View Full Version : Sexxors and Religxors
Semaros, making her laugh is 50% of the job mate. Everyone had good advice... Armin your seriously my hero IRL. I actually explained that to my g/f and she was like, "weird... but KEWL"! I am still in the process of getting her to play wow etc. Aradorn, Don't be ashamed matey of what you stand for ;) IMO, I'd pray about it.
Aradorn, Don't be ashamed matey of what you stand for ;) IMO, I'd pray about it.
Pray about sex? Weird!
((((LOL Kydorias!!!))))
Mez LOL! This whole thread is not about if semaros is going have sex with her or not. It's about what he should say to her. If you want to go and give it up to a person you don't know.. more to you but, IMO I have more moral than that. Since I'm a christian and believe it SHOULD be saved for your wife. And my comment to Aradorn was that he shouldn't be ashamed there is many like him. I'd rather wait and tell my wife I been waiting for you then tell her I couldn't wait. BTW, I'm not flamming or whatever if anyone takes this the wrong way..... most likely not.... just my opinion :)
Diraker
01-22-2005, 04:39 PM
Just tell her how you feel without sounding desperate or wierd.
If you want to go and give it up to a person you don't know.. more to you but, IMO I have more moral than that. Since I'm a christian and believe it SHOULD be saved for your wife.
So you've just suggested that people who do have sex before marriage are immoral?
That non christians are immoral?
That non christians would never want to save thermselves for their spouse?
sorry too much Bush in the news last week, it makes my head hurt.
Gnioss
01-22-2005, 04:43 PM
omg diraker calm down O_o
Don't put words in my mouth there bud. My g/f had sex before.. but, Who Am I to hold that against her.. or not love her? God has forgiven her.. and obviously I have to. All I said is my opinion of what I stand for. Yes, they are immoral for having fornication but, God forgives them if they ask forgiveness. [and "Non christians are immoral"?] Christians sin just as much as anyone else. " For ALL of fallen short of the glory of God". If you are not saved and know Jesus Christ you are lost bottom line. I don't want to affend anyone if their belief but that is what I believe. Truth hurts. And for the Bush comment... Bush all the way! If you want to talk political ... anytime mate :)
Gnioss
01-22-2005, 04:56 PM
Don't put words in my mouth there bud. My g/f had sex before.. but, Who Am I to hold that against her.. or not love her? God has forgiven her.. and obviously I have to. All I said is my opinion of what I stand for. Yes, they are immoral for having fornication but, God forgives them if they ask forgiveness. [and "Non christians are immoral"?] Christians sin just as much as anyone else. " For ALL of fallen short of the glory of God". If you are not saved and know Jesus Christ you are lost bottom line. I don't want to affend anyone if their belief but that is what I believe. Truth hurts. And for the Bush comment... Bush all the way! If you want to talk political ... anytime mate :)
lawl
lawl, make jokes all you want ;) I know where I am going when I die... do you ?
Cinnabar
01-22-2005, 05:34 PM
I'm going to step in here and give my personal opinion.
Christians, and members of any other religion, are nothing but sheep. Organized religion is nothing but a way to control the masses. Do you honestly believe that if there is a higher being(and i'm not going to give my opinion as to whether or not that is true) that he/she/it would expect us, being so lowly in comparison, to just automatically believe they exist? I would think such a supreme being would want us to go through the task of finding it out and not believing just because our parents say it's true.
I'm of the belief that in the event that there is a supreme being, they wouldn't expect us to follow some church - just live a morally good life. You don't need to go to church because the pope says to, just so God(if in fact there is a God) will love you.
Organized religion is nothing but a way to control the masses.
Gnioss
01-22-2005, 05:57 PM
I don't have time to fully explain my position on relgion in the 15 minutes before i go to work. And yes, I do know where I go when I die. Into the bellies of worms that distribute my nutrients and biological energy back into the ecosystem.
I agree with cinnabar that organized religion is an opiate to the masses. But Numb is talking about something he believes out of faith. Two totally different entities there.
Sometimes I wonder who would actually believe Jesus if he came back to earth. Unless he performed some kind of miracle for us to witness there are few who would actually have faith that it is him.
Whisper
01-22-2005, 06:40 PM
He could balance my checkbook...that'd convince me.
Cinnabar
01-22-2005, 06:41 PM
Sometimes I wonder who would actually believe Jesus if he came back to earth. Unless he performed some kind of miracle for us to witness there are few who would actually have faith that it is him.
I guarantee you that if Satan came back and performed a miracle while telling you he was Jesus that everyone wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Like I said, can one honestly think that such a supreme being would expect us to "just know?"
Elora
01-22-2005, 07:00 PM
Respect for faith where its due, but marriage isn't always the wonderful, holy, fantastic state of living too many people want make it out to be. I think morality lies more with intent than religion. Years ago, I saw a saying that is the basis of a much misunderstood following, and it stuck with me.
"An ye harm none, do as though wilt."
:smile_ok:
I don’t consider myself an expert on Christianity by any means. I wasn’t raised a Christian, I don’t go to a church, and I don’t really participate in many religious discussions. What I have done is read the Bible numerous times. Like most things, I find going to the source really gives a better understanding, and ultimately reading it convinced me of how I want to live my life. Had I been raised going to a church and living the lifestyle that most mainstream Christians live, I seriously doubt I would have the faith I have today.
