific god, but because I reject the idea that a god could exist. I find it unbelievable. 

Someone who doesn't believe in any god, but believes there may be some supreme being out there is an agnostic.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 3, 2008)

The notion that there is a supreme being who has given us free will, but created us in his own image, and then punishes us for the choices we make, whilst being created and having all of our thoughts and actions predetermined by him, because he is also all-knowing, is quite silly to me.


----------



## qinbomaster (Dec 3, 2008)

> Thinking of being one of which? LaVeyan and Theistic are two completely opposite ideas. Theistic satanists believe in God, but choose to worship the Devil. LaVeyan satanists are, for the most part, atheists. The "religion" involves instead making the most out of your earthly life, because there's nothing else that matters.



i was considering LaVeyan at one point, but i decided against it. theism (is that what it'd be called?) doesn't seem practical.

i just believe in people now. but i wonder if people perceive atheism to be a form of nihilism.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

Rama said:


> If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.



Pray to the almighty milk jug

Thread starter: Is this thread supposed to achieve anything other than identify gullible, easily manipulable people? Are you searching for suitable judges for a cheating attempt?

(You have to acknowledge I resisted the urge for a long time...)


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> ...




Well even this kind of statement is in the Bible, so yes you acknowledge just what is written. 

_1 Corinthians 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise;_

_Corinthians_ describe that in the world the story of Jezus look foolish still it holds the wisdom of God

So I also could not resist


----------



## riffz (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> ...



This thread had been going nicely, with respectful comments that are insightful, but I guess you had to ruin that streak.


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

riffz said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...



Well I disagree , I am Christian, but when I was not I had the same remarks as Stefan, we must acknowledge if you do not understand God it look foolish to believe. Since God's logic is reversed to what you feel. 

The bible states that in the world Christians will look foolish, gullible, easily manipulable people.


----------



## Rama (Dec 3, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> ...



If Ton would be willing to share his story how he became a christian?
*Note: This was a question to Ton.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> ...



I beat you by four hours. If we got our crew in here, this thing would be over within minutes.


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

qqwref said:


> If prayer really works, why do good Christians still die of cancer?



When I was not a Christian my mother who was a good Christian dies of cancer. 
Needles to say what I thought about God at that time, still this event was the trigger for me to investigate what was it my mother still believed in a God to die in such a horrible way.

So I wanted to know why my mother believed in God. So I went to a introduction course at a Church. As mathematics can accept axioma's just as an experiment , I accepted God. Just as you can accept axioma's. So I could see what kind of truth become from this....

So there is no answer to "why do good Christians still die of cancer", but I know God will use even the bad thing -not caused by God- to do good. From the dead of my mother I became a Christian.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton, in mathematics, you accept certain axioms. But, the difference between mathematics and the physical world is that math is a man-made creation. One plus one is two because we said so. If you make your system, you can define your axioms. But how is this true about the physical world, which we exist in, and did not create? Men did not create any natural laws, and I think people of all religions or lack thereof can agree on that statement.

By the way, for those of you that doubt that 1 + 1 = 2 does not need to be taken on faith, I urge you to research the definition of the number 2. 2 is the successor of 1. a + 1 = a' where a' is the successor of a. Therefore, 1 + 1 = 1' or 1 + 1 = 2.


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Ton, in mathematics, you accept certain axioms. But, the difference between mathematics and the physical world is that math is a man-made creation. One plus one is two because we said so. If you make your system, you can define your axioms. But how is this true about the physical world, which we exist in, and did not create? Men did not create any natural laws, and I think people of all religions or lack thereof can agree on that statement.
> 
> By the way, for those of you that doubt that 1 + 1 = 2 does not need to be taken on faith, I urge you to research the definition of the number 2. 2 is the successor of 1. a + 1 = a' where a' is the successor of a. Therefore, 1 + 1 = 1' or 1 + 1 = 2.



The point is that you can accept axioms without understanding them. The result is a truth from these axioms. So my point is axioms is accepting a truth without the need to understand. Just like you can accept God even if is does not make any sense , as I did....


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> The point is that you can accept axioms without understanding them. The result is a truth from these axioms. So my point is axioms is accepting a truth without the need to understand. Just like you can accept God even if is does not make any sense , as I did....



But how does this apply to mathematics? Which axiom in mathematics is accepted without being understood? The resulting truth from such accepted axioms is still man-made, and is the truth about an enclosed system.

Can you name any other assumption that people accept about the world which is not understood? An axiom is not accepting a truth. An axiom is to create a man-made system. Mathematics is a tool to help in calculating the physical world. It is by no means an explanation of the physical world itself.

Can you identify a single 'axiom' in anything that's not mathematics? Are there any in physics or chemistry? Or biology? I think you're confusing reality and how we model reality with mathematics.


----------



## Fusty (Dec 3, 2008)

I'm a non-theist, athiest or whatever.

The idea of a higher power is, to me, irrelevant and I don't spend much time considering it anymore. I find that no useful information can be gained by considering it anymore.

Yay buddhism though! It is a philosophy more than a religion. I carry a translation of the Dalai Lama's talks on the Four Noble Truths wherever I go.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 3, 2008)

infinitus said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > fanwuq said:
> ...






blade740 said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > By that definition, an atheist isn't someone who believes that there is no possibility of God existing. It means that they do not 100% believe that there is definitely a God existing.
> ...




I don't see how you two can think that all atheists do not think that there is a possibility of God existing with the true definition of 'atheist'.

This analogy that I gave above makes perfect sense. I'll write the analogy again:
I reject belief that the name of this guy sitting next to me is Richard Carr, but I still think there it is possibility that his name is Richard Carr.


----------



## ScottKidder (Dec 3, 2008)

> But if these was no Jesus that did crazy stuff then all the apostles wouldn't have run around willing to die for Him and there would have been no widely spreading religion for these early documents to write about.



Hitler had the same type of following. Jesus could have been a great, influential man who was also a great public speaker. In that time in history there was not as much structure and everyone was looking for someone to follow. Also, when leaders such as Constantine changed from paganism to Christianity, basically all of his people switched as well, which helped spread the religon.


----------



## Neroflux (Dec 3, 2008)

im a jedi.


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 3, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> infinitus said:
> 
> 
> > Lt-UnReaL said:
> ...



I can make a bigger quote treeeeee

And do you really think you know "the true definition of 'atheist'"? Semantic arguments are really pointless.


----------



## Escher (Dec 3, 2008)

maybe a better way of putting it might be...

God doesnt believe in atheists, but recognises that there is a possibility that atheists could exist.



but yes, i see your point.
the problem lies here however; if an atheist (by your definition) does not currently believe in God, yet accepts the possibility of 'his' existence, but will only ever be convinced if He is proved to exist, then they shall never believe in God. 
as far as we know...
- God cannot be proven to exist using the scientific method.
- God cannot be proven to exist using logic
- God cannot be proven NOT to exist using either of these, however.
The atheist only accepts these two methods as methods of proof, and NOT proof through experience (thus ruling out religious experience as a way to change his mind).
The atheist also wants to do the most rational thing. seeing as they cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and therefore shall never prove themself wrong...
then it is rational to assume that they should give up thinking about it, as they will never come to a conclusion.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 3, 2008)

Tyson said:


> By the way, for those of you that doubt that 1 + 1 = 2 does not need to be taken on faith, I urge you to research the definition of the number 2. 2 is the successor of 1. a + 1 = a' where a' is the successor of a. Therefore, 1 + 1 = 1' or 1 + 1 = 2.




[temporary thread hijack]

If you would like another proof that 1+1=2 I strongly urge you to research "surreal numbers". I took a 1 week seminar on surreal numbers in high school, and it was absolutely fascinating. They define an entirely new number system, from scratch, which is structured very differently from our own. Needless to say, despite a completely different structure, the numbers behave in exactly the same way as our own. You can use this new structure to define what "1" is in surreal numbers, and define what "2" is. Then you can prove, using the structure of addition, that 1+1=2. It's pretty cool stuff. Check out "Surreal numbers" by David Knuth for more info.

Chris

P.S. Surreal numbers does define "2" as the successor to "1". But it also allows you to define numbers in successive groups. In surreal numbers the numbers were created in a certain order. 0 was the original number. After 0 "-1" and "1" were then created. After that "-2" "2" "1/2" "-1/2" were created, etc. You have to know which number is "older" when performing operations on numbers or comparing them using "less than" or "greater than". This is quite different from our number system, but this new number system behaves exactly like our own, it's crazy cool.

[end temporary thread hijack]


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that you can accept axioms without understanding them. The result is a truth from these axioms. So my point is axioms is accepting a truth without the need to understand. Just like you can accept God even if is does not make any sense , as I did....
> ...



Well if you have studied topology, there are a lot of axioms I never understood, still I could use them.But you miss my point, I compare accepting the concept of God with accepting axioms. If one would deny an mathematic axiom , you are stuck you can not do any math that use these axioms. This is just like if you deny God, you will not understand it.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> David Knuth


Oh, the blasphemy... that's like saying Edwin Rubik or Malcolm Jordan. Dude!


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > Ton said:
> ...



I think you're missing my point. My point is that you shouldn't be accepting an axiom you don't understand to begin with. Which axioms in topology do you not understand? Maybe I can help explain them.

Math doesn't function without axioms because math is a man-made system. The world functions without the idea of a god. Keep in mind, the god that you speak of is different than the god of many people in the world. In fact, very few, if any at all, probably have the same concept of a deity as you do. Proof (not really, but kind of close): If the world required your idea of god to function, societies which do not believe in the same religion as you would not exist. Since there are societies that exist and believe in something different from your belief system, your idea of god is not required for them to function.

We accept axioms because there is a reason if we want to utilize the system of math. I don't think there are any axioms in the natural world. In fact, I would challenge anyone to come up with something in the natural world that must be taken on faith, and does not have supporting evidence.

Lastly, axioms are very simple statements. They are starting points. Your idea of a god, or a deity, or whatever supernatural is not a starting point, but the conclusion or the explanation for everything. To put the explanation for everything as your axiom is to shoot yourself in the logical foot, and prevent you from actually examining the system for what it is.

Example of an axiom: When an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results.

Look how simple and self-evident that statement is. And, there is evidence for this. I could perform an experiment where I take one tablespoon of sugar. And I compare it to another tablespoon of sugar. And both samples are one tablespoon of sugar.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > David Knuth
> ...



!!


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

Tyson said:


> If we got our crew in here, this thing would be over within minutes.



You honestly think you can counterbalance years of brainwashing with a few minutes of reasoning? Ha!

I sure hope both of you are just practicing for debate club. What a tremendous waste of time this would otherwise be...


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > If we got our crew in here, this thing would be over within minutes.
> ...



Hah, you're right. I know in the end you can't win with logic and reason if you're fighting with someone who doesn't follow logic and reason. But of course by 'over,' I never meant that we would convince people of one opinion or another. I really meant more that we would have one side unable to cope with the sheer volume of logical and rational arguments, that they would be reduced to nothing more than a senile dribbling of incoherent ramblings.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> As mathematics can accept axioma's just as an experiment , I accepted God. Just as you can accept axioma's. So I could see what kind of truth become from this....



You didn't just "accept god". You accepted a full-blown specific religion. That's nothing like an axiom. Please don't insult mathematics and the human intellect.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 3, 2008)

Axioms are very simple statements that are pretty much self-evident. An axiom like "right angles are equal to each other" is a very simple statement. We accepts these, because they're fairly obvious and they can't be disproved.

Stefan Pochmann is cool.

See, another axiom.

On Tuesday, Stefan Pochmann is extra cool.

Not an axiom. But fairly obvious to show.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

It's Wednesday. Plus let's not get personal in unreasonable ways. If at all, claim meaningful one-liners being cool as axiom, and then deduce.

Edit: Or whatever reason you had, of course. Plus that didn't dig deep enough, I can explain why I like good one-liners, so need to claim that as axiom.


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > As mathematics can accept axioma's just as an experiment , I accepted God. Just as you can accept axioma's. So I could see what kind of truth become from this....
> ...



Sorry, religion is something else as believe in God. You can not assume that if someone believe must follow a specific religion. Believe in God is not follow rules made by people -which is my translation to religion-.

You assume you know what it is when you believe. You do not know, you can not know. btw it is point less to use terms as insult, I did not insult any one.


----------



## tim (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Ton said:
> ...



Where does the term "god" comes from in the first place? I've never heard it outside of a religion.


----------



## Dene (Dec 3, 2008)

brunson said:


> First of all, to quote My Cousin Vinny: Your honor, it's a ******** question.
> 
> You are asking him to provide a logical argument against a premise unfounded in logic. You have proscribed a supernatural being as the creator of the universe. You may as well say it was magic. Why does fire burn? Magic. Why do the stars shine? Magic. Why does light behave both as a wave and a particle? Magic. Why do people get sick and die? Black Magic.
> 
> ...



No no no no no.
You've missed my point. I'll try to say it this way:
Religion has an answer for the origins of the physical world, no it is not a scientific answer.
SCIENTIFIC LAWS say that there HAS TO BE an origin of existence, but also say that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an origin of existence. Science contradicts itself in trying to find an origin.
I'm not comparing this to religion, what I'm saying is, science is stuck in the mud here.

Excuse the caps, I think they are more suitable than italics. (I'm not yelling  ).

EDIT: This is at Mr. Pochmann: Unfortunately youtube is lagging at the moment so I can't watch the video (I look forward to it!)
Gar. I wrote a whole lot of stuff but it wasn't coming out right, so nevermind. But you and Tyson are right: you can't use logic on people who aren't using logic (in the strict sense). Have you read about Tolstoy? (I'm not using him as my all defending argument, but just something for you to consider).


----------



## Ton (Dec 3, 2008)

tim said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



First God is our naming , God calls himself "I am" . Religion is not what you can find in the Bible. In most case religion means man made rules.


----------



## brunson (Dec 3, 2008)

Dene said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, to quote My Cousin Vinny: Your honor, it's a ******** question.
> ...


I see what you're saying, you're right, I missed your point at first.

However, just because we don't understand something in science doesn't mean it isn't true. Before we understood microbiology people still got bacterial infections. Before we understood oxidation and combustion people still cooked their food. We don't understand wave particle duality, but we can observe it in the dual slit experiment. Just because we don't know what the origin of the universe is doesn't mean it didn't come into existence, because it obviously did.

There are many theories that may eventually explain phenomena that we don't currently understand, but proscribing them to god undermines the goals of science. If we write off the origins of the universe by saying, "God created the universe and that's that, we'll never understand it," then we simply stagnate. What if people had said, "People get sick and die because god wants them to and there is nothing we'll ever be able to do about it." If that were the case wouldn't have modern medicine today.

All that being said, no amount of logical understanding of natural phenomena can every disprove the existence of god, simply because believers have defined him to be supernatural. The definition of science is the quest for *natural* explanations of natural phenomena, therefore a supernatural being cannot have any place in science.


----------



## brunson (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> First God is our naming , God calls himself "I am" . Religion is not what you can find in the Bible. In most case religion means man made rules.


I think he calls himself "Je suis." ;-)


----------



## Stefan (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> You can not assume that if someone believe must follow a specific religion.


I didn't. You told us. And I agree, from god to a religion it's another huge leap of superstition. Why did you take it?



Ton said:


> You assume you know what it is when you believe.


See, that's the problem. You know you don't know but still preach as if you did.


----------



## Dene (Dec 3, 2008)

Yes, don't get me wrong, I love science. My whole life is devoted to it. The problem is though, this cae is not a "lack of kowledge", it is in fact actually a direct contradiction of scientific laws. Now, these laws could be disproven, but it would have to be a radical change. The laws I am talkign about are (in my own wording):
Nothing comes from nothing.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 3, 2008)

Dene said:


> No no no no no.
> You've missed my point. I'll try to say it this way:
> Religion has an answer for the origins of the physical world, no it is not a scientific answer.
> SCIENTIFIC LAWS say that there HAS TO BE an origin of existence, but also say that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an origin of existence. Science contradicts itself in trying to find an origin.
> ...



Where does scientific law ever say that it is impossible for there to be an origin of existence?

Also, how does religion explain the origin of the physical world? All it says is that God did it, it doesn't explain that the matter comes from old supernovae, or how long it took before the sun started fusing hydrogen, or how humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor, or how the techtonic plates on the earth's crust move, or how mitochondrial DNA gets passed down from mother to daughter, etc. Religion is a blindfold that people use to explain natural phenomena until people learn better explanations for them through science.

Religion also has the nasty habit of slowing down humanity's intellectual progress, when it held Galileo hostage for saying that the earth orbits the sun, or even today, when it tries to argue against teaching evolution in schools or researching stem cells.



Ton said:


> As mathematics can accept axioma's just as an experiment , I accepted God. Just as you can accept axioma's. So I could see what kind of truth become from this....



Well of course -- once you accept god, then you believe in god. That doesn't really help your argument, though.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 3, 2008)

Dene said:


> Yes, don't get me wrong, I love science. My whole life is devoted to it. The problem is though, this cae is not a "lack of kowledge", it is in fact actually a direct contradiction of scientific laws. Now, these laws could be disproven, but it would have to be a radical change. The laws I am talkign about are (in my own wording):
> Nothing comes from nothing.
> Energy is neither created nor destroyed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 3, 2008)

Escher said:


> maybe a better way of putting it might be...
> 
> God doesnt believe in atheists, but recognises that there is a possibility that atheists could exist.
> 
> ...


I still don't see what the problem was with my definition, and what was your point, exactly?


----------



## blade740 (Dec 3, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> This analogy that I gave above makes perfect sense. I'll write the analogy again:
> I reject belief that the name of this guy sitting next to me is Richard Carr, but I still think there it is possibility that his name is Richard Carr.



It's not just "not believing" it's "rejecting belief" If you reject belief, you say there's no way you would believe. You never will believe. You CAN'T believe. I reject belief because I don't see any way I could believe. 

The name of the person sitting next to you is mostly up to chance. There are X Richard Carr's in the world, Y people in the world, etc. I reject belief in a supreme being not because I think the odds are low. I think it is IMPOSSIBLE.


----------



## Escher (Dec 3, 2008)

reading that post now... i do write a LOT of ********. and i didnt really have a point.

i dont have a problem with your definition at all, i think its very good, i just thought it would be mildly funny if i turned the situation around (terry pratchett style).

EDIT

i _think_ my point was that this argument is really, really stupid...

i think atheists cant prove religion is wrong, & religious people cant prove atheists are wrong, so both are stupid for trying.

and i think as long as religion and state are seperate then people can believe whatever crap they like.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 3, 2008)

Escher said:


> and i think as long as religion and state are seperate then people can believe whatever crap they like.



If only we were fortunate enough to live in such a society...


----------



## blade740 (Dec 3, 2008)

leyanlo said:


> Escher said:
> 
> 
> > and i think as long as religion and state are seperate then people can believe whatever crap they like.
> ...



Escher lives in britain, not the USA (though I'm not sure how the separation is there)


----------



## Escher (Dec 3, 2008)

we have the Church of England 

nuff said


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 3, 2008)

Think about this:

We all know that everything must have a start, a beginning. But what we can't explain is how things were created, and how it all started. Our minds are unable to comprehend them. Since they didn't appear from nowhere, there must be something/someone more advanced than us that can comprehend, and create things from nothing. That is what I think of when I hear the word "God". Isn't that a logical explanation?

Your definition of God might be different. If so what would it be?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 3, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Pray to the almighty milk jug


If the milk was still good after I waited for my $1000 for six months, I think I would say that the milk is worth worshipping.



Lt-UnReaL said:


> stuff


Look, you have a different definition than we do, that's all there is to it. A lot of people (i.e. not you) divide nonbelievers into two types, the "atheist" who believes gods cannot exist, and the "agnostic" who doesn't believe in any god but still thinks it's possible that there is one. You don't need to continually insult our intelligence/reading skills, you are NOWHERE near good enough at arguing that we will instantly agree with you just because we have read what you have to say.



Escher said:


> and i think as long as religion and state are seperate then people can believe whatever crap they like.


This is pretty much the reason I keep voting for (EDIT: not _electing_, silly me) Democrats actually... They might be scumbags (well, all politicians are), but at least they don't explicitly try to make this country follow Christian values like homophobia, abstinence-only sex ed, etc...



nitrocan said:


> Since they didn't appear from nowhere, there must be something/someone more advanced than us that can comprehend, and create things from nothing.


Or not. Maybe everything was always here. Maybe time as we know it is circular and not linear, so there actually is no 'beginning', and very far in the future our universe will end in a big crunch which will immediately afterward create a big bang and start the exact same universe up again, 13 billion years 'ago'. The beauty of science is that there are always alternatives, even if you don't yet know what they are. Not knowing the truth is no excuse for clinging to some kind of magical, supernatural force as an explanation. Again, it's fine to just say "I don't know, we need more information to figure this out".

Besides, where did God come from? If nothing can exist without a creator, any creator must have a creator and so on ad infinitum... Or else, if God can exist without a creator, it's not a contradiction to suppose the universe can too.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 3, 2008)

qqwref said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Since they didn't appear from nowhere, there must be something/someone more advanced than us that can comprehend, and create things from nothing.
> ...



Let's just hope that this Cern experiment will enlighten us.

Although I don't know how science (or this experiment) will explain the existence of the materials that were originally there that caused the explosion.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 3, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> If god created the universe, etc....
> Then what created god?



May be first self quote.
But really I need an answer


----------



## riffz (Dec 3, 2008)

Ton said:


> riffz said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...



I understand how he feels and I'm not asking him to change that. He should say what he thinks, but the ad hominem insults take the argument nowhere.


----------



## qinbomaster (Dec 3, 2008)

anyone every wonder if the higher ups in the church were just trying to control a large part of humanity?


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 3, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > If god created the universe, etc....
> ...


(God created itself. God is recursive...)

God is the father. The father is the person who teaches the child how to apprehend the world and justify it. The child is not interested in knowing where the father comes from. So, the question is irrelevant.


----------



## shelley (Dec 3, 2008)

Why is it irrelevant to question where god came from? You say god created the universe because everything must have a creator. But you don't attribute a creator to the existence of god. You haven't answered any questions and in fact have introduced more.

If you have no trouble accepting that god was "always there" and needed no creator, why can't you accept the possibility that all the matter and energy that makes up the universe needed no divine creator?


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 3, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why is it irrelevant to question where god came from?


Irrelevant for people who believe, and I'm trying to imagine the reason.
Otherwise, I like questions (Hey! I'm not the one who said god created the universe!), and I'm thinking of many more that haven't been asked in the thread, but we're only at message #235... ;-)


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Exactly. Blind faith discourages asking questions and thinking and understanding for yourself. Life is too short and the world we live in is too magnificent to go through it with that kind of attitude.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 4, 2008)

gogozerg said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



explain how something non existent (god) creates something supposively existent (again god) :confused: :confused:


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

I think that is the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians... they believed in many deities, but one of them was SO powerful that he actually created himself from nothing! 

gogozerg: I'm interested in where my father came from. His parents are cool people.


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 4, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> gogozerg said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...




That's actually an interesting question.

I personally believe God isn't a physical being. He's not made up of matter, he's more like a spiritual being. If he was indeed a physical being, how would he be omnipotent and omnipresent?

Thus... our understanding of matter and energy may not apply to God.

That's just what I think though.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

Yes, but where did the 'spirit' of god come from? Didn't that have to be created?

If it didn't, I suppose you'd have the situation of everyone's soul having been around since the beginning of time, and god simply creating the people/animals to put souls into. But that doesn't seem quite right.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> I think that is the philosophy of the ancient Egyptians... they believed in many deities, but one of them was SO powerful that he actually created himself from nothing!
> 
> *gogozerg: I'm interested in where my father came from. His parents are cool people*.



Lol 

Dcf1337: If god is not existing/made of matter, but just a SPIRITUAL being as you say, then how come others people's beliefs and THEIR own spirtual beliefs can't be true as well? is there only one CORRECT spiritual being?


----------



## infinitus (Dec 4, 2008)

There are still people who believe in the Sun God, the Rain God, Thunder God, blah blah blah, and also the Flat Earth Society.

And they are never going away.


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> gogozerg: I'm interested in where my father came from. His parents are cool people.


Were you interested in knowing this when you were much younger, when you were maybe considering him more like a character playing only the very special spiritual role of the Father in the play of your life than like a 'simple' person?

Didn't Freud explained "God" as "Father version 2" and religion as infantile neurotic mechanisms coming with it?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

LOL @ "for someone with a "round-Earth" (RE) background, the FE theory would appear at first glance to have some glaring holes" and "the Flat/Sphere debate"

This is either really sad, or a really awesome bunch of satirists.



gogozerg said:


> Were you interested in knowing this when you were much younger, when you were maybe considering him more like a character playing only the very special spiritual role of the Father in the play of your life than like a 'simple' person?



I think that as soon as you learn where you come from, it should be a pretty obvious step to wonder where other people come from. And these kind of questions are even more natural and obvious to bring up when you are older and are more accustomed to logical thought, right?


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > stuff
> ...



I'm sure that there is only one constant definition of atheist, why would people have different ones? Anyway, you still didn't explain how I used the definition wrong to explain how an atheist could still see the possibility of God existing...and I didn't mean to insult anyone, if I did.




blade740 said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > This analogy that I gave above makes perfect sense. I'll write the analogy again:
> ...


"If you reject belief, you say there's no way you would believe."
Right, because you(not necessarily YOU, anyone) don't know if God exists or not.

"You never will believe. You CAN'T believe."
Right, for the same reason above.

"I reject belief because I don't see any way I could believe."
Exactly, there's no way you could believe, because it is impossible to tell if God exists or not.

With that, it still shows that an atheist could believe the possibility of a God. Maybe if the definition of atheist was something along the lines of "believes that Gods cannot exist", then it would make sense, at least to me.


----------



## infinitus (Dec 4, 2008)

http://www.google.com.sg/search?q=d...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Definitions of "Atheist"

# related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
# someone who *denies the existence of god*
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

#Someone who believes that *there is no God.*
www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

#Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans. *Atheism rejects god concepts.* Atheists and theists are the individuals guided by those belief systems.
www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/docs_files/saint_files/terms.htm


Shall we stick to this definition for this thread? And for those people who don't worship any god but believe that there are, shall we call them agnostics? Lt-UnReaL, your definition is somehow mixing atheists and agnostics up.. that's pretty messy if you ask me.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 4, 2008)

Assume this: God is infinite, as believed in the Christian/Islamic/Jewish faith.

Since God is infinite, He is infinitely complex.

God, in the beginning, created the 4th dimension - otherwise interpreted as time. Contained within this 4th dimension, the 3rd dimension existed.
Let us make it straight: without time, matter cease to exist, and the existence of matter demands the existence of time, otherwise it would contradict each other and thus cancel out.
Again, about the complexity of God: the Spirit of God as in the Christian faith; since we are created from infinity, we are FROM infinity, and if you realize, we ARE finite  finiteness limits everything that we can possibly comprehend the infinite? Again, infinity...is mathematically complex by itself.

I used to believe in atheistic evolution; but I got compelled by the existence of something called chance. Its like believing that matter+time+chance can create you and me, and that the moral laws that us, humans, are govern with, are the by-product of random mutation. It is like saying something, called truth, or rather, truth, that is not matter, had a beginning of a chemical soup in....the early days of earth? By the way.....that chemical soup theory is flawed; primitive Earth DOES not have the right gas mixtures for it to happen =P

Truth is absolute, yet time and matter is not constant, thus this truth that we seek of, or otherwise, the morality of humankind, is non-existent, because of the fluctuation of time, matter, and chance.

Okay I got bored.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 4, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> Assume this: God is infinite, as believed in the Christian/Islamic/Jewish faith.
> 
> Since God is infinite, He is infinitely complex.
> 
> ...



Nice! I've heard your argument before, and that really made me lose faith in Atheism.
Pascal's wager is also quite interesting. Shall we return to discuss that?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> Since God is infinite, He is infinitely complex.


An infinite flat plane isn't infinitely complex by most definitions of complexity. I don't agree with you. Also I am not sure if "omnipresent" implies "infinite".



rachmaninovian said:


> Let us make it straight: without time, matter cease to exist, and the existence of matter demands the existence of time, otherwise it would contradict each other and thus cancel out.
> ...
> It is like saying something, called truth, or rather, truth, that is not matter, had a beginning of a chemical soup in....the early days of earth?
> ...
> ...


...what?



rachmaninovian said:


> By the way.....that chemical soup theory is flawed; primitive Earth DOES not have the right gas mixtures for it to happen =P


Proof? Or have you personally been there?


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

leyanlo said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, don't get me wrong, I love science. My whole life is devoted to it. The problem is though, this cae is not a "lack of kowledge", it is in fact actually a direct contradiction of scientific laws. Now, these laws could be disproven, but it would have to be a radical change. The laws I am talkign about are (in my own wording):
> ...



Physical exisitence cannot have an origin because, as I say, energy cannot be created, it must always be there.
I couldn't figure out how vacuum energy is relevant?
Also, I do support the big bang theory, despite the fact that it is so young in development, with gaping holes in it. This isn't a problem for my views though, with big bang, the energy is still there in all the "heat and density".

qq: God does not need an origin, as a spiritual being, he is infinite. You are attacking God from a physical perspective, saying he needs to have been created too. But we are dealing with this potentially existing "spiritual stuff", not physical stuff, and this stuff might not need an origin.


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> rachmaninovian said:
> 
> 
> > Let us make it straight: without time, matter cease to exist, and the existence of matter demands the existence of time, otherwise it would contradict each other and thus cancel out.
> ...



Yeah... what? Rhetoric without any sound science or logic? Oh.

Who are you to say matter can't exist without time? What is the contradiction? And why does your "4th dimension" require a "3rd dimension"? And on a less concrete note, when is morality/truth ever absolute? Umm... et cetera?


On another note, I thought this was really cool... maybe God is just someone in a desert.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 4, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Think about this:
> 
> We all know that everything must have a start, a beginning. But what we can't explain is how things were created, and how it all started. Our minds are unable to comprehend them. Since they didn't appear from nowhere, there must be something/someone more advanced than us that can comprehend, and create things from nothing. That is what I think of when I hear the word "God". Isn't that a logical explanation?
> 
> Your definition of God might be different. If so what would it be?



Why does everything have to have a start, or a beginning? I don't think we understand time, or space-time well enough to make that claim.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 4, 2008)

gogozerg said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



This is so devoid of logic, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Poe's Law.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> leyanlo said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Augh, triple post. Okay, I'll go practice violin... but...

This "god" that you talk of, do you acknowledge the possibility that he is dressed like an elf and is named Lee? This "unknowable" thing you're talking about can never be known, but are you saying it's some generic thing, or are you telling us it's the Christian concept of god?


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 4, 2008)

Tyson said:


> Poe's Law.



Hmm, good point. Makes me wonder.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 4, 2008)

NASA's reports show that primitive earth has not the correct gaseous mixture required for the chemical soup theory to be....true


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 4, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> NASA's reports show that primitive earth has not the correct gaseous mixture required for the chemical soup theory to be....true



Now I know that you're only joking.


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

Tyson said:


> This "god" that you talk of, do you acknowledge the possibility that he is dressed like an elf and is named Lee? This "unknowable" thing you're talking about can never be known, but are you saying it's some generic thing, or are you telling us it's the Christian concept of god?



What does it matter what this "god" looks like? This "god" is a "supernatural" being, so we can't apply our physical laws to it.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 4, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> NASA's reports show that primitive earth has not the correct gaseous mixture required for the chemical soup theory to be....true



NASA reports also say that I was going to win my chess game tonight. Why should I believe you? You're sounding like the guy who says, "No no no... my friend can totally solve a Rubik's Cube in 5 seconds with his eyes closed!"

Please provide a citation. You should be able to easily show me the source for something like that.

And EVEN IF NASA did release this report, it doesn't mean that the Christian concept of creation is true. That's like saying, "Well, I have proven that my computer isn't crashing because of the RAM. It must be crashing because of the unicorns inside the CPU!" Showing evidence against one claim doesn't make another one true. Showing evidence in support of a claim is what provides evidence to suggest that perhaps a model is accurate.

But let's not digress. I knew very well that this discussion would become very unfocused. Atheists and agnostics could probably argue over the existence of "god" for awhile. I don't even think that most atheists say outright that there is no possibility of a "god" but the term "god" is very loosely defined.

Let's start first by debating whether or not it is rational to believe in the Christian concept of god and the Christian concept of creation and the Christian concept of rewards and punishments. After all, most people here in support of "god" seem to be Christian, and it is also the world's most popular religion.

I would like to see the discussion to be simply about why you do or do not believe in Christianity. And after that's done, if any Muslims or Scientologists want to get into this, we can go there.

But I think most people here with a bit of logical foresight see exactly what's going to happen. But I know not everyone does... so let's let it happen. Again, please tell us why you believe in Christianity. And not why you believe in "god" because the term "god" has been butchered, and we would not be able to settle on a definition anytime soon.


----------



## Tyson (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> Tyson said:
> 
> 
> > This "god" that you talk of, do you acknowledge the possibility that he is dressed like an elf and is named Lee? This "unknowable" thing you're talking about can never be known, but are you saying it's some generic thing, or are you telling us it's the Christian concept of god?
> ...



It DOES matter. Because people will take your arguments about "god" and claim that Christianity is the answer. If it doesn't matter, then I don't really have any qualms about what you're saying. You're basically saying that we can't understand the unknowable. You're saying that we can't understand things that we can't understand and we can't understand things that transcend thought. The reason I wanted to make that very clear is that people will take your argument, and use it as a lead to suggest the truth to a very specific case of the unknowable: Christianity.

And the only reason why we're using Christianity here, and not Scientology, is because Christianity has been the main subject of this thread. Again, I'm not going to be biased. If you want to do this with Scientology, we can do that after.


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 4, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> cmhardw said:
> 
> 
> > David Knuth
> ...



Blasphemy duly noted, and not to be repeated :-S

Chris


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> LOL @ "for someone with a "round-Earth" (RE) background, the FE theory would appear at first glance to have some glaring holes" and "the Flat/Sphere debate"
> 
> This is either really sad, or a really awesome bunch of satirists.



Actually wery serious people, what they do is showing us that the theorys we belive in are wery discussable.

You are as stupid if you totaly deny as you are if you totaly belive in a theory that is not proven... Like saying "there is no god" or "there is a god", how do you know?

Come on, we can make up endless of theorys about the supernatural (call it "God" if you like) but statistically they will all be equally untrue (because we have no information at all, just guesses).

----
"But hey, I got proof, god was talking to me"... 

OK, you heard that voice in your head, better go and see a doctor then, you are probably schizo in some manner =)

Or maybe someone placed an inplant in your head, using it for "telepathy" pretending to be "god" just to make you his slave 

*How do you know?*


----------



## cmhardw (Dec 4, 2008)

Kenneth said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > LOL @ "for someone with a "round-Earth" (RE) background, the FE theory would appear at first glance to have some glaring holes" and "the Flat/Sphere debate"
> ...



Not that I am directing this at anyone in particular, this is a very open ended question to all, but hasn't it been shown that fluid-like (viscous?) matter in a vacuum tends to form into a spherical shape as the lowest state of energy? So assuming the possibility of a flat earth perspective clearly violates this particular topic as it relates to the properties of matter in a vacuum.

Also, how do they refute Magellan's circumnavigation of the earth? Or the current abilites of airlines to fly continually east and arrive back at where they started from?

I'm confused on how people can take such a theory seriously.... I read the first page of the site, but it sounds an awful lot like:

"RAWR Government conspiracy RAWR you're all blind to the truth RAWR"

Chris


----------



## Kenneth (Dec 4, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> "RAWR Government conspiracy RAWR you're all blind to the truth RAWR"



Government? No, that's to simple, they are only marionettes 

Kenneth Gustavsson (the conspiracy theorist).


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

Tyson: I just want to be sure of what you're asking:
Is it something like "why do people choose one particular "god" over another? How do they justify that?"

My response would be something like this: The most convincing religious influence on me is Jesus. Now Jesus himself was a Jew, but as we all know, it's the same god (which reminds me of a classic funny scene on Family Guy where Peter goes to a synagogue and says something like "I hope we don't have to donate money here because we donated at church last week, and I'm pretty certain it all goes to the same god"). LOL Family Guy ftw.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

It's not quite the same god. Christianity and Judaism share the Old Testament and their conception of the 'father' god figure, but Christianity also has Jesus and the new testament, and from what I've seen I get the feeling that they talk/think about Jesus a lot more than the father god. So, even though they share elements, it would be wrong to think of them as both praying to the same deity.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 4, 2008)

cmhardw said:


> Not that I am directing this at anyone in particular, this is a very open ended question to all, but hasn't it been shown that fluid-like (viscous?) matter in a vacuum tends to form into a spherical shape as the lowest state of energy? So assuming the possibility of a flat earth perspective clearly violates this particular topic as it relates to the properties of matter in a vacuum.



Many of them are biblical literalists, and so believe the earth was created flat. Scientific laws do not apply.



> Also, how do they refute Magellan's circumnavigation of the earth? Or the current abilites of airlines to fly continually east and arrive back at where they started from?



They claim the earth is a disc, and all these paths of travel are curved. Look at the United Nations flag. A view of the earth from the north pole. That's their map.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> leyanlo said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



The big bang theory explains the origin of physical existence.
Vacuum energy is the principle that something can come from nothing.





Tyson said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this:
> ...



Exactly! This is where the big bang gets a little interesting. See, space and time are linked together, and neither of them existed before the big bang. To think that there was nothing first, and then suddenly there was the big bang followed by the universe is a misconception, because before the big bang, *there was no time*.

_"The big bang wasn't an event in space, it was an event of space, and it wasn't an event in time, it was an event of time," says Simon Singh, author of a recent book on the topic. "So you're almost forbidden to ask" - although at signings and lectures, he says, people always do. Elaborating on an analogy that Hawking briefly mentioned, Singh goes on: "What's north of London? Edinburgh. What's north of Edinburgh? The north pole. What's north of the north pole? You can't even ask the question, because the very concept of northness is born at the north pole."_ - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1591913,00.html

More:
http://www.helium.com/items/631583-the-time-paradox-of-the-big-bang-theory


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

Erm, are you saying that the "heat and density" was not anything physical? Not even at some miniscule molecular level?

EDIT: I should make it clearer, that by physical I don't necessarily mean something that can be touched, but something that contains energy. (which is probably a bad definition).


----------



## Erik (Dec 4, 2008)

meh, all you do is argue about things you all don't know. No theory (big bang or god-like) explains everything without the result of having unknown things. 

All you guys are doing is trying to point out the questions that arrise at the other persons belief. It's only people like Tyson who I presume are atheist keep on pointing at what they feel are unanswered questions in mostly the christian believings.

I don't really understand why you are doing that.

- do you want to make fun of the people believing in god?
- are you interested in why and how they believe in god? If you are you are not taking a very handy position to ask your questions from as they seem almost hostile sometimes.
- are you thinking that believing in god is a wrong thing to do? 
- are you trying to convince the people who believe in god that it's a wrong thing to do?? If so, then I think it's disrespectful and pretty pointless


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 4, 2008)

I just do it for the lulz

I kinda make fun of them, but I also want to know arguments to believe in a god.
I also make fun of atheists, actually, I actually got my physics teacher last year to rethink his believes (he still ended up at atheism again, but still)

He said, "if god exists, why is there so much evil in the world"
and I convinced him evil doesn't exist

does cold exist? no, it's just the absence of heat
does dark exist? no, it's just the absence of licht
so does evil exist?, or is it just the absence of go(o)d?


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

fazrulz said:


> Musselman said:
> 
> 
> > waffle=ijm said:
> ...



Confusing Cause and Effect Logical Fallacy



ManuK said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > I think the upshot is... believing in any God is better than believing in none, because you have some chance of getting eternal bliss... so you should choose the religion with the MOST deities, because then you have the highest chance of a good afterlife!
> ...



Which would make this the appeal to popularity Logical Fallacy  .



Rama said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > If people pray for someone to get better in illness, or be lucky, and they get it, it's god, but if they don't get it, they don't connect it to god in any way?
> ...



Oh wow, I'm not even going to start on this.



gogozerg said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



Circular reasoning logical fallacy in its most true form. When you ask the question "If god created the universe then what created god?" You are already under the premise that God exists so if you say God created itself then its circular reasoning. This in fact also makes his question extremely flawed because since its trying to offer evidence for God doesn't exist (I assume).



Erik said:


> meh, all you do is argue about things you all don't know. No theory (big bang or god-like) explains everything without the result of having unknown things.
> 
> All you guys are doing is trying to point out the questions that arrise at the other persons belief. It's only people like Tyson who I presume are atheist keep on pointing at what they feel are unanswered questions in mostly the christian believings.
> 
> ...



Healthy debate 



d4m4s74 said:


> I just do it for the lulz
> 
> I kinda make fun of them, but I also want to know arguments to believe in a god.
> I also make fun of atheists, actually, I actually got my physics teacher last year to rethink his believes (he still ended up at atheism again, but still)
> ...



That is just messing with the definition of the words.

So does God exist? or is God just the absence of knowledge? 

I'll be back after school with more.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 4, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> I just do it for the lulz
> 
> I kinda make fun of them, but I also want to know arguments to believe in a god.
> I also make fun of atheists, actually, I actually got my physics teacher last year to rethink his believes (he still ended up at atheism again, but still)
> ...



Does good exist, or is it just absence of evil?
And the dark one doesn't make sense. Darkness(shadow) is absence of light.

If you don't do good things, are you doing bad things? Good and bad aren't like night and day. For example, if I am walking in front of a group of people towards a single building and I don't hold open the door, am I considered evil? No, I'm just not as chivalrous as others. Now, if I turn around, hold the door long enough for someone to get halfway through, and slam it on them, then that's bad.

The cold/no heat argument only works because there is always thermal energy in an object. And maybe your physics teacher just pretended to submit to stop the deluge of stupid coming from your mouth seeing as only the first sentence makes sense. Now, was I being mean just then, or not being nice? Yes to both. Was it the fact that I wasn't being nice that made that statement mean? No.


----------



## rachmaninovian (Dec 4, 2008)

if there is no evil, there cannot be good. simple as that.
good and evil exist as pairs. you cannot deny it.


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 4, 2008)

dark absense of light, little mistake


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

perhaps, but its all relative.

unless you are theist, good and evil are just human constructs anyway.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 4, 2008)

d4m4s74 said:


> He said, "if god exists, why is there so much evil in the world"


Why does he assume that a god has to have no evil in the world?


----------



## d4m4s74 (Dec 4, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > He said, "if god exists, why is there so much evil in the world"
> ...



dunno, maybe because in his eyes god is the personification of good


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Erik said:


> - are you trying to convince the people who believe in god that it's a wrong thing to do?? If so, then I think it's disrespectful and pretty pointless



Is it disrespectful and pointless to convince someone a potentially harmful belief/point of view is wrong?

Okay, I can see how it would be pointless to try to reverse years of indoctrination with a few forum posts. But why does religion command respect, while we scoff at people who honestly believe breaking a mirror will bring them bad luck? (Or for a more relatable example for this crowd, all the idiots on YouTube who repost chain comments because they think something bad will happen if they don't)

Religion is just another system of baseless beliefs and superstition. Just because it's been around longer doesn't make it more right. I will respect your right to believe what you want, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't question it.


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

Shelley, you have to admit religious beliefs are not necessarily baseless. I for one believe that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again. You might choose to disbelieve it, although I would expect a strong justification on your part of that. There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.


----------



## (X) (Dec 4, 2008)

OK,(IM GOING TO TYPE THIS POST IN CAPS SO MORE PEOPLE WILL NOTICE IT)YOU CHRISTIANS OUT THERE, HAVE YOU READ THE BIBLE??? WELL, CHECK OUT THE Deuteronomy, CHAPTER 13, JUST READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER IT ISNT BIG, SURE MADE ME LAUGH. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BIBLE, I CAN REVEAL THAT GOD SAYS THAT IF ANYONE SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD WORSHIP OTHER GODS YOU SHOULD STONE THAT PERSON TO DEATH, EVEN IF IT'S YOUR OWN BROTHER. 

YEAH, JUST CHECK IT OUT IF YOU DON'T BELEAVE ME.


----------



## Dene (Dec 4, 2008)

(X): The fact that there is vicious stuff in The Bible is not news to anyone...


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

(X): Who said that the Bible is the same as its original?


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 4, 2008)

(X) said:


> OK,(IM GOING TO TYPE THIS POST IN CAPS SO MORE PEOPLE WILL NOTICE IT)YOU CHRISTIANS OUT THERE, HAVE YOU READ THE BIBLE??? WELL, CHECK OUT THE Deuteronomy, CHAPTER 13, JUST READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER IT ISNT BIG, SURE MADE ME LAUGH. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BIBLE, I CAN REVEAL THAT GOD SAYS THAT IF ANYONE SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD WORSHIP OTHER GODS YOU SHOULD STONE THAT PERSON TO DEATH, EVEN IF IT'S YOUR OWN BROTHER.
> 
> YEAH, JUST CHECK IT OUT IF YOU DON'T BELEAVE ME.



For those of you without a bible:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/13.html


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> Shelley, you have to admit religious beliefs are not necessarily baseless. I for one believe that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again. You might choose to disbelieve it, although I would expect a strong justification on your part of that. There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.



You're right -- the Bible should not be rejected just because it is the Bible. It must be rejected because of its contents.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.



But why are you accepting books of the Bible just because they are in the Bible (and that makes them reliable)? Isn't that a bit unfair too? I think the whole idea of the Bible is circular: if you already follow the Judeo-Christian beliefs you will regard the Bible as truth, but if you don't believe it then you will have no reason to think the Bible is reliable. You have to treat it as part of Christianity and not a separate thing, because assuming that the Bible is a record of things that actually happened already means you believe that God exists.

Also, the Gospels very honestly read like historical fiction to me. Sure, some of the events mentioned in the Bible can be confirmed to have happened (although some haven't - the Massacre of the Innocents is believed by historical scholars to have not actually happened), but we also know that the Gospels were all written decades after Jesus died. None of Jesus's miracles left behind any evidence, and he hasn't come back since his resurrection, so if he did exist (in a spiritual sense, as the son of God) there is really no way to tell, so stories written about his life are not very good evidence. Besides, the Gospels have enough small differences that they can't all be exact historical records.

Incidentally I have also seen an argument that says the the writing of the Gospels is much closer in style to allegorical stories of that time period than to serious contemporary historical treatises. I don't expect anyone here to have the scholarly background to prove or refute this, but it's an interesting point to consider.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 4, 2008)

Erik said:


> - are you thinking that believing in god is a wrong thing to do?



Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0B-X9LJjs


----------



## (X) (Dec 4, 2008)

of course is beleaving in god wrong, its denying science


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 4, 2008)

(X) said:


> of course is beleaving in god wrong, its denying science



Is that a sentence? 

Well, what religion tries to do is explain the world, and it tries to be an alternative to science. But this approach is inherently wrong, just like saying chemistry was an alternative to alchemy. Chemistry wasn't an alternative to alchemy -- it *replaced* alchemy as people realized you can't just transmute lead into gold. You had to approach the atomic elements more methodically and rationally, and this too is the way we should approach our own world.


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

and how does belief in God imply denial of science?
believing that in the beginning of existence there was a 'God' to bring it about doesnt mean you deny the nature in which everything else happened.

perhaps believing in creationism denies science, but i think you might be confusing 'God' with 'fundamentalist christianity'.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

It's because the very idea of God goes against scientific thought. The ultimate goal of science is to explain everything without recourse to 'magic' or supernatural elements. You can explain things like the creation of the universe or gravity by saying that magic/God/aliens did it, but if you do that you are only denying yourself the opportunity to understand the real causes. For every thing you attribute to God, you are giving one thing that you do not think science should be allowed to explain.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

Believing in God, is in no way denying science. It's just believing a reason for things science can't explain. I don't think there's a way for science to reveal how the first "thing" was created, or if it was there the whole time, because we simply don't understand the concept of time, being eternal. Every assumption made by scientists, would stay to be a theory.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

Well science can explain what actually happened and what processes where taken. Just because something like the big bang may show that the universe could have come about by natural means it only shows how it happened and what caused it to happen physically and can't explain any underlying purposes or anything that may there if it was caused by a supernatural being. 
So basically taking what nitrocan says a little farther it could show the reason for things science can explain.


----------



## lifetap (Dec 4, 2008)

*..*

God is something that you can make new hopes from.. You can't prey science to help you.. It is just a way of feeling good and secure


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

lifetap said:


> God is something that you can make new hopes from.. You can't prey science to help you.. It is just a way of feeling good and secure



If you were sick, which would be the most effective course of action: praying to get better, or going to a doctor and relying on modern medical science?


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Well science can explain what actually happened and what processes where taken. Just because something like the big bang may show that the universe could have come about by natural means it only shows how it happened and what caused it to happen physically and can't explain any underlying purposes or anything that may there if it was caused by a supernatural being.
> So basically taking what nitrocan says a little farther it could show the reason for things science can explain.



Why do we need a supernatural explanation? It's okay to say "we don't know, we can't know yet using the tools and methods currently available to us." Saying "we don't know, so it must be magic" doesn't actually explain anything and it discourages the kind of thinking that results in scientific advancement to begin with.


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

to lifetap - "Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes" anyone?


----------



## (X) (Dec 4, 2008)

@shelley, I agree so much with what you just said


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Well science can explain what actually happened and what processes where taken. Just because something like the big bang may show that the universe could have come about by natural means it only shows how it happened and what caused it to happen physically and can't explain any underlying purposes or anything that may there if it was caused by a supernatural being.
> ...



Why is god being regarded as being the magic wand here? Lets see: One side believes that God created the universe. The second side believes that there must be some scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.
BUT both sides believe that these things were either there the whole time (which would be something that a human can't comprehend), or created by some force. Why would God being the force be supernatural? What, or who can find out about how that happened?

So if those things existed the whole time, that wouldn't be magic?


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

rachmaninovian said:


> if there is no evil, there cannot be good. simple as that.
> good and evil exist as pairs. you cannot deny it.



Good and Evil is a terrible way to say your point because its to broad. A better way to say it is, "There is a Morally correct and wrong decision". If you rephrased your statement as what I said, I will ask you what moral belied system are you using? I will now disprove your final statement

I deny that good and evil exist as pairs.



nitrocan said:


> (X): Who said that the Bible is the same as its original?



Then you are just cherry picking what you think is in the orginal Bible. I could murder people and advocate the Bible as a reason for the murders. I would do this by saying I thought that "Though shall not kill" was accidently changed from the Bible to "Though shall kill". 

To simplify my arguement with that statement I will rephrase it in the most fundamental way I know. If you invalidate or disragard certain parts in the Bible as truth, but you use other parts as evidence in an arguement does not work. This is because you now can manipulate the words and meaning of phrases and reject the ones you don't wish to believe in. 




qqwref said:


> It's because the very idea of God goes against scientific thought. The ultimate goal of science is to explain everything



Science doesn't have a "goal". Science is just information attained through the use of the scientific method. 



nitrocan said:


> . Every assumption made by scientists, would stay to be a theory.



Scientists can not make assumptions, they can only prove them or disprove them. If i'm correct that when you say "theory", you mean "scientific theory". So if you take into account scientific theory you must also takes into account scientific laws.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

crabs!!! said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > . Every assumption made by scientists, would stay to be a theory.
> ...


It's not possible to prove something your mind can't understand the logic of. (That's what I meant there, sorry for my English)


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Dene said:


> Shelley, you have to admit religious beliefs are not necessarily baseless. I for one believe that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again. You might choose to disbelieve it, although I would expect a strong justification on your part of that. There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.



There's no reason to unquestioningly accept the books of The Bible, just because it is "The Bible," and that makes them somehow sacred. That just isn't logical.

Justification for not believing Jesus rose from the dead? How about that dead people usually don't tend to come back to life?


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

Because some people think there is more to life then matter? And more to living then pleasure?
I like the quote "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven not how the heavens go". Very small a percentage of the Bible is actually about creation (I heard like 2.x before mentioned creation but idk for sure) and even that you can just take it allegorically if you want. If you think the Bible is all just about describing physical happenings you've got it wrong. The Bible is about how man has fallen (ie we have rebelled against God, obvious in this thread, and do loads of evil things, obvious in the world) and how in Christ we can return to communion with God. 
I don't care what events or processes science figures out, I don't see how any discovery can cause my above statement to collapse. I mean I guess science says people can't come back from the dead but personally I can allow for divine intervention and a single event like that not following natural laws won't be noticeable to science today to prove that event never happened.


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

- lol'd at shelleys last post...

what do people think of the Aristotlean view of God, or the Prime Mover, who does nothing else and plays no part in the rest of 'creation'?

and what do people think of quakers? i think its a very interesting sect of christianity in its belief structures (or complete lack thereof).

EDIT
was just reading the wiki on quakers, and found that oxfam, amnesty international and greenpeace all have their roots in 'the society of friends'.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Shelley, you have to admit religious beliefs are not necessarily baseless. I for one believe that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again. You might choose to disbelieve it, although I would expect a strong justification on your part of that. There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.
> ...



I know not an acceptable scientific answer but oh well.
Most people are also not God in a human form.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

Lol this is going absolutely nowhere.
Lets just finish this by saying that the world is flat, and that the world is on the horns of an ox, then start living 5 centuries ago.


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

no! i disagree!

it is on the back of four elephants riding a gigantic turtle


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

Escher said:


> no! i disagree!
> 
> it is on the back of four elephants riding a gigantic turtle



Hey don't disagree, that will start science again! 

To the starter of this thread: You knew this was going to happen didn't you!


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Okay, let's move away from the discussion on creationism and "how it all began" for a minute, because we really don't know anything about that.

Yes, the Bible is more than just explanations of how the world came to be. It is also about sin, and salvation, and God and heaven and all kinds of other made up concepts. It makes people believe there is something to look forward to after death. It makes people believe in divine intervention. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so.

How do you reconcile your beliefs with all the other major religions of the world, each of which has its own idea of the truth, each of which having millions of followers believing just as passionately as you do that their way of thinking is the right one?


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Escher said:


> no! i disagree!
> 
> it is on the back of four elephants riding a gigantic turtle



turtles all the way down!!


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> crabs!!! said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...






> Main Entry:
> log·ic Listen to the pronunciation of logic
> Pronunciation:
> \ˈlä-jik\
> ...



This definition is taken from Meriam webster dictionary. 

So you now put out the premise that we have concluded that their is higher level of logic that we can not understand. This is wrong because if we cannot understand it, it makes the said thing illogical. So your statement if it were true would discredit logic in its entirety and could be used for any argument and state that there is a logic behind it that you can't understand to validate said argument.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

We're going to have a 1 week holiday from school (yay) and I'm thinking of reading the Kur'an-ı Kerim in that time. I'll share what I've found out. Is there anyone who has already read it?

Here's another definition of logic for you:

LOGIC:
noun
1 reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity : experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic | he explains his move with simple logic | the logic of the argument is faulty.
• a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference : Aristotelian logic.
• the systematic use of symbolic and mathematical techniques to determine the forms of valid deductive argument.
• the quality of being justifiable by reason : there's no logic in telling her not to hit people when that's what you're doing.


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> We're going to have a 1 week holiday from school (yay) and I'm thinking of reading the Kur'an-ı Kerim in that time. I'll share what I've found out. Is there anyone who has already read it?
> 
> Here's another definition of logic for you:
> 
> ...



Source to where you got this information from?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 4, 2008)

From my computer dictionary (The Apple Dictionary)
Why are you trying to correct my verbal mistakes anyway?


----------



## Bryan (Dec 4, 2008)

crabs!!! said:


> Scientists can not make assumptions, they can only prove them or disprove them.



They make assumptions all the time. If you talk about erosion, they assume the same rate of erosion. There are some waterfalls in Washington state that scientists say took millions of years to form, but someone did some research and said it only took a few days. Many people rejected his claim, but later, it was discovered that there was a former huge lake nearby on a moutain that had broken (imagine the side of a pool getting knocked down). Once that was discovered, they believed the "few days" story.

If you take rocks from Mt St Helen's and have them be carbon dated, they'll be dated as old, even though they're 28 years old. 

If you carbon-14 date a diamond, you'll see that there's still carbon-14 in it, even though it would be assumed that there would be none because the half-life is so small that it would all be gone for things really old.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

Hehe... thats an actual religion isn't it? The back of the turtle with turtles all the way down?
And well just because you want something not to be true doesn't make it so. And to just be honest here I will just say that I really do not know much about other religions and am a Christian because that is how I grew up. I mean I've certainly questioned it loads and have yet to turn atheist. I am a religion major so I plan on learning about all these other religions at UF. So don't think I'm getting a biased Christian perspective. 
I guess I'll try to list a few reason why I have chosen Christianity. 
1.) Christianity isn't about good works like most religions are, it is that the requirements of salvation have been done or us. 
2.) Love? Turn the other cheek or kill the infidels? 
3.) The fall accurately describes human nature. 
4.) As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible that is stated as historical fact that has been proven not to happen. 
idk those are just a couple things I thought of in a few minutes.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> How do you reconcile your beliefs with all the other major religions of the world, each of which has its own idea of the truth, each of which having millions of followers believing just as passionately as you do that their way of thinking is the right one?


This is a question that has been asked 2-3 times in this thread, and also a question that every religious person that posted here has avoided every time is has been asked.
I'd be surprised if anyone could give a logical explanation for it.

EDIT: I guess Lofty just answered that, actually.



> 1.) Christianity isn't about good works like most religions are, it is that the requirements of salvation have been done or us.


Okay, so you explained a part of what Christianity is about, but how does that explain why you chose it over all other religions?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> these things were either there the whole time (which would be something that a human can't comprehend)


Ugh, I'm getting tired of this argument that humans can't comprehend stuff. I think I have a quite good understanding of infinity, objects with 4 spatial dimensions, fractals, the idea of time not existing before a certain point, etc. I find it annoying when people say humans can't comprehend a certain thing just because they personally can't. Is there any proof that such a thing is impossible to understand? No? I didn't think so. People who are much better at visualizing/understanding complex things do exist.



crabs!!! said:


> Science doesn't have a "goal".


From Wikipedia: "Science ... is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works." There's your goal.



Lofty said:


> we have rebelled against God, obvious in this thread


I presume you're the kind of person who thinks atheists hate God? Let me tell you that it is not about hating/rebelling against/distrusting God - we simply don't believe he exists. You'd say the same thing if someone tried to convince you that the reason you don't receive as many Christmas presents as you used to is because you have rebelled against Santa Claus.



Lofty said:


> Hehe... thats an actual religion isn't it? The back of the turtle with turtles all the way down?


I fail to see how you can criticize other religions for being silly and not realize how your own is just as nonsensical. As someone said (and I'm paraphrasing, because I can't find the quote), everyone denies the existence of thousands of deities, and the only difference between atheists and theists is that atheists believe one more god is not real...



Lofty said:


> 4.) As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible that is stated as historical fact that has been proven not to happen.


Not even the part about Adam and Eve being the first humans 6000 years ago? Mitochondrial DNA shows that our bloodlines must go back significantly further than this. Or what about the Massacre of the Innocents I mentioned a few posts ago?


By the way, there was a discussion a few days ago about there being no basic axioms in science. There is one: that you can use things you observe in the world as evidence ;-)


----------



## Escher (Dec 4, 2008)

the turtles and elephants thing is from Terry Pratchett, just to clear things up.


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> From my computer dictionary (The Apple Dictionary)
> Why are you trying to correct my verbal mistakes anyway?



Merriam-Webster dictionary is a more credible source than the apple dictionary. If we were in actual controlled debate and you were asked for the definition of a word, Merriam Webster would win every time. I am only calling it as I read it, not trying to insult you in anyway.



Bryan said:


> crabs!!! said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists can not make assumptions, they can only prove them or disprove them.
> ...



I was not specific enough with my statement about assumptions let me restate it: Information obtained through the use of the scientific method can not create assumptions because the information obtained from it is truth unless proven other wise by other information brought forth by information obtained by experiments using the scientific method.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

Rebellion against God in my opinion doesn't mean you have to hate Him. Not believing in Him is enough. What kind o people think atheists hate God? I think most people know that atheists are people who do not beleive in him. Except Lt-Unreal who think atheists are more agnostic or at least could be agnostic and still be called atheists. 
Christianity is not as nonsensical as the earth being on top of a giant pile of turtles. We have been out into space and seen that it is just not so. But yea I've heard that quote before. 
Well that assumes that the Bible has included every person necessary in the geneologies given and doesn't allow for something like theistic evolution. Actually reading the wiki I see "Mitochondrial Eve is thought to have lived around 140,000 years ago. On the arbitrary assumption that people mate with a random individual drawn from the whole of the global population, the "theoretical" MRCA could have lived as recently as 3,000 years ago." So 6,000 is between 3,000 and 140,000.
I also read the article on the massacre of the innocents and didn't think that it was conclusively proven that it didn't happen. Did you read part where it talked about that it could have been just like 6-10 kids in one village killed and thats it? Josephus does record Herod doing many other evil acts or whatever the quote was.


----------



## crabs!!! (Dec 4, 2008)

qqwref said:


> crabs!!! said:
> 
> 
> > Science doesn't have a "goal".
> ...



OH WOW seriously using Wikipedia as a source when it can be edited by anybody is just idiotic and stupid.

Definition of science from Merriam Webster...



> Main Entry:
> sci·ence Listen to the pronunciation of science
> Pronunciation:
> \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
> ...


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Christianity is not as nonsensical as the earth being on top of a giant pile of turtles. We have been out into space and seen that it is just not so.



Reread Genesis 1 and tell me that with a straight face.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Christianity is not as nonsensical as the earth being on top of a giant pile of turtles. We have been out into space and seen that it is just not so.
> ...



I cannot. I have read that chapter many times and do not take it as literal. I think it is just a allegorical story from which we can take certain truths like, regardless of the processes used God created the earth for His purposes and that He is powerful enough to bring something into creation out o nothing even if that was just the starting of the bigbang and setting all those finetuned constants correctly.
edit: Like I said the Bible is not meant to tell us how the heavens go.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 4, 2008)

crabs!!! said:


> OH WOW seriously using Wikipedia as a source when it can be edited by anybody is just idiotic and stupid.
> 
> Definition of science from Merriam Webster...
> [omitted]



Sorry, I didn't realize you expected more than that. (Remember the study that said Wikipedia was more accurate then Encyclopedia Britannica, though?)

From http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html: "What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality."

From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528756/science: "In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws."

So... yes, I'd say science has a goal. But you won't get that from a dictionary, all a dictionary has to tell you is what the term means.


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



So when another religion does it it's nonsensical. When yours does it, it's an allegory and not meant to be taken literally.

You know that at some point in history, before people knew what we know now, that was taken as more or less the literal truth as well, right?


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > shelley said:
> ...



Well I don't know how this other religion takes it... They could take it figuratively if they want. What truths would it teach us if we take the turtle story as figurative? That turtles are awesome? That turtles are essential to life? I guess those would make sense if one was to worship the turtle. But worshiping a turtle would be nonsensical because we know turtles are just animals and would help a person no more then a milk jug. However worshiping an all powerful God who is not matter is sensible.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



oh wow...


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Rebellion against God in my opinion doesn't mean you have to hate Him. Not believing in Him is enough.



By your reasoning you're rebelling against Santa Claus. Be careful, or you won't get any Christmas presents this year.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 4, 2008)

shelley said:


> Lofty said:
> 
> 
> > Rebellion against God in my opinion doesn't mean you have to hate Him. Not believing in Him is enough.
> ...



Well as a child I searched through my parents room and found some presents hidden away. In recent years I have even helped my parents order things online that Santa Clause would be giving. I have decided that rebelling against Santa Clause will cause me no ill affects.


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Well I don't know how this other religion takes it... They could take it figuratively if they want. What truths would it teach us if we take the turtle story as figurative? That turtles are awesome? That turtles are essential to life? I guess those would make sense if one was to worship the turtle. But worshiping a turtle would be nonsensical because we know turtles are just animals and would help a person no more then a milk jug.



You're not even trying. Maybe the turtles represent stability and steadfastness of the earth.



> However worshiping an all powerful God who is not matter is sensible.



Wow. Brilliant reasoning there. Care to explain how exactly that is sensible, particularly in light of your rant about turtles (which are totally awesome, as everyone knows)?


----------



## shelley (Dec 4, 2008)

Lofty said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Lofty said:
> ...



Well, of course. Santa enlisted the help of your parents and planted presents in their room to test your faith. Now because you rejected him, the only presents you get are from your family and friends, not from Santa.


----------



## Lofty (Dec 5, 2008)

Spiritual beings > Physical beings? 
Come on now... a turtle is a finite physical being confined in a little shell. a God strong enough to create everything is much more worthy of worship.
Anyway introduction to theoretical physics test tomorrow gotta, I'll reply this weekend.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Why God and not a Goddess? Why the Christian God and not any of the deities of the other world religions?
Why God and not an Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Why God and not a great mystical turtle?

But most importantly, why is it sensible to worship anything at all? What does worship do for us? We don't live in the dark ages. We don't need an invisible sky-daddy watching us and telling us how to live. Understand the world for what it is.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 5, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Spiritual beings > Physical beings?
> Come on now... a turtle is a finite physical being confined in a little shell. *a God strong enough to create everything is much more worthy of worship*.
> Anyway introduction to theoretical physics test tomorrow gotta, I'll reply this weekend.



How is this possible if what you say is true, god is not physical or not made of matter?


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 5, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Rama said:
> 
> 
> > If you are *still* not healed from an illness, you can pray harder.
> ...



why are some people not only atheists, but despise religion and try to prove religious people wrong? You gain nothing from trying to make religious people into Atheists. just seems like a nice big ol' waste of life.

[this is more directed to the creator of that site, not necessarily Stefan]



shelley said:


> But most importantly, why is it sensible to worship anything at all? *What does worship do for us?* We don't live in the dark ages. We don't need an invisible sky-daddy watching us and telling us how to live. Understand the world for what it is.



Worship is very helpful to believers in a god of some kind. Worshiping/praying to a god may not instantly bring results to the problem, but it gives hope and faith when you need it. 
I feel just the opposite as you, what drawbacks does worship have? Even if you worship the mighty milkjug, if you believe in it, then it'll only bring positive and hopeful thoughts.


----------



## Bryan (Dec 5, 2008)

crabs!!! said:


> Information obtained through the use of the scientific method can not create assumptions because the information obtained from it is truth unless proven other wise by other information brought forth by information obtained by experiments using the scientific method.



Yes, but where Christians will disagree is with the historical interpretations made with the observable fact. Here's an observable fact:

The acceleration of an object due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 This is an observable fact. Both you and I can do experiments today to verify this.

Now, if I have an object moving a 19.6 m/s downward, when was the object dropped? The exact point in time when this object was dropped isn't an observable fact. Neither you nor I can see that (for this particular instance). The best we can do is to apply an interpretation of our observable facts to come to a conclusion.

Given the information provided, can you answer the question of when the object was dropped? No, you can't. You can apply an interpretation of your observable facts to come up with an answer, but that's the best you can do. With the information given, you can't even be sure that the object was simply dropped, thrown upwards and is now on its downpath, or thrown down with existing force. Looking at the present (observable) information, the best we can do is provide an interpretation.


----------



## Dene (Dec 5, 2008)

(X) said:


> of course is beleaving in god wrong, its denying science



You are an idiot (I wanted to be the first one to flame  ). I am a hardcore science fan, I would never think of denying it. I also believe in God.

qq: Agreeing with him was a bad idea too, you should know better >_>



shelley said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Shelley, you have to admit religious beliefs are not necessarily baseless. I for one believe that Jesus died on the cross and then rose again. You might choose to disbelieve it, although I would expect a strong justification on your part of that. There is no reason to reject books of The Bible, just because they are in "The Bible", and that makes them unreliable. That just isn't fair.
> ...



I don't unquestioningly accept the books of The Bible. However, even if the stuff is written as stories, it still seems undeniable that there was an extremely intelligent man named Jesus around. Now perhaps we could compare him to the likes of Hitler, but just say he had a different motive. He was a good speaker, and wanted to make man more religious, (instead of killing the Jews).

Why not a Goddess or turtle you ask? Well, firstly God has no image, or we are no tmeant to give him an image. Secondly, it says we were made in God's image.

Why not another religion? Because Jesus directs me, not Buddha or whoever.

Why is it sensible to worship God? Because he has control over our ultimate fate. Hell or Heaven, kind of obvious choice right?

Eide: stop asking stupid questions, God is spiritual, not physical.

Of course, I make most of my statements with the assumption of "if God exists then..."

EDIT: This is an extra comment at (X):
Hypothetical situation: I believe in a God that plays no role whatsoever in the universe. This God wears a tu-tu, just for my entrtainment. Now, this God does nothing, he did not "create" the universe, he has no influence here, or after our death or anything. How does this interfere with science? AT ALL???


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Why is it wrong, you ask?

Because praying makes people think they are doing something, when they could take a much more effective course of action. It makes parents pray instead of seeking medical help, resulting in the unnecessary and preventable death of their 11 year old daughter. But hey, I guess it made them feel better as she was dying, so it's okay, right?

Because religion hinders scientific (Galileo vs. the church; controversy over stem cell research; teaching creationism in science classrooms) and social (pro-choice vs. pro-life; gay marriage; abstinence-only sex education) progress. Because many of the major religions (Islam and Christianity in particular) marginalize women, in some cases treating them as little more than property.

Because this kind of thinking leads to people believing that it's okay to force 8-year-olds to marry, because the Muslim prophet Muhammad engaged in the practice. Or that ritual honor-killing is okay, because it's in line with age-old tribal traditions.

If worship and praying were just about warm fuzzy feelings, I would be fine to leave it alone. But that's not always the case. While religion may have been relevant in the past, and it has undoubtedly influenced much of history and human culture, I see no place for ritual worship in modern society.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> why are some people not only atheists, but despise religion and try to prove religious people wrong? You gain nothing from trying to make religious people into Atheists. just seems like a nice big ol' waste of life.



Hey, we atheists have nothing on all the evangelical Christians preaching and handing out pamphlets on street corners and college campuses and residential neighborhoods on Saturday mornings. We have as much of a right to waste our lives as they do. At least let us play catch up.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2008)

In a way religious belief is just a kind of denial of reality. If one of your parents (father, say) died and you completely refused to believe that he was dead, even to the point where you tried to ask him to help you with things in your life, everyone who knew you would try to talk you out of it - not because you would be happier if you realized the truth, or because your denial is hurting people, but because sometimes adhering to reality is important. Without the necessity to believe things as everyone agrees they are, I'm sure most of us would just become insane, believing we were Columbus or something.

Now from my point of view religious belief is a very similar thing: you have no evidence of there being a god out there or of that god affecting your life at all, but you believe it anyway because it makes you feel better about bad things that happen to you, or about death, or whatever. If people want to bring you away from faith, it's not always that the faith is hurting people, but more often that for them the truth is worth seeking. I understand that it's comforting to have someone looking over you, but you can find that kind of comfort without having to resort to omnipotent spirit-creatures.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why is it wrong, you ask?
> 
> Because praying makes people think they are doing something, when they could take a much more effective course of action. It makes parents pray instead of seeking medical help, resulting in the unnecessary and preventable death of their 11 year old daughter. But hey, I guess it made them feel better as she was dying, so it's okay, right?
> 
> ...



Wow, nice articles! But is it the religion that causes the horrible acts, or are the criminals simply misinterpreting the religion and coming up with some BS excuses? Also, how is "(pro-choice vs. pro-life; gay marriage; abstinence-only sex education)" social progress? I see neither side to be progressive. Isn't there the "survival if the fittest"? If that applies, then it would make sense that the Religious people are using religion to protect themselves and driving others out of the way. Anyway, last time I checked, same-sex equals not reproduction, therefore, given enough competition to survive, they would be decline is number, so it's silly to even care whether they get rights or not as they would disappear. Is Social Darwinism the way to go? Although it is immoral by many standards, since we are atheists, morals are irrelevant, protection of self and offsprings is the only thing that matters. Wait... I lost my train of thoughts, I'm are supporting or arguing against you. :confused::confused:


----------



## Lofty (Dec 5, 2008)

Well, Most of the things you are citing are the most extreme cases. Its almost like if we were going to take some crazy atheist murdering people because he doesnt believe in any kinda moral standard or purpose to life;
The ones that are attacks on religion in general or against other religions besides Christianity I would just say are indeed tragedies and I of course am not going to try to support but will just leave as examples of why I have chosen Christianity. 
Also there is a difference between actual Christianity and the fundamentalist movement that is after a lot of political power and crap as well as Jesus. I would say religion doesn't hinder scinece crazy people who lack intelligence and just happen to be Christians or at least claim to be but dont actually think about their faith and just accept what the fundamentalist church tell them hinder science. Is it beneficial for people to have sex outside of marriage? Can adult stem cells do just as much as embryonic ones? 
Our book which tells us to love our wife as Christ loved the church is marginalizing woman? Christ died for us so we should do the same for our wifes... just because most say they can't have certain jobs in the church like pastor?


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 5, 2008)

Lofty said:


> Can adult stem cells do just as much as embryonic ones?
> Our book which tells us to love our wife as Christ loved the church is marginalizing woman?



1. No.
2. What about Old testament people with multiple wives at the same time?

Edit:
I'm interested in the role of morals in Atheism. Religions kind of explain them, but except for certain obvious ones like you should not kill because someone might kill you, why do we have morals, polite/rude, etc? 
If I'm an Atheist, then I would not care what sex educations people get, it's the unfit that lose, the fit would still survive. It's your own fault that you are screwed by the recession, if you are smarter and fitter, you would find a way to survive. Then, by that, even if religions are proven to be fake, they serve as nice self-pyschologic-defense.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Side note regarding abstinence-only education: It's not that I think everyone should be engaging in pre-marital sex. The issue is that abstinence-only sex education _doesn't work_. Teenagers will end up having sex (it's biology), and because they haven't been taught anything, they end up pregnant and with STDs. And it happens because the church says it's immoral to teach them how to use condoms.

fanwuq, the gay marriage argument isn't about reproduction. It's about equal rights. Do we ban sterile/senior couples from marrying because they can't have children? The fact is, I haven't heard an argument against gay marriage that doesn't have some kind of basis in religion. Just because your deity of choice says it's wrong doesn't mean you should force your views on everyone else by making it illegal.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

And another article regarding religious views and the treatment of women: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10675


----------



## brunson (Dec 5, 2008)

leyanlo said:


> (X) said:
> 
> 
> > of course is beleaving in god wrong, its denying science
> ...


I'm going to have to differ with what I think is your premise, correct me if I'm misreading your post.

There is nothing inherent in a belief in god that precludes science. It's only some religions that teach creation *over* evolution, especially fundamentalist christian sects here in the US. There are plenty of christian scientists that are capable of aligning their belief in god with their science. 

I simply find the fundamentalist arguments against things like evolution laughable. If I believed in a god he would certainly be capable of creating evolution.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 5, 2008)

Why is there even such a thing as marriage?
If it is a purely religious thing, then I guess the church can do what ever they like. 
If the gay people make their own religion, then they can marry by that definition too.
The people of other religions can just accept it by law and ignore it by religion. Then, the gay people, unable to reproduce, will die out, less population = world hunger solved and then, there will be population boom, gay people pop out again as a defense mechanism of human genes against over population... and the cycle continues.
Nothing has anything to do with religion or morals...

If marriage is by definition necessary for reproduction and only for reproduction, then old people should not be able to marry. They would have no desire to marry.

That would mean the only point of marriage is government benefits. In this case, just give everyone the same benefit from the start and ignore marriage.

After that, marriage will die out along with the gays because it no longer serves a purpose...

[/amoral standpoint]


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> I'm interested in the role of morals in Atheism. Religions kind of explain them, but except for certain obvious ones like you should not kill because someone might kill you, why do we have morals, polite/rude, etc?
> If I'm an Atheist, then I would not care what sex educations people get, it's the unfit that lose, the fit would still survive. It's your own fault that you are screwed by the recession, if you are smarter and fitter, you would find a way to survive. Then, by that, even if religions are proven to be fake, they serve as nice self-pyschologic-defense.



You're completely misunderstanding the meaning of 'atheist'. It doesn't mean a nihilist, it's just someone who doesn't believe deities exist... Atheists still have friends, family, jobs, etc. There are many reasons atheists follow morals, though: because some 'immoral' things are illegal; because there are things you just don't do if you want to still have friends; because you have a sense of honor and certain actions would go against that and make you feel guilty; and so on. For me an immoral action is not something God says is a sin, but rather something that you just don't do, for whatever reason.

As for social darwinism, the whole reason people don't follow it is because they empathize for others. That and the fact that if we just left everyone to fend for themselves and only allowed the best to survive there would be no society to speak of and nothing would get done except killing and sex. You educate people because you want them to do better, you do nice things to others because it makes you feel good and because you want to help people out, and so on. If something only had a religious motivation, only religious people would do it.



To fanwuq's latest post: a few points need to be made here:
1) Marriage is not only a religious thing, it's pretty important for legal reasons. If someone dies, the only people who have authority over what happens to their body and possessions (assuming no will) are family members and their spouse. There are also tax reasons to get married. Note that none of these are rights you can just extend to everyone. If all you can get is a 'civil union' you lose a lot of protections like this, which is why not allowing certain people to marry is a very serious form of discrimination.
2) If homosexuality was genetic they'd have died out already. Of course gays don't reproduce, they're GAY. (Marriage to another man won't make reproduction more likely, incidentally.) But from what I've heard there is a percentage (10% or so?) of people who will turn out to have homosexual or bisexual tendencies no matter what. There is nothing you can do to wipe out homosexuality except for either killing millions of people every couple years.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

fanwuq, I'm not even going to attempt to address your overly simplistic and somewhat misinformed worldview (EDIT: though I see qqwref has taken care of that for me). Come back when you can actually contribute a relevant point to our discussion.


----------



## brunson (Dec 5, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Why is there even such a thing as marriage?
> If it is a purely religious thing, then I guess the church can do what ever they like.


You're speaking out of turn there. 

I am not religious and neither is my wife, we're married because it is a statement of our commitment to and love for each other, a promise of nurturing a bond in the hopes that we'll stay together and love each other until one of us dies.

Don't proscribe your interpretations on anyyone else.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 5, 2008)

But why do people empathize with others?
Breaking laws, of course is fear of the punishment; but why are there societies? Aren't all societies initially religious? Now that we've moved to a non-religious era, do we need society?
Why do you feel good when you help out someone? It doesn't make much sense if you came from a random primordial soup. Could it not be possible that we are really bio-robots under the 3 laws of robotics? We are simply products of the Great Programmer?
I don't know if we will ever find out. My goal is to ask random questions, not to persuade anyone to any view. This is not my true world view of course, though it is interesting to look at things from the perspective. I suspect that perhaps tomorrow I might take on the perspective of crazy Christian conservatives, Native American religions, Buddhism, blah, blah, who knows?


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Is it that inconceivable that evolution could favor those with a sense of altruism? Maybe organisms that help each other stand a better chance of surviving. Social structures are seen in many animals - wolves, lions, many primate species. You see altruism in an extreme form with insects like honeybees and ants.

Humans are social creatures. Not because of religion. And when you ask "do we need society?" why don't you try to answer that question yourself? How long would you survive if you couldn't depend on society?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 5, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> It doesn't make much sense if you came from a random primordial soup.


We've gone a rather long way since then. The need for TWO separate organisms to get together in order to reproduce doesn't make much sense if you come from a primordial soup either, but there you go ;-)


----------



## Dene (Dec 5, 2008)

qqwref: studies on biological bases for homosexuality find that males with older brothers are more likely to be gay. There is no other biological link. This base is caused by the mother forming anti-bodies after being pregnant with the first male, as the mothers body can interpret the first male as foreign, and prepare for the second invasion. This was found in only 1/7 homosexual males with older brothers. Note: Only homosexual males were tested. There is no information on males who are not gay, but still have older brothers (of course, the reason for that is that it isn't relevant  ).
The other dominant theory for homosexuality at the moment is Bem's "exotic becomes erotic theory". This goes something like: you become attracted to those that you associate with less in childhood. If a male hangs out with females in primary school, they are more likely to become gay. What causes the children to hang out with those of the opposite sex? I can't confirm, but my best guess would be testosterone/encouragmenet from parents. (girls with more testosterone hang out with boys (butch lesbians) and boys with less testosterone hang out with girls (feminine gays).

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is an informative post, not an argument


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> ThePizzaGuy92 said:
> 
> 
> > why are some people not only atheists, but despise religion and try to prove religious people wrong? You gain nothing from trying to make religious people into Atheists. just seems like a nice big ol' waste of life.
> ...



alright, you win this round


----------



## infinitus (Dec 5, 2008)

-deleted-

Sigh a moment of impulse.

Sorry Dene, didn't think it through.


----------



## Dene (Dec 5, 2008)

infinitus said:


> Why are there more people leaving their religion and becoming atheists each day?
> 
> Because people are getting smarter



I would like evidence for this statement. Oh wait, you don't have any.

More stupid posts...


----------



## Ton (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why is it wrong, you ask?
> 
> Because praying makes people think they are doing something, when they could take a much more effective course of action. It makes parents pray instead of seeking medical help, resulting in the unnecessary and preventable death of their 11 year old daughter. But hey, I guess it made them feel better as she was dying, so it's okay, right?



There are lot of examples where religion becomes man made rules, I can only speak for my self, I such case I would pray and bless the doctors and seek guidance for the best way.

There are many who call them self Christian, but to me this means the way I live must be an example. This makes me a Christian. The way I live should be the proof not any argument I use. I can give many examples that after praying circumstances change, you could say it is just luck or change. But I know a different reason


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 5, 2008)

Dene said:


> infinitus said:
> 
> 
> > Why are there more people leaving their religion and becoming atheists each day?
> ...



Atheism is the fastest growing faith in the US.
http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/

People with high IQs are less likely to be religious.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23860215-5005361,00.html


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 5, 2008)

brunson said:


> leyanlo said:
> 
> 
> > (X) said:
> ...



Yes, there are those who are able to separate religion from real life, and I am extremely grateful for that. But the fact of the matter is that religion is the breeding ground for religious fundamentalists. The evidence is obvious when you consider the fact that Christian moderates are less likely to stand up to Christian extremism than atheists are.

This article was from yesterday:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461664,00.html


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 5, 2008)

ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> I feel just the opposite as you, what drawbacks does worship have? Even if you worship the mighty milkjug, if you believe in it, then it'll only bring positive and hopeful thoughts.



Believing in positive and hopeful thoughts is not necessarily a good thing. Those 9/11 hijackers believed in the afterlife of paradise for those who commit Jihad, a paradise full of "abundant fruits, unforbidden, and never-ending. There will be gushing fountains and everyone shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine." The belief that paradise awaits them in the next life gave them the strength they needed to accomplish their god given mission.

“With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg


----------



## Dene (Dec 5, 2008)

leyanlo said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > infinitus said:
> ...



In the US? So what. Try considering the whole world.
High IQ's? So what. That just shows that academics try to force athiesm on the religious. I may as well point out that Einstein was technically religious. (Just to defend a view, that possibly the smartest people turn back to religion  ).



leyanlo said:


> This article was from yesterday:
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461664,00.html


I do hope you aren't trying to put these people in the same group as myself, just because they proclaim to be of a particular faith.
There are just as many extreme athiests as there are religious people. Well, really I'm just guessing, but I would say that there are plenty. For example, consider all the big businessmen turning the economy to crap, yet still flying around in their corporate jets (LOL THEY WIMPED OUT!) I have no idea if they're athiests or not, but what they're doing is certainly not pro-religious values as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 5, 2008)

Erik said:


> I don't really understand why you are doing that.



Don't ask me, ask God. I'm just a part of His divine plan, and who am I to question it?

(wow, this is amazingly convenient... I might actually convert to this lifestyle)


----------



## tim (Dec 5, 2008)

Uhm, why do you guys waste so much time on discussing religion? Seriously, i don't get it.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Dene said:


> That just shows that academics try to force athiesm on the religious. I may as well point out that Einstein was technically religious. (Just to defend a view, that possibly the smartest people turn back to religion  ).



I don't know about you, but in all my years of post-secondary education not one of my classes, not one of my professors has said "god does not exist; you should reject your religious beliefs." What my classes and professors do teach are critical thinking skills. And it just so happens that many religious beliefs don't hold up to logic and critical thinking.



Dene said:


> There are just as many extreme athiests as there are religious people. Well, really I'm just guessing, but I would say that there are plenty. For example, consider all the big businessmen turning the economy to crap, yet still flying around in their corporate jets (LOL THEY WIMPED OUT!) I have no idea if they're athiests or not, but what they're doing is certainly not pro-religious values as far as I'm concerned.



You decry our use of "extreme" examples and claim they don't represent your general population, and yet you similarly use a single case (Einstein being religious) as if it's sufficient to prove your own point.

Please provide an actual example, not just speculation, of an extreme atheist and show that these extreme atheists would not have done what they did were they under the influence of religion. Of the cases we linked to showing religion can be harmful, the actions came about as a result of religious beliefs. You can't necessarily say the same about an atheist who committed a murder, that he did it because he was atheist, that he wouldn't have done it if he had been religious, because plenty of religious people commit crimes as well.

Note also that (in the US; if you want to complain about US-centric statistics we're quoting try looking up some statistics for your own country) atheists make up a disproportionately small fraction and Christians are overrepresented in prison populations. What does that say about taking morals from religion?


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

tim said:


> Uhm, why do you guys waste so much time on discussing religion? Seriously, i don't get it.



I'm bored. Also, the topic creator started it. What did he think was going to happen?


----------



## Ton (Dec 5, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > Don't ask me, ask God. I'm just a part of His divine plan, and who am I to question it?
> ...


----------



## blade740 (Dec 5, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Don't ask me, ask God. I'm just a part of His divine plan, and who am I to question it?
> ...



I thought everything was a part of God's plan. Stefan is obviously put here to test your faith, or something of that nature.


----------



## tim (Dec 5, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Don't ask me, ask God. I'm just a part of His divine plan, and who am I to question it?
> ...



Living my own life sounds great .


----------



## Erik (Dec 5, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Erik said:
> ...


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?



Cuz there's a book on it and they're in every single freaking hotel room...


----------



## Erik (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?



Shortly: decency and respect for other people (and this is not only Christianity, I'm talking about any form of religion)


----------



## blade740 (Dec 5, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?
> ...



So? Popularity doesn't make a belief more viable. Every idea should be treated with the same amount of scrutiny, regardless of its supporters.


----------



## tim (Dec 5, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?
> ...



Awesome, this thread isn't as bad as i thought .


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?



People respect whom they look up to. If you don't believe in God, then of course you don't respect beliefs like Christianity. But how is this relevant with Santa Claus or the turtle thing? Are you saying that God's existence is just as ridiculous as those other two?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 5, 2008)

Lofty said:


> a God strong enough to create everything is much more worthy of worship


Why worship? Ah right, God created us for his glory. Sad how someone so strong has such a giant ego problem.



ThePizzaGuy92 said:


> why are some people not only atheists, but despise religion and try to prove religious people wrong?


Enlightenment and entertainment. Not sure about the order.



fanwuq said:


> I'm interested in the role of morals in Atheism [...] *why do we have morals, polite/rude, etc?*


It's just kind of a "_don't be a di__ck_" attitude.



fanwuq said:


> My goal is to ask random questions


Noticed. Please stop.



StefanPochmann said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > You assume you know what it is when you believe.
> ...





Ton said:


> I can give many examples that after praying circumstances change, you could say it is just luck or change. But *I know* a different reason


Sigh...



Dene said:


> Einstein was technically religious. (Just to defend a view, that possibly the smartest people turn back to religion  ).


I assume you say that because of his statements like this?
Einstein:"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."



Ton said:


> you are part of His plan only if you want to listen to Him.....*else you life your own life*.


Sweet.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 5, 2008)

Erik said:


> Ton said:
> 
> 
> > StefanPochmann said:
> ...


----------



## Ron (Dec 5, 2008)

> 4.) As far as I know there is nothing in the Bible that is stated as historical fact that has been proven not to happen.


I could give you 100 facts where the bible is contradicting itself.
Some examples:
- what did God create earlier: animals or humans?
Now read Genesis 2:18-19 and then Genesis 1:25-27.
- who is the father of Joseph?
Now read Matthew 1:16 and then Luke 3:23.
- what were the last words of Jesus?
Now read Luke 23:46 and then John 19:30.
- how did Judas commit suicide after betraying Jesus with a kiss?
Now read Matthew 27:5 and then Acts 1:18-19

Have fun,

Ron (antitheist)


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 5, 2008)

Praying for a cure might help even if it isn't because God helped you, but you felt comfortable and hopeful and scientists say that psychology does have an effect on health.


----------



## shelley (Dec 5, 2008)

While psychology does indeed affect health, delusion is not a prerequisite to hope and optimism.


----------



## Crazycubemom (Dec 5, 2008)

This Thread is a very SENSITIVE thread . Why don't you talk about "What's GARFIELD think about T-Rex?".


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 5, 2008)

shelley said:


> While psychology does indeed affect health, delusion is not a prerequisite to hope and optimism.



There's not much you can do other than believing that you will be healed somehow. If your situation is getting worse, people don't tend to think "I hope the doctors will work super hard and find a better cure for my illness."
Thinking that God is there to help, keeps the believers from falling into fear, and that's a very positive effect. Who will nonbelievers rely on?


----------



## Rama (Dec 5, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Erik said:
> 
> 
> > Ton said:
> ...



Too bad I've never called athiests rat finks, commies or whatsoever.

''Judge not, that ye be not judged.'' - Matthew 7:1

Edit: Rat Fink is a cool song though.


----------



## Ton (Dec 6, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


>



I think you should respect people not my believe. So the remark is not that you must respect my God, but respect people. So feel free to make fun of God


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 6, 2008)

I told ya this thread should be locked.

It will go on and on and on, as long as people have different views towards religion in general.

There's no point debating, you'll never achieve anything.

PS. Some people might even get desperate and start insulting and bashing.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Dec 6, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> I told ya this thread should be locked.
> 
> It will go on and on and on, as long as people have different views towards religion in general.
> 
> ...



I second that.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 6, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> DcF1337 said:
> 
> 
> > I told ya this thread should be locked.
> ...



I dont think it should be locked just because there is no point in debating. (i think there actually is a point, you never know someone could learn something they didn't and might change their mind on a certain opinion)

I also dont think it should be locked because people will be insulting/bashing each other on here for no reason (almost everyone on this forum is more mature than that)

But I do think it should be locked just because its pretty much going nowhere


----------



## Erik (Dec 6, 2008)

second! (space)


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 6, 2008)

So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being. 
If that is true, then doesn't an atheist need just as much 'faith' as someone who is religious?


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 6, 2008)

Topic was: "What's your religion?".

And the poll tells almost 50% of people have a religion that is not listed. Curious...


----------



## tim (Dec 6, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> I told ya this thread should be locked.
> 
> It will go on and on and on, as long as people have different views towards religion in general.
> 
> ...



What? Please not, reading Stefan's and Shelley's posts is so much fun.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 6, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being.
> If that is true, then doesn't an atheist need just as much 'faith' as someone who is religious?



Exactly my point the the beginning. Now we just need Atheists to tell us how much faith they have in this.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

I don't need faith when there is observable evidence. When you believe in something without evidence, that takes faith. (Of course, my definition of atheism is that I *don't believe* in a god, not that I *believe* there is no god.)


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

Dene said:


> leyanlo said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Einstein had a very complicated relationship with religion.
http://atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/EinsteinGodReligionScience.htm
http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/

The big businessmen are not pro-atheist either. My point is that faith can lead to terrible things. People being stupid and making mistakes that turning the economy to crap is not because of lack of faith, but just because some people are stupid and make mistakes.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Erik said:
> ...


----------



## Joël (Dec 6, 2008)

Hello everybody,

I've spent some time reading this thread now. I have always been interested in this topic, and I think it's nice to see the opinions and thoughts of other cubers. 

Personally, I do not believe that a God or Gods exits, which would make me an atheist. I do not reject the possibility of things existing outside of the material/physical world, including God(s). I am extremely sceptical, though. I am especially sceptical about pseudo-scientific claims.

I don't have a 'goal' with posting here, but since many cubers expressed what they believe, I feel a need to share a few of my thoughts.



Erik said:


> On the other hand I also seriously don't like it if people are harrasing obstructing or damaging other people because of their own religion. Or in other words because they think their religion tells them to do the actions which would cause that.
> 
> In other words: *show some f***ing respect*



I will refuse to show respect just for the sake of 'getting along' with each other. I might try to avoid offending people, because I realise that it is very easy to make fun of certain views (on both sides), but this will not be very constructive. However, I will only show respect when I mean it.



Lofty said:


> God can have existed forever while the universe or some kind of matter could not have because entropy would built up over time wouldn't it? But God not being matter will not build up entropy.



Yes. Posing an being that lacks ontology and saying that no physical laws apply to it totally solves the issue! How brilliant is that?!

Seriously, please stay with all the religious stuff about how Jesus died for our sins.



infinitus said:


> There are still people who believe in the Sun God, the Rain God, Thunder God, blah blah blah, and also the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> And they are never going away.



Yes, I think you are right. I think religiosity is a charactaristic of humanity, and it will stay with us for a long time. I consider it to be a small mistake that was programmed in to us, and this irrational behaviour is one of the hints that show how humans (as a species) are not superior (<- whatever that means) to other animals in the animal kingdom at all.

You know how you can sometimes look at animal behaviour and think "that's just dumb! We humans are so much smarter!". Well.. That's sort-of what I think when I see religious behaviour, like a whole crowd of people singing a worship song in a church.



fanwuq said:


> I used to believe in atheistic evolution; but I got compelled by the existence of something called chance. Its like believing that matter+time+chance can create you and me,



That is a very ugly representation of the theory. It is certainly not an accurate description of the theory of evolution. It sounds a lot like a simplification that is popular among certain groups of creationists.



Erik said:


> - do you want to make fun of the people believing in god?



I like making fun, and I don't mind making a little fun of religious people too. As I said though, I will usually avoid offending people.



Erik said:


> - are you thinking that believing in god is a wrong thing to do?



'Wrong' is a big word. Irrational is more like it. I am just trying to figure out how somany intelligent people can be fooled by the tactics of religion.



Erik said:


> - are you trying to convince the people who believe in god that it's a wrong thing to do?



I wouldn't know how to do that.



Erik said:


> If so, then I think it's disrespectful and pretty pointless



Well, if I believe somebody's beliefs are not true, would it be disrespectful to try to convince that person?



leyanlo said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Atheism is the fastest growing faith in the US.
> ...


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> shelley said:
> 
> 
> > Why should we treat Christianity with any more respect than a child's belief in Santa Claus or the theory that the world is supported on the back of a turtle?
> ...



Just because everyone else is doing it...
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1823


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being.
> If that is true, then doesn't an atheist need just as much 'faith' as someone who is religious?



No. Atheists do not "believe" there is no god. We use our senses to understand the world, and there is no reason to believe in a god. We lack faith of any sort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjfxCp92pc


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

Lt-UnReaL said:


> So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being.
> If that is true, then doesn't an atheist need just as much 'faith' as someone who is religious?



You could argue that, although a religious person probably needs to have more faith than an atheist because they have to deal with evidence that various parts of their religion are wrong. The only evidence that atheism is wrong would be evidence for the existence of a god (which is impossible), since evidence that science is wrong doesn't hurt science at all, just implies that there is a better theory somewhere out there. So in a way it is 'easier' to be an atheist.

There IS faith, though, if you believe (like I do) that there is no deity out there. (This comes from the evidence-supported idea that, if a deity exists, they don't have any significant influence on the world; and if you believe that, there's no point in considering the possibility that a god exists, in the same way that nobody bothers considering the possibility that unicorns exist.) I don't really see a problem with this, though, because there is actually nothing wrong with faith - it's very useful to be able to believe things without actually having to see proof for them (for example you might believe a math theorem or a theory in physics without understanding the proof, because you have faith that the proof is peer-validated and correct). What I have a problem with is when people continue to believe in things when those things have caused harm to those people or others or have hindered scientific progress, or when they have seen strong evidence that the things they believe in are false. I just don't see how you can support a religion which spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, killed Galileo, and is at this moment working against equal rights, the teaching of evolution, birth control, etc. If your belief goes as far as "a god exists" and stops there, I don't have any problem, but this kind of belief is invariably connected with religion, and religion brings with it a LOT of harmful, dangerous, and contradictory ideas.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 6, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being.
> ...



Exactly


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

I guess I should point out what exactly I mean by "killed Galileo" - the church didn't physically kill him, but they made him issue a retraction of his works and prevented him from ever publishing any work of science again. For someone who basically exists to create scientific insights, this is pretty much the same thing as death - the church completely shut down his ability to discover.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 6, 2008)

It wasn't my argument, but Dinesh D'Souza argues that the killings in the name of a religion are far outweighed by the killings by anti-religious people such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

Stalin, etc. killed in the name of gaining and maintaining political power. They also happened to be atheist (Hitler's atheism seems to be uncertain), but their faith (or lack thereof) wasn't what directly motivated their killing. You can't say the same about the Spanish Inquisition, or the soldiers in the Crusades who believed they were doing God's work, who killed in the name of God and their religion.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

Shelley: Are you asking me to find avidence, then, of someone killing in the name of "athiesm". That is absurd, and you know it would be almost impossible. Throwing out strawmans only makes you look desperate.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

You're the one who claimed atheists are/can be just as bad as theists. Provide examples to support your claim.

As for desperation, what do you call this?


Dene said:


> There are just as many extreme athiests as there are religious people. *Well, really I'm just guessing, but I would say that there are plenty*. For example, consider all the big businessmen turning the economy to crap, yet still flying around in their corporate jets (LOL THEY WIMPED OUT!) *I have no idea if they're athiests or not*, but what they're doing is certainly not pro-religious values as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

Shelley: You just got some examples above, especially note Hitler. (just because a lot of people hate him so much).

Also: how much effort do you think I'm going to to write these posts? I'm not gonna google search the head of General Motors just to find out his religious views.


----------



## fanwuq (Dec 6, 2008)

There are more ways to debate than just evidence vs. evidence...
Sometimes you do something unconventional just to confuse the other side and get them off topic. 
I'm still quite undecided about religion, though Michael Gottlieb is really convincing! He must be using the power of the BIG cubes!


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

That's not a strawman. Just because atheists have (historically) killed more people than religious people doesn't mean that atheism MAKES you kill people.

Would Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao have killed so many people if they were religious? I think so, because most of the killings were for political reasons, i.e. having to dispose of an unwanted social class after having convinced the public that they are evil. (Besides, it really seems that in those scenarios the murders/evil of the dictator and their desire to stay in power caused them to be atheist or force atheism on their people, rather than the atheism causing them to be so evil.) But how could you explain things such as the Anglican/Protestant persecutions in England, or the Spanish Inquisition, without religion? It simply couldn't have happened if everyone involved was atheist.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

qq: you've missed the point - people have fought in the name of their religion, but no one is going to fight in the name of athiesm; that's just crazy. So when Shelley asks for an example of someone fighting in the name of athiesm she knows that I can't find one. Thus, it's a blatant strawman.


----------



## gogozerg (Dec 6, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> I told ya this thread should be locked.
> 
> It will go on and on and on, as long as people have different views towards religion in general.
> 
> ...



You're right, close this thread, there are other subjects to discuss.
What next? Abortion? Death penalty?


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> It wasn't my argument, but Dinesh D'Souza argues that the killings in the name of a religion are far outweighed by the killings by anti-religious people such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others.



“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.” - Sam Harris

The point is that these atrocities were not caused by atheism.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

leyan: I don't see how that is an example of fighting in the name of athiesm? As far as I can see, that is what has been asked of me, and it is a crazy idea.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

Not "fighting in the name of atheism," that's silly. Just an example of how atheism makes people do bad things, the way religion makes people do bad things. If that's the point you're trying to make, that's the example you'll have to show.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

My point was that athiests do bad things as well. Not necessarily because of their athiesm. It's more of a general human kind of thing. People are fundamentally bad (animal instinct I guess).

Note: I don't say fundamentally violent, I don't actually think people are fundamentally violent, but instead I think violence comes from some other underlying insecurity. But the whole selfishness, and so easily giving in to temptation etc. leads humans to be bad. (I certainly hope no one would ever put me into that category (although many people would still call me mean)).


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 6, 2008)

As I said before, I am not a believer, yet I live under Christian morals/values and believe they have done a lot more good for the world than harm, and citing the inquisition, which killed just 2,000 people over a 300 year period, does not undermine the religion's goodness. This question has been asked before, I'm not sure by whom, but when you are walking down the street, would you feel more comfortable knowing the group of people ahead of you just came from a prayer group and are devout Christians, or not? The answer may seem simple, but it shows how Christian values have bettered the world, and instills morals and values in us that we may otherwise not have.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> but when you are walking down the street, would you feel more comfortable knowing the group of people ahead of you just came from a prayer group and are devout Christians, or not?



That depends on a lot of things. What were they praying about? For forgiveness about the violence that they were about to commit? Are they crazy evangelists come to annoy me and convert me to a religion I'm already a part of? etc.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

Where did these morals come from? Say what you want about your holy texts being the word of god, the fact is they were all written by humans. People came up with these morals and values, not some imaginary deity. Perhaps religion was historically the most efficient way to impart these morals on others, but that doesn't mean religion is necessary for morality.


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

shelley said:


> Where did these morals come from? Say what you want about your holy texts being the word of god, the fact is they were all written by humans. People came up with these morals and values, not some imaginary deity. Perhaps religion was historically the most efficient way to impart these morals on others, but that doesn't mean religion is necessary for morality.



Without a supreme being, morals are all relative.
Unless, that is, you could defend a view of non-relativism of morals, without someone to set the objective moral truths.

My point being, you can't *be* moral without a supreme being. Emphasis on "be" for a very specific reason.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

Morals are all relative and pretty arbitrary even with your supreme beings in play. Does not working on the Sabbath _really_ make you a better person than me?


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

Shelley: Of course morals aren't relative with a supreme being. If God is the "ruler" of our universe, then his word goes. Because he is all benevolent, he knows best. Of course, that particular commandment is rather outdated. Jesus failed to acknowledge it in his 2 "all-important" commandments.


----------



## shelley (Dec 6, 2008)

That's all well and good, but what about all the other people in the world who don't believe in your particular flavor of god? Not just atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists... Even Christians can't agree on a single version of their doctrine, what with all the branches it's split into.
(Which is kind of what I was trying to get at... There are still people who believe working on the Sabbath is a sin.)


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

Dene said:


> qq: you've missed the point - people have fought in the name of their religion, but no one is going to fight in the name of athiesm; that's just crazy.


That's EXACTLY the point I was making..It's not a straw man (i.e. an easy-to-refute misrepresentation of an opponent's position), just an argument that you know you can't win.

As for your point that atheists can do bad things - of COURSE they can. But nobody has said that atheism somehow makes you into a better / more moral person, and furthermore I don't think anyone would even deny this (strawman, woo). Imagine a society where everyone has a certain property. Evil people exist, therefore it is still possible for people with that property to be evil or do evil things. No society with sufficient freedom can stop evil acts from being committed.



Kyle Barry said:


> This question has been asked before, I'm not sure by whom, but when you are walking down the street, would you feel more comfortable knowing the group of people ahead of you just came from a prayer group and are devout Christians, or not?


I don't think it would make me any more or less comfortable, because I don't automatically assume that certain types of people are especially nice or mean. Is this an "assess your prejudice" type question or is it supposed to have a correct answer?



Dene said:


> Without a supreme being, morals are all relative.


Except that my morals don't come from religion. I'm not religious and neither are my parents. The reason certain things are right and wrong for me is principally because they have to be that way for society to function - for instance, murder is not acceptable in normal life, but it is a bit more acceptable in wartime or self-defence because the person you are killing is trying to kill you. Just saying "murder is wrong" means that a vast number of soldiers have committed atrocities, and no matter what you think about war you have to admit this is a bit of an extreme viewpoint. A society in which murder is completely fine would not last for very long, or would collapse into a fear-based dictatorship of the strongest person in the village.


----------



## Lt-UnReaL (Dec 6, 2008)

shelley said:


> I don't need faith when there is observable evidence. When you believe in something without evidence, that takes faith. (Of course, my definition of atheism is that I *don't believe* in a god, not that I *believe* there is no god.)



I think the same way, except isn't there a one and only exact definition of atheist? Some say believe in no god, some say don't believe in a god.



leyanlo said:


> Lt-UnReaL said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess it has become clear to me that atheist is a person who believes that there is no supreme being, rather than not believing in a supreme being.
> ...



I thought the same until I looked around for definitions of the word 'atheist'. See above ^


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

Shelley: if there was only one supreme being, then it would be their word, and not the imaginary "Hindu God" or "Christian God" that gave morals.
qq: That is nice and all, but the morals are still only applicable to yourself, and thus still relative. btw, I think relativism is poopy.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 6, 2008)

"I don't think it would make me any more or less comfortable, because I don't automatically assume that certain types of people are especially nice or mean. Is this an "assess your prejudice" type question or is it supposed to have a correct answer?"

I guess you are insinuating that this prejudice is wrong, but if a bunch of gang members, or hardcore mafia guys, or even rambunctious teenagers are headed towards you in a dark alley, rather than a group of nuns, I think you are lying to yourself if you say you won't feel more nervous. Just as a female midget is clearly not as likely to mug you than a large man, this "prejudice" is based on statistics and logic, and it's not wrong.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

If I saw a group of muscular, tough-looking men walking towards me, I'd get out of the way whether they'd come from a prayer service or not. Even if I knew that the group of people had or hadn't come from a prayer service, what would really make me decide whether to be worried was their appearance. What I was saying was that having come from a prayer service does not give me enough information to decide whether the people are dangerous or not. Not all gang members or mafia members are atheist (in fact I guess that those groups have about the same percentage of Christians as the rest of the population), and similarly not all polite and nonthreatening women are devout Christians.

What's your answer, if you were on a sidewalk and you saw two people coming at you in opposite directions and they looked EXACTLY the same, except one had an "atheism rocks!" t-shirt and one had a "christianity rocks!" t-shirt... which one would you be more nervous around? If there is a difference for you, is it really because one group of people is nicer, or because you believe that one philosophy makes you a nicer person?


----------



## Crickets (Dec 6, 2008)

qqwref said:


> If I saw a group of muscular, tough-looking men walking towards me, I'd get out of the way whether they'd come from a prayer service or not. Even if I knew that the group of people had or hadn't come from a prayer service, what would really make me decide whether to be worried was their appearance. What I was saying was that having come from a prayer service does not give me enough information to decide whether the people are dangerous or not. *Not all gang members or mafia members are atheist (in fact I guess that those groups have about the same percentage of Christians as the rest of the population)*, and similarly not all polite and nonthreatening women are devout Christians.
> 
> What's your answer, if you were on a sidewalk and you saw two people coming at you in opposite directions and they looked EXACTLY the same, except one had an "atheism rocks!" t-shirt and one had a *"christianity rocks!"* t-shirt... which one would you be more nervous around? If there is a difference for you, is it really because one group of people is nicer, or because you believe that one philosophy makes you a nicer person?



Just to clarify going to church, wearing a "christianity rocks" t-shirt or wearing a cross around your neck does not make your a christian. Most certainly in the case of the "gang members or mafia". If they were really christian then they wouldn't be those things. I'm not saying that if your a gang member or in the mafia that you can't become christian. Just saying if you truly accept God into your heart as his word says you will become new, and give up your old ways.


----------



## Kyle Barry (Dec 6, 2008)

"If I saw a group of muscular, tough-looking men walking towards me, I'd get out of the way whether they'd come from a prayer service or not. Even if I knew that the group of people had or hadn't come from a prayer service, what would really make me decide whether to be worried was their appearance. What I was saying was that having come from a prayer service does not give me enough information to decide whether the people are dangerous or not. Not all gang members or mafia members are atheist (in fact I guess that those groups have about the same percentage of Christians as the rest of the population), and similarly not all polite and nonthreatening women are devout Christians.

What's your answer, if you were on a sidewalk and you saw two people coming at you in opposite directions and they looked EXACTLY the same, except one had an "atheism rocks!" t-shirt and one had a "christianity rocks!" t-shirt... which one would you be more nervous around? If there is a difference for you, is it really because one group of people is nicer, or because you believe that one philosophy makes you a nicer person?"

-I wasn't implying that those people are not Christian, just seemed that you were saying you wouldn't dare judge someone before knowing them and therefore would not be nervous, you said you don't assume certain types of people are nice or mean, but those examples seem to be on the contrary, I would argue the fact that you know something about their personalities is more indicative of their possible actions than appearance alone as you say you would base these things on, if you knew those muscular men volunteered at a soup kitchen everyday, you probably would not fear them.
If I saw the tshirts I wouldn't think they were serious so it wouldn't actually make a big difference, but if i knew for a fact that the one was devout Christian and the other was not, I would probably be more nervous of the other one. I think the Christian values instilled in people, or maybe just the fear of being punished by God, what have you, makes them less likely to harm people. For instance, people in Fiji were cannibals until introduced to Christianity, Christian quakers and evangelists thought all people were equal in the eyes of God so slavery was wrong. But I do not think it is believing in the religion of Christianity that does this, but the morals that Christianity has introduced that makes it a good thing.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 6, 2008)

Kyle Barry said:


> > What's your answer, if you were on a sidewalk and you saw two people coming at you in opposite directions and they looked EXACTLY the same, except one had an "atheism rocks!" t-shirt and one had a "christianity rocks!" t-shirt... which one would you be more nervous around? If there is a difference for you, is it really because one group of people is nicer, or because you believe that one philosophy makes you a nicer person?
> 
> 
> If I saw the tshirts I wouldn't think they were serious so it wouldn't actually make a big difference, but if i knew for a fact that the one was devout Christian and the other was not, I would probably be more nervous of the other one. I think the Christian values instilled in people, or maybe just the fear of being punished by God, what have you, makes them less likely to harm people. For instance, people in Fiji were cannibals until introduced to Christianity, Christian quakers and evangelists thought all people were equal in the eyes of God so slavery was wrong. But I do not think it is believing in the religion of Christianity that does this, but the morals that Christianity has introduced that makes it a good thing.



Actually, I think everyone I know who would wear an "atheism rocks" shirt is a fairly peaceful person. If I saw Leyan, Shelley, and qq walking down the street with atheist shirts, I certainly wouldn't be any more afraid of them than Dene, Rama, and Lofty with their Christian shirts. 

As for religion instilling moral values: It may have been helpful in civilizing the cannibals of fiji, but the average person knows that murder is wrong, that stealing what doesn't belong to you is wrong, that, in general, hurting someone for your own benefit is wrong. I don't need an illogical religion (with the additional illogical "rules" that implies) to tell me how my fellow man is to be treated.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 6, 2008)

Dene said:


> My point was that athiests do bad things as well. Not necessarily because of their athiesm. It's more of a general human kind of thing. People are fundamentally bad (animal instinct I guess).
> 
> Note: I don't say fundamentally violent, I don't actually think people are fundamentally violent, but instead I think violence comes from some other underlying insecurity. But the whole selfishness, and so easily giving in to temptation etc. leads humans to be bad. (I certainly hope no one would ever put me into that category (although many people would still call me mean)).



Humans are not bad -- we are moral beings. What makes us moral? Not religion:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html


----------



## Escher (Dec 6, 2008)

religion is just another form of control.

god = benevolent father? to make the working classes believe in Him; they are made to feel they have no hope otherwise.
god = the guy who'll consign you to the fiery pits of hell? so you adhere to the rules set up by the upper classes who want to prevent individual thinking and acting, and class mobility. 
Religion is there to keep you in your place.


----------



## Joël (Dec 6, 2008)

Ton said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > Rama said:
> ...



Hi Ton,

Maybe I am missing something here, but I do not really understand how 1 cor 1:27 relates to what Stefan said. Could you elaborate a bit more on that?

Thanks!

Joël.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 6, 2008)

qqwref said:


> The only evidence that atheism is wrong would be evidence for the existence of a god (which is impossible)


Stating that it's impossible is quite bold. If some guy visits me, consistently and effortlessly solves well-scrambled cubes in the shortest way, makes me levitate, actually into space, lets me watch while he makes earth rotate faster and then burn, only to create another planet right next to it to replace the first, then making the first disappear... I think I'd be convinced he's sort of a "higher being" able to create worlds. Wouldn't you? And how do you know that's not possible?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

Atheist point of view: How can God exist, you can't prove it, because he doesn't exist, and you can't prove something that doesn't exist, because it's not real, and you can't prove it, its impossible.

Wow we get that.

Visit this site for a discussion for your liking: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/proof-for-the-existence-of-god-30588.html


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 6, 2008)

Rama said:


> (X) said:
> 
> 
> > OK, any christian here (or someone that has other beliefs), please tell why god is real and not St. Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, also please tell me why (almost) every religios person got religios parents
> ...



I ran across this thread for the first time late last night and read the first few pages. This morning I've read up to page 7. I just want to say to Rama:

Good answer.


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 6, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Atheist point of view: *How can God exist, you can't prove it*, *because he doesn't exist*, *and you can't prove something that doesn't exist,* because it's not real, and *you can't prove it*, *its impossible.*
> Wow we get that.
> 
> Visit this site for a discussion for your liking: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/proof-for-the-existence-of-god-30588.html




1. Yes
2. Perhaps
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 6, 2008)

riffz said:


> Lotsofsloths said:
> 
> 
> > Dene said:
> ...



Dene, riffz: I like it.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Atheist point of view: *How can God exist, you can't prove it*, *because he doesn't exist*, *and you can't prove something that doesn't exist,* because it's not real, and *you can't prove it*, *its impossible.*
> ...



Exactly lol.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 6, 2008)

You've had 2000 years, guys. If you could prove without a doubt that God existed, I really think someone would have done it by now. That's why I say you can't - it's not 'gods don't exist implies you can't prove their existence'.

Oh, and Stefan: how do you know it was not a dream? ;-)


----------



## Rubixcubematt (Dec 6, 2008)

this may have already come up earlier in this thread, but i haven't really been reading this thread. I'm just going to state 2 facts about the world that i know and that it couldn't have just been n accident or a sudden BIG BANG. If you scale the world down into the size of a billiards ball, or visa-versa, the world would be smoother then the billiards ball all around, and if the earth was 1 degree closer or further away from the sun, we would die from either an ice age, or it being way too hot. so if the world could hang in that kind of ballance without some other kind of god or creator, and still survive, it must be the most MASSIVE fluke in the whole of the universe. before i found these out, i was still a christian, but if the world was by accident, dont you think it could accidently move 1 degree closer or further away from the sun and we die????


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

Rubixcubematt said:


> this may have already come up earlier in this thread, but i haven't really been reading this thread. I'm just going to state 2 facts about the world that i know and that it couldn't have just been n accident or a sudden BIG BANG. If you scale the world down into the size of a billiards ball, or visa-versa, the world would be smoother then the billiards ball all around, and if the earth was 1 degree closer or further away from the sun, we would die from either an ice age, or it being way too hot. so if the world could hang in that kind of ballance without some other kind of god or creator, and still survive, it must be the most MASSIVE fluke in the whole of the universe. before i found these out, i was still a christian, but if the world was by accident, dont you think it could accidently move 1 degree closer or further away from the sun and we die????



You can't move a "degree". 
And by the way the earth's orbit is NOT circular, so the earth moves millions of kilometers closer and away from the sun. The closest is on January(147 million kilometers), and the farthest is on July(152 million kilometers).


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 6, 2008)

Rubixcubematt said:


> this may have already come up earlier in this thread, but i haven't really been reading this thread. I'm just going to state 2 facts about the world that i know and that it couldn't have just been n accident or a sudden BIG BANG. If you scale the world down into the size of a billiards ball, or visa-versa, the world would be smoother then the billiards ball all around, and if the earth was 1 degree closer or further away from the sun, we would die from either an ice age, or it being way too hot. so if the world could hang in that kind of ballance without some other kind of god or creator, and still survive, it must be the most MASSIVE fluke in the whole of the universe. before i found these out, i was still a christian, but if the world was by accident, dont you think it could accidently move 1 degree closer or further away from the sun and we die????



Which is why we're the planet with the life while there are thousands of other barren wastelands orbiting around their own suns.


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 6, 2008)

Rubixcubematt said:


> this may have already come up earlier in this thread, but i haven't really been reading this thread. I'm just going to state 2 facts about the world that i know and that it couldn't have just been n accident or a sudden BIG BANG. If you scale the world down into the size of a billiards ball, or visa-versa, the world would be smoother then the billiards ball all around



This may be true, but in a more general case, would probably be true for any earth-sized or larger planet, and is due to gravity and erosion. To give a counterargument, the Earth has a difference in polar/equatorial radii of roughly .3%, while venus (earth-sized) has a difference of less than .0001%. So Venus is even more spherical (and smooth) than the earth; and the Earth is relatively jagged compared to Venus.




Rubixcubematt said:


> and if the earth was 1 degree closer or further away from the sun, we would die from either an ice age, or it being way too hot. so if the world could hang in that kind of ballance without some other kind of god or creator, and still survive, it must be the most MASSIVE fluke in the whole of the universe. before i found these out, i was still a christian, but if the world was by accident, dont you think it could accidently move 1 degree closer or further away from the sun and we die????



1 degree closer? That makes no sense; a degree isn't a distance. You could move the Earth about 5% closer to the sun, or 37% further away, and it would still be habitable [citation].

On another note, one of the only reasons the Earth's atmosphere isn't like Venus's is due to liquid water... Much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is absorbed by the ocean and combines with dissolved Ca (salts) to form the precipitate CaHCO3(or limestone, or marble). If you were to extract all of the carbon from these rocks, the atmosphere would look quite like that of Venus. So yes we owe our existence and wonderful atmosphere to water, but that could have happened on any planet within the habitable range. I mean, even some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons have liquid water on them, so it isn't out of the question that those are habitable.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 6, 2008)

qqwref said:


> Oh, and Stefan: how do you know it was not a dream? ;-)



Obviously I'd pinch myself! Duh!

Point was, you made a strong claim, and I would like to know how you justify it.

I have no reason to believe there's a god, so I don't.
I have no reason to believe there's no god, so I don't.
If someone believes either way, I wonder why.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 6, 2008)

JBCM627 said:


> Rubixcubematt said:
> 
> 
> > this may have already come up earlier in this thread, but i haven't really been reading this thread. I'm just going to state 2 facts about the world that i know and that it couldn't have just been n accident or a sudden BIG BANG. If you scale the world down into the size of a billiards ball, or visa-versa, the world would be smoother then the billiards ball all around
> ...



1 degree is 1/360 or .002_77_ or .2_77_%


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and Stefan: how do you know it was not a dream? ;-)
> ...



Believing in God can prevent unwanted depressions. (Like what's going to happen after I die?) That could be a reason.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

MistArts said:


> 1 degree is 1/360 or .002_77_ or .2_77_%


1 degree is the 1/360th angle of a circle. It's not a measure.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 6, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > 1 degree is 1/360 or .002_77_ or .2_77_%
> ...


It can be the angle of any shape, including a line.


----------



## McWizzle94 (Dec 6, 2008)

MistArts said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



Nitrocan just got mathematically owned


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 6, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



From Dictionary.com:
Geometry. the 360th part of a complete angle or turn, often represented by the sign°, as in 45°, which is read as 45 degrees. Compare angle 1 (def. 1c).


----------



## Dene (Dec 6, 2008)

leyanlo said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that athiests do bad things as well. Not necessarily because of their athiesm. It's more of a general human kind of thing. People are fundamentally bad (animal instinct I guess).
> ...



Firstly: I haven't said religion makes us moral. What I _have_ said is that religion takes away relativism.
Secondly: I disagree with the overall conclusion of the article. I still think humans fall far short of moral. (I may as well point out here that not a single thing said in that article was new to me. Being a philosophy and psychology double major really helps me with these sorts of things).
Consider this: How often do you say something about someone behind their back, that you wouldn't want them to find out about? I assume the answer is "at least occasionally" if not "often". You might say "not at all", in which case I say good for you! But you cannot deny that with other people this happens all the time - even amon religious people (my grandma being a perfect example). This act of the denial of someone who considers you a friend (well, at least they're probably a friend, if you aren't prepared to say it to their face) is clearly an immoral act (explain why if you disagree, and I will counter-argue then). Small immoral acts like this happen all the time. Morality isn't just "do not kill" or "empathise", it is about living to a standard, and as far as I can see, humans fall far short of that standard.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

No you can't say that 1 degree is 1/360 of a line.


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 6, 2008)

MistArts said:


> 1 degree is 1/360 or .002_77_ or .2_77_%



Yeah, % of what though... degrees in a circle? That tells us nothing. An angle is not a measure of distance, nor a percentage of a distance; it is dimensionally absurd to suggest otherwise.



MistArts said:


> It can be the angle of any shape, including a line.



That also makes no sense, unless you say that a line represents an angle of 180 degrees or something.

Like Tyson said earlier, Poe's Law Poe's Law Poe's Law


----------



## Stefan (Dec 6, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Believing in God can prevent unwanted depressions. (Like what's going to happen after I die?) That could be a reason.


How/why does it help there?

And do *you* (nitrocan) believe in God? If so, why do *you*? I'm not really interested in "maybe they believe because" speculations.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 6, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Believing in God can prevent unwanted depressions. (Like what's going to happen after I die?) That could be a reason.
> ...



No what I meant was, you help yourself psychologically by thinking that God exists. That makes you think that you will not just "disappear" after dying.

Sadly, I have those depressions as well. (Not as much as before gladly. I used to cry all night about what would happen if I died when I was 10 or something lol)


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



Oh so you agree in believing there is no god?
good to know  

(what you get for one word responses  )


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Derrick Eide17 said:
> ...



I didn't quite get which ones you responded to 
Since you said No to "That's impossible", and Perhaps to "He doesn't exist", I assumed you are neutral  So am I. I'm still looking for proof.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2008)

MistArts said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



A degree is a dimensionless unit, as it is defined as pi/180 radian (and the radian is also a dimensionless unit). A radian can be thought of as "1", since it is common to omit the term radian from an angle (compare 'millimeter' or similar, which you would never be able to omit), so I guess you could call the degree a unit with the value of pi/180 (just like % is a unit with a value of 1/100). The end result is that you can't move closer or further by a degree, but you can possibly move closer or further by a degree of the distance (that is pi/180 ~= 1.74% of the distance).


----------



## JBCM627 (Dec 7, 2008)

qqwref said:


> The end result is that you can't move closer or further by a degree, but you can possibly move closer or further by a degree of the distance (that is pi/180 ~= 1.74% of the distance).



This still doesn't really make sense to say; it is too out of context. If I were going to move 100 feet in a straight line, it would be silly to say that going 1.74 feet would be one degree of the line.

On the other hand, if you wanted to move 1 degree along the Earth's orbit, that would make more sense... talking about moving a degree really only makes sense when you are moving in a circle, unless you are using polar coordinates or something. And anyway, the earth moving 1 degree along its orbit just means the earth would approximately move where it is going to be tomorrow, or where it was yesterday, and since the earth was habitable yesterday, and will hopefully be habitable tomorrow...


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



Well not really
I dont believe in god, or dont believe that there really is A god.
but im not saying its IMPOSSIBLE though because you never know in life.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 7, 2008)

McWizzle94 said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



A straight line is 180 degrees. Lines and/or rays intersecting can make a angle.


----------



## leyanlo (Dec 7, 2008)

Dene said:


> Firstly: I haven't said religion makes us moral. What I _have_ said is that religion takes away relativism.
> Secondly: I disagree with the overall conclusion of the article. I still think humans fall far short of moral. (I may as well point out here that not a single thing said in that article was new to me. Being a philosophy and psychology double major really helps me with these sorts of things).
> Consider this: How often do you say something about someone behind their back, that you wouldn't want them to find out about? I assume the answer is "at least occasionally" if not "often". You might say "not at all", in which case I say good for you! But you cannot deny that with other people this happens all the time - even amon religious people (my grandma being a perfect example). This act of the denial of someone who considers you a friend (well, at least they're probably a friend, if you aren't prepared to say it to their face) is clearly an immoral act (explain why if you disagree, and I will counter-argue then). Small immoral acts like this happen all the time. Morality isn't just "do not kill" or "empathise", it is about living to a standard, and as far as I can see, humans fall far short of that standard.



Why is taking away relativism good?
I'm not quite sure how talking about someone behind their back is immoral. Isn't that just disrespect? Disrespect is not necessarily immoral, especially if that person is undeserving of your respect.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 7, 2008)

> How often do you say something about someone behind their back ... (my grandma being a perfect example)



pot/kettle etc.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 7, 2008)

I know there must be someone in here who's heard about George Carlin, the legendary comedian. He didn't believe in hell (no offense), and one of the related videos to one of his skits says that George is in hell. And it's really really stupid...anyone can believe whatever the hell they want! I hate these really religeous idiots who criticize other beliefs.

P.S. - no offense to anyone, really...I'm just kinda mad :\


----------



## DcF1337 (Dec 7, 2008)

EmersonHerrmann said:


> I know there must be someone in here who's heard about George Carlin, the legendary comedian. He didn't believe in hell (no offense), and one of the related videos to one of his skits says that George is in hell. And it's really really stupid...anyone can believe whatever the hell they want! I hate these really religeous idiots who criticize other beliefs.
> 
> P.S. - no offense to anyone, really...I'm just kinda mad :\



But... you're criticizing them, aren't you?

Oh, the hypocrisy.


----------



## EmersonHerrmann (Dec 7, 2008)

DcF1337 said:


> EmersonHerrmann said:
> 
> 
> > I know there must be someone in here who's heard about George Carlin, the legendary comedian. He didn't believe in hell (no offense), and one of the related videos to one of his skits says that George is in hell. And it's really really stupid...anyone can believe whatever the hell they want! I hate these really religeous idiots who criticize other beliefs.
> ...



*Blinks* You're right :O As the singer of LazyBoy says in "Underwear Goes Inside the Pants" people love to judge other people.


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 7, 2008)

riffz said:


> tim said:
> 
> 
> > riffz said:
> ...



I like it. Wow. I would like to spend some serious time studying the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. This was a page on the allaboutthejourney link. I recently was pointed in the direction of some sermons by a guy named Paul Washer. In one of them he pointed out the importance of finding out what the Bible says about who God is in depth. And then I run across this link here.


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 7, 2008)

Derrick Eide17 said:


> so... if you are totally a thoughtful, caring, nice, and well behaved person. your whole life you work hard, help others around you and make a difference. Just because of a change in BELIEF you get sent to so called "Hell"? :confused:
> 
> thats harsh..



Is anyone here, or does anyone know anyone, who is *totally* thoughtful, caring, nice, and well behaved, that works hard, helps others around them, and makes a difference in everything they do? I would guess that this hypothetical person that is being treated harshly, doesn't actually exist.

I know, I know, I'm about 5 days behind in the conversation. I just found it last night and am trying to catch up. So if the comments I'm making have already been made I'll find out as I continue reading through the thread. But if I read through the whole 40-odd pages before commenting, I'll forget what I had to say. I know, I know, that would be just fine with some of you.


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 7, 2008)

Kian said:


> donations. some churches demand tithes, most just request them.
> 
> i know my church passes around a collection plate and people give what they can.



Mine doesn't pass a plate, but has a wooden box with a slot for people to drop donations in if they'd like. I wonder how many churches accept online donations through PayPal?  Or how about automatic withdrawals from bank accounts like some companies.


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 7, 2008)

brunson said:


> Religion is, by definition, ascribing unexplainable phenomena to a supernatural being.



My first thought is: then I'm not religious, because I don't limit it to _unexplainable_ phenomena!  

For example, I thank God for sunrises, sunsets, interesting views of the moon, starry nights, clouds... I thank God for bugs, birds, all sorts of critters. I thank Him as the Creator, and I thank Him for blessing me with these things in the course of life. I thank God for caring, for loving, for mercy, for justice. I thank God for Jesus.


----------



## robertpauljr (Dec 7, 2008)

Rama said:


> d4m4s74 said:
> 
> 
> > If people pray for someone to get better in illness, or be lucky, and they get it, it's god, but if they don't get it, they don't connect it to god in any way?
> ...



Yes. And not only does Job, which is one of the earliest books written, teach this, but there is plenty of similar teaching in the New Testament, too. "My brothers and sisters, consider it nothing but joy when you fall into all sorts of trials..." Crazy, but "we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose." If you want to read these verses in context they are from James 1, and Romans 8.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

MistArts said:


> McWizzle94 said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



No, the angle of a straight line is 180 degrees.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> MistArts said:
> 
> 
> > McWizzle94 said:
> ...



No, the measure of the angle formed by a straight line is 180 degrees.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

Swordsman Kirby said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > MistArts said:
> ...



Sorry, that's what I meant. The measure of the angle of a straight line is 180 degrees.


----------



## MistArts (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Swordsman Kirby said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



I said if lines intersect, they can form an angle.


----------



## Shizphactory (Dec 7, 2008)

"My religion is simple. My religion is kindness"


----------



## Derrick Eide17 (Dec 7, 2008)

robertpauljr said:


> Derrick Eide17 said:
> 
> 
> > so... if you are totally a thoughtful, caring, nice, and well behaved person. your whole life you work hard, help others around you and make a difference. Just because of a change in BELIEF you get sent to so called "Hell"? :confused:
> ...



Example: kids and elderly adults living in the really poor countries in the world and starving to death, and even those kids who are so unfortunate that their parents die and they end up the rest of their lives taking care of their younger brother or sister all by themselves... and how do they get rewarded for this?
... well... they get to starve to death and live in poverty... Thanks.. umm. god?


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Dec 7, 2008)

I think threads like this one divide us way more than they unite us as cubers. I know that this is off topic thread but we are here because we share a rare gift, not to debate who should beleive what.


----------



## Escher (Dec 7, 2008)

well, i dont actually believe many of us here DO possess a rare gift. 
i think what we do possess is a (marginally) above average spatial awareness, and we get seriously obsessed.


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Dec 7, 2008)

Escher said:


> well, i dont actually believe many of us here DO possess a rare gift.
> i think what we do possess is a (marginally) above average spatial awareness, and we get seriously obsessed.



well more than half of the people who watch me solve are not smart enough to google how to solve a rubiks and find a crappy dan brown tutorial.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 7, 2008)

kickinwing2112 said:


> I think threads like this one divide us way more than they unite us as cubers. I know that this is off topic thread but we are here because we share a rare gift, not to debate who should beleive what.



Off-topic thread. It's here for a reason. 'Nuff said.


----------



## kickinwing2112 (Dec 7, 2008)

pcharles93 said:


> kickinwing2112 said:
> 
> 
> > I think threads like this one divide us way more than they unite us as cubers. I know that this is off topic thread but we are here because we share a rare gift, not to debate who should beleive what.
> ...



ok you win.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> you help yourself psychologically by thinking that God exists. That makes you think that you will not just "disappear" after dying.


But why don't you simply directly believe you won't just disappear after dying? Why the detour through God?


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

And last night I realized a concise way to describe why I scrutinize and mock believers (besides the harm they're doing):

I just can't stand condescending false know-it-alls.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 7, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > you help yourself psychologically by thinking that God exists. That makes you think that you will not just "disappear" after dying.
> ...



They can't handle the fact that when you die, nothing happens. They need to have something to look forward to. And that means being sent to heaven or hell. And for some reason, all of your relatives are gonna be waiting for you at the pearly gates that you might not make it to.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

I repeat: Why the detour through God?
(Did you even read what I wrote?)


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

Think about it this way:
My country is a Muslim country. Here are the religious holidays for us:
-Ramazan Bayramı (Bayram = Festival or some sort of celebration)
-Kurban Bayramı

In Ramazan Bayramı, little children go to their neighbors, and celebrate their bayram. Get sweets and finish the day.
In Kurban Bayramı, we sacrifice animals to God. So the meat gets divided and every family takes a share, and some of the meat is given to the poor.

The positive sides:
-The people get closer and visit their relatives
-The poor are fed
-The country becomes alive (Everyone buys sweets, deserts, food, clothes etc. for bayram since they will be hosting guests.)
-The old people don't get lonely
-It's fun getting together.

Much much more...

I'd rather believe something so positive like this, even if it requires believing something nonexistent.

Tomorrow is Kurban Bayramı.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

Again: Why the detour through God?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> Again: Why the detour through God?



Because it gives a reasonable explanation for you not to disappear.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

No more reasonable than directly believing you won't disappear.
And I also meant the question for your party scenario. You can do that without God, can't you?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> No more reasonable than directly believing you won't disappear.
> And I also meant the question for your party scenario. You can do that without God, can't you?



You can, but the whole nation can't.


----------



## Dene (Dec 7, 2008)

Stefan: Are you saying that you think an afterlife is more plausible without a god?

EDIT: This is a genuine question, not a snide remark or anything.



leyanlo said:


> Why is taking away relativism good?
> I'm not quite sure how talking about someone behind their back is immoral. Isn't that just disrespect? Disrespect is not necessarily immoral, especially if that person is undeserving of your respect.



Taking away relativism means you can say that someone is/isn't doing the _right_ or _wrong_ thing. If acts are all relativistic, nothing is _right_ or _wrong_ at all. With relativism, Hitler did nothing _wrong_. Can you openly, right here right now, say that Hitler did nothing _wrong_? (Wrong in the moral sense). I certainly hope that you can't.

Ok my talking-about-someone-behind-their-back example:
Ok so morals are about doing the right/wrong thing. The way I see it, it is wrong to be disrespectful (to use your own view). Fair enough? Maybe you disagree - seeing as you seem to want to be a relativist, go ahead  .
If the person does not deserve your respect, then why say it behind their back? (why not say things to their face?) They might be mean when talking, but just be unaware of it, while they think that you are good buddies. I think that is quite common among people who lack social skills. Do you think it is still fair to be disrespectful behind their back? (and I may as well add, that I think it is the wrong thing to do to be disrespectful to someone but not front up about it).


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

Dene said:


> Stefan: Are you saying that you think an afterlife is more plausible without a god?



No. But "afterlife" is more plausible than "afterlife with a god". Simply because "afterlife" _includes_ "afterlife with a god" (as well as "afterlife without a god", of course). Mathematically speaking, the probability for "A and G" is less than the probability for just A, unless the probability for G is one, but it's never more. So I don't understand why people walk a detour in their wishful thinking rather than going straight for what they actually want.


----------



## ThePizzaGuy92 (Dec 7, 2008)

wow, chrsitianity is catching up, it used to be way behind. lol

still only one Jewish cuber?

interesting stuff.


----------



## pjk (Dec 7, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > The only evidence that atheism is wrong would be evidence for the existence of a god (which is impossible)
> ...


This pretty sums it up. Nice work, Stefan.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 7, 2008)

Thanks, though I was sloppy. I should be more ignostic and ask first what qqwref meant with "god".

But let's say the criterion is "having created the universe". Such a being certainly might be capable of doing it again and letting me watch. To me, that would be evidence for being able to create our universe, and thus evidence for this kind of "god". For other kinds/criteria, the same "show me" idea applies. Of course there's the "you could be dreaming" issue or the more general "how do you check there's indeed another universe being built", but this technical issue aside, stating this evidence is impossible in my opinion begs for justification. Or was this technical issue exactly what qqwref meant?

Of course that's just my scrutiny of the contra-god belief because I don't understand either belief, doesn't at all mean I'm leaning towards pro-god. I'm firmly in the "no belief either way" zone. My position: If there's a god and at some point it shows up... fine... but I won't hold my breath.

(Btw, I'm now out of here. I just noticed writing this one message took me over half an hour, and I should be doing other stuff with my time instead.)


----------



## qqwref (Dec 7, 2008)

robertpauljr said:


> I like it ... here.





robertpauljr said:


> Is anyone here ... some of you.





robertpauljr said:


> Mine doesn't pass a plate ... some companies.





robertpauljr said:


> My first thought is ... I thank God for Jesus.





robertpauljr said:


> Yes. And not only ... Romans 8.


OH MY GOD DID YOU REALLY HAVE TO QUINTUPLE POST

You can quote many things in one post, you know. I do this once in a while. Or just keep a text document open with all the responses you want to make, and post them all at once... or edit your post any time you have more to say...




nitrocan said:


> Think about it this way:
> My country is a Muslim country. Here are the religious holidays for us:
> -Ramazan Bayramı (Bayram = Festival or some sort of celebration)
> -Kurban Bayramı
> ...


So, for a lot of Jewish folks in America, we don't strictly observe the religion itself, but we celebrate the holidays and festivals for the same reason you do - to bring people closer together, to encourage being nice to others, and so on. You can celebrate holidays and festivals (even religious ones!) without needing to believe God is behind it.

An even better example is Thanksgiving, which just happened a couple of weeks ago. It's a time for families and neighbors to get together, to be thankful for what you have, and so on, and there's nothing religious about it at all. In fact the origin of it is supposedly when a group of early settlers sailed to America and were taught how to properly make food by the local inhabitants. So I agree with you, holidays and festivals are awesome - but you don't need God at all to have them and to get the benefits.



Dene said:


> [stuff about relativism]


It seems to me (from the small amount of research I did over the past day or so) that human beings have an innate moral code, so that even children who are not explicitly taught how to behave will already know that murdering, stealing, etc. is wrong. Of course there are a small number of people who are 'broken' in a sense and don't think it is wrong at all, and there are also a small number of people who will know it is wrong but will do it anyway for various reasons. But for the most part, this theory suggests that we behave morally not because there is some God or something telling us to, but because it is simply in our genes.

It makes sense if you think about it in an evolutionary way (just as it makes sense if you think about it as if God created mankind): we are social animals, as are many other primate species. As a species we're rather weak by ourselves (compared to, say, big cats), so we have a much much higher chance of survival and reproduction if we belong to a group. Now if you had two groups of people, one with innate morality and one without it, the group without innate morality would be in comparative chaos: people would be killing each other and fighting all over the place, and nobody would be able to work together with others for fear of being taken advantage of or killed. So the society with innate morals would clearly be able to hold together better, and thus having innate morals would make you more 'fit'. That is, if you believe in evolution, the 'innate morality' theory makes a lot of sense, because having an innate moral code would be better (for survival) than not having it, and so you can expect that after enough time this trait would develop on its own.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 7, 2008)

qqwref said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it this way:
> ...



But it's religion that is making us do those things. (I believe Thanksgiving is supposed to be giving thanks to God, or am I wrong?)

You can celebrate religious festivals without believing in God, but the reason for these festivals, is the people who believe in God. Otherwise, people wouldn't have an incentive.


----------



## pcharles93 (Dec 7, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > nitrocan said:
> ...



Yes, yes you are wrong. Thanksgiving was meant for the early settlers to show their gratitude to the natives that helped them live and not die from starvation. There is no religious meaning behind it, just kindhearted people being respectful. Don't shove god into holidays just because they have positive backgrounds. Now that I think about it, that's what makes me somewhat hate religion. The blind followers always attribute anything positive to a supreme being. Apparently, people can't do good things anymore? It's always this god popping up and bestowing people with a sudden urge to help out. This might not happen to everybody, but my English teacher frustrates me with this.[/rant]


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

Well religious festivals I know (the ones in my country, don't know about the others) are related to God, and are pretty awesome too.

A blind follower religion teacher (Yes we have religion class, but it's more like a philosophy class) was expelled from our school this year if that makes you feel better


----------



## Dene (Dec 8, 2008)

qqwref: your nice little paragraph completely misses the point. Of course I know all about evolutionary instillment of a moral code. This doesn't make things _right_ or _wrong_, it just makes them adaptive. Yes it is innate, and is so through evolution by natural selection, but this doesn't make it non-relative, which is what I'm talking about. Only by having a supreme being that sets a moral code can anything be absolutely right or wrong.


----------



## qqwref (Dec 8, 2008)

No, you're missing my point, Dene. (Also, I find it annoying that you often say someone is 'missing your point' when they are actually arguing against you. Be a good sport, alright? Besides, I didn't write that post only so you could read it. You have no reason to be as arrogant as you are.) What I am saying is that it doesn't matter whether there is a completely absolute morality out there, because humans follow their own laws, which are universal throughout humanity. Some parts of our moral code are non-relative - IF you operate on the assumption that you are talking about humans. There may not be a Law of Physics which states what is right and wrong, but ask any culture on Earth whether it is okay to murder one of your neighbors for no reason, and you won't find any which will say "yeah, that's fine". In a practical sense, whether that is right or wrong is NOT relative.


----------



## Dene (Dec 8, 2008)

qq: Firstly, I am trying to be as good a sport as possible with people who aren't coming out with completely stupid statements (and no you are not one of the ones doing that).
Secondly: I always sound arrogant, that's how I write, get over it.
Thirdly: your "point" completely side-steps mine, so I didn't notice it. But relativism does matter. As I mentioned earlier without absolute moral rules, Hitler did nothing _wrong_. It may be that all humans _think_ something is right, but that doesn't _make_ it right.
I assume your point is "it doesn't matter", and perhaps not. As long as there is a government in place to enforce an accepted moral code (such as "do not kill") then things are ok, but what happens when someone comes along who disagrees...?


----------



## qqwref (Dec 8, 2008)

If you admit that you always come across as arrogant, it's your fault, not mine. That means that you're the one who should get over it - if you think it is my problem that you're arrogant, you're only blaming the victim.

Anyway, the difference, I think, is that you are coming at morality from the perspective of someone who is concerned with universal truth (does the universe has a concept of right or wrong? no? then nothing is right or wrong), whereas I'm coming at it from the perspective of sociology (would everyone agree X is right/wrong? yes? then it is). Adopting moral nihilism may be more 'correct' in the universal sense, but morality is a construction of humans and to me it has to be taken as such. So when I say that certain parts of morality are not relative, I mean that for everywhere morality is defined (i.e. within humanity), those certain actions are always considered 'right' or 'wrong'.

If someone disagrees, for me, they are just going against the idea of society. There is nothing wrong with that in an objective sense, but I think that if they don't like the idea of society they have no business taking advantage of it by owning a house, having a job, eating food they didn't grow/make, and so on. Or maybe a specific amoral person actually cannot understand the concepts of right and wrong for some reason (as opposed to not believing in them), in which case they should probably be in a mental institution.


----------



## Dene (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm not blaming anyone for my sounding arrogant - that is how I write (and speak) and that is how it will stay.

And the problem still remains that while one society may have a particular view, another society may not. I'll use the '08 Euros as an example here. The competition was going to be closed. Some people did not want that, saying that it might be some form of elitism or whatever. Each side could be seen as two separate societies. Who is in the right here? Would it have been wrong to leave people out because they weren't born somewhere? A lot of people seemed to think "no".


----------



## Stefan (Dec 8, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> the reason for these festivals, is the people who believe in God. *Otherwise, people wouldn't have an incentive.*



Um, what?! Here are some things I consider incentive:



nitrocan said:


> -The people get closer and visit their relatives
> -The poor are fed
> -The country becomes alive (Everyone buys sweets, deserts, food, clothes etc. for bayram since they will be hosting guests.)
> -The old people don't get lonely
> ...



Do you disagree?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > the reason for these festivals, is the people who believe in God. *Otherwise, people wouldn't have an incentive.*
> ...



Those don't contradict. The incentive I meant in that first sentence, was the ones you listed below. I didn't mean that people wouldn't do those if they didn't believe in God, I meant that if people wouldn't believe in God, there'd be no such festival going on. (or someone had to invent that festival and make it popular, and religion is quite powerful at doing that)


----------



## Stefan (Dec 8, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> Otherwise, people wouldn't have an incentive.





nitrocan said:


> The incentive I meant in that first sentence, was the ones you listed below.


So are those things incentive or not? Please make up your mind.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> nitrocan said:
> 
> 
> > Otherwise, people wouldn't have an incentive.
> ...



You're right, those incentives are different. The first one is : "People wouldn't be having these festivals if it wasn't for their religion's musts."
The second one (I change my mind) isn't that much of an incentive, they are the good sides of the festivals and the requirements of the tradition. (People don't have these festivals because those good things will happen, it's more like a tradition. If my country wasn't Muslim, people wouldn't have festivals like this. (of course someone might think "hey wouldn't it be great if we had festivals like this and that?", but making it popular and repeated every year requires something else. That's the power of religion to make people do things)
Muslims also have to do what we call "Namaz" 5 times a day.(unless sick, incapable etc.) And for that, they need to wash their hands, arms, feet, head etc. So it helps people stay clean.


----------



## Stefan (Dec 8, 2008)

Washing too much is actually unhealthy (think skin irritations). And unnecessarily wasteful with water and your time. I think five times daily is way too much for anything other than hands (they're in contact with you environment all the time), and even those only need washing when they actually get dirty and you need them clean again. But yeah, staying clean is kinda good. I stay clean as well, even without religion. Unbelievable, huh? Once again I get the good stuff directly, without collateral expenses. I still fail to see why you don't just go for the actual benefits but take the religion detour. Do I understand you correctly, religion is for dumb and lazy people who wouldn't stay clean otherwise and wouldn't have festivals otherwise? They wouldn't do things good for themselves and others if not for religion? That's kind of pathetic.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

I forgot to mention, you don't have to wash unless you get dirty again.

anyway, the religion of course isn't for dumb and lazy people to get them to wash themselves and have festivals. People can do that without religion, but if you believe in Islam, you have to be clean.

What I mean is, you can be clean without being religious, but you can't be religious and not clean. (Might want to search for: Temizlik imandan gelir.)


----------



## Stefan (Dec 8, 2008)

nitrocan said:


> religion of course isn't for dumb and lazy people to get them to wash themselves and have festivals. People can do that without religion, but if you believe in Islam, you have to be clean.


But if someone isn't too dumb or too lazy to do these things, he just does them, there's no need for him to become religious for that. So I don't see why you mention this stuff, what's the point?

I think we're talking about different things. I'd like to know why someone chooses to be religious, and you tell me positive things that religion brings with it (like being clean). Are those supposed to be reason why someone chooses to be religious? If so, that someone is aware of wanting these things, and could simply choose to do them right away, without religion. So can you explain why someone chooses to be religious? At least yourself, if you are, because of my dislike for speculations.


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> But if someone isn't too dumb or too lazy to do these things, he just does them, there's no need for him to become religious for that. So I don't see why you mention this stuff, what's the point?





nitrocan said:


> What I mean is, *you can be clean without being religious*, but you can't be religious and not clean. (Might want to search for: Temizlik imandan gelir.)



Did you read that sentence?

About that second question, you are right about how people can clean themselves without a religious motive. Religion "helps" people keep their life organized. You always can do that without religion. But all people aren't that aware of their own selves, they don't even want to keep themselves clean. Some people just need a little direction. This direction can be religion, or something else. I'm not saying that religion is a must if you want to be clean or something.


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

qqwref said:


> robertpauljr said:
> 
> 
> > I like it ... here.
> ...


Why

(message too short)


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

brunson said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > robertpauljr said:
> ...


do

(message too short)


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

brunson said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > qqwref said:
> ...


you

(message too short)


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

brunson said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...


care?

(message too short)


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

brunson said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...


In a thread like this you end up with multiple conversations running simltaneously, Keeping repsonses to those sub threads separate in ones replies many times makes it easier to read and follow than if you have to cull out different responses from a single posting. It also makes it easier for others to reply in context to the multiple postings.

Get TF over it.

Besides, did you have to reply in all caps? I don't care for the implied shouting when it isn't done to be obnoxious, but when it is obviously the writers intention, then it just becomes rude. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Michael.


----------



## blade740 (Dec 8, 2008)

brunson said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > brunson said:
> ...



If you are going to criticize him for "criticizing in an annoying way" you shouldn't do it in an even more annoying way yourself. What you just did there is much more obnoxious than what he did, and didn't even serve a purpose. At least writing in all caps can be seen as emphasis.


----------



## brunson (Dec 8, 2008)

blade740 said:


> If you are going to criticize him for "criticizing in an annoying way" you shouldn't do it in an even more annoying way yourself. What you just did there is much more obnoxious than what he did, and didn't even serve a purpose. At least writing in all caps can be seen as emphasis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

I really just wish the self appointed netiquette police would shut the **** up.

How's that?


----------



## nitrocan (Dec 8, 2008)

There's no such rule for your irony to be found amusing by everyone. Some might find it amusing, some like him may not.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Dec 8, 2008)

For those wondering: this thread has been getting out of hand and thus has been closed.

Please remember to be civil and respectful in this community.


----------