What I have found by reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, is that today’s mainstream Christianity is not what Jesus taught. People use Jesus to justify hate, murder, intolerance, and greed. However, Jesus spoke out against these things.
Turning the other cheek, disdain for money, giving more than one can give to help his fellow man, tolerance, patience, slow to anger, and above all else, love – these are what Jesus taught in the Bible.
Anyway, I realize that force-feeding anything is not going to do any good, no matter how sweet the ambrosia is. If you’d like to talk more, feel free to shoot me a PM or talk to me in Vent.
Diraker
01-23-2005, 11:44 AM
Sorry mates, just getting a bit tired of the christian moral superiority complex. Especially when their big "moral values" issue is a euphamism for anti-gay marriage, anti-choice, and anti-stem cell research.
I just wish christians would practice tolerance, like Jesus did. I wish their political agenda would involve helping the poor and stopping wars. What great things could be accomplished.
It also might be worth noting that I used to be a christian, although a non practicing one, because that's the religion my parents chose for me. I haven't considered myself a christian for about 20+ years though. And in fact I've given up on all religions because I just can't believe in the super natural anymore. I'm an atheist, a secularist, realist, a naturalist, and yeah one immoral fuck. My daughters are being spawned for the evil atheist conspiracy. We WILL TAKE OVER!!!!!!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Is it possible to move the religion posts to a seperate thread so that we can dont have two topics in the same thread? Dont know if you can move single post, but would be nice if you did.
Arnie
01-23-2005, 07:26 PM
I'm going to the big Krispy Kreme in the sky
Cinnabar
01-23-2005, 07:51 PM
I'm going to the big Krispy Kreme in the sky
loool
Kydorias
01-24-2005, 11:17 AM
The root question which has formed the basis for all religions is "What happens to us when we die?" Being human, we don't want to accept the fact that our biological machines simply become broken beyond repair and eventually can't sustain their own bodily functions.
In order to answer this great unknown, various theories have been put forth which have evolved into religion. Buddhists & Hindus believe in reincarnation, while the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity believe in an afterlife reunited with their one true god, who/whatever that may be.
I don't see this being much different than the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman myths. These myths were created in order to answer questions that the scientists of the times couldn't figure out. Why is there thunder and lightning? The gods must be angry. Why do volcanoes erupt? A god is jealous of another god. Why do locusts swarm sometimes? Humans have sinned and must be punished.
Sounds ridiculous now, but these beliefs were held as absolute truths since science couldn't disprove them. Now we know better. Likewise, over time I believe science will answer more and more unknown questions and reveal the truth. There is no "supreme being".
Having a faith and believing in a god is everyones right. What I dont like about religion is when it's used as a tool of power and control. Through history religion has been used as a binder, controller, and separator; bind a people together, controll them, and seperate and instill fear and hate towards outsiders.
What I hate most about religions is the hate, the intolerance, and fear toward people who are different or who do not share the same understandings.
Religion has both hampered and helped the advancement of our civiliaztions. Hampered while clinging to old beliefs and being a stop block hindering sience, and helping with the distribution of other sanctioned science and knowledge.
Cinnabar
01-24-2005, 01:48 PM
Kydorias makes a great and I completely agree with Semaros. Like I said, it's just a way to control the masses.
Good explanation Kydorias. I agree with most, I agree that religion is for people that need to believe that we have more of a purpose than this short, fairly inconsequential time we are on earth. A lot of people need to believe and its comforting for them to believe that there is more out there for them and their loved ones. I just wish people would be more respectful of the opinions of others and I could do without the self-righteous ways of some.
I also agree with a lot of what Dong posted. I think it's ironic that this president preaches about getting back to our moral roots, it's almost laughable if it wasn't so sad. I think about the lessons that I teach my daughter and how she watches me act and what she is learning from me everyday. I teach her how to be a GOOD person. How to love other people, how to be nice to everyone...even people that aren't nice to her. It is important to teach kids to appreciate people's differences, and how to make educated decisions based on the knowledge you have. How to do things the right way, not the easy way...what are the kids growing up in this country learning about how our country treats other countries?
ANYWAY....
I am a spiritual person, but don't believe that the GOD or GODS or GODDESSES have such strict rules for admission. Sex wasn't created to do when you sign a piece of paper at a courthouse. Killing someone and then saying your sorry doesn't get you into the good house in my opinion. Listen to your own heart, do what's right for YOU...and everything will work out in the end. I think you will go wherever you think you will go...if you think you are going to "hell" you probably deserve to! And hell might be fun afterall, who knows....
/agrees with Sema as well.
...it's just a way to control the masses.
Don't think that controlling the masses is the only thing it good for. I see the benefits of religion daily, but it simply doesn't fit everyone.
The root question which has formed the basis for all religions is "What happens to us when we die?" Being human, we don't want to accept the fact that our biological machines simply become broken beyond repair and eventually can't sustain their own bodily functions.
In order to answer this great unknown, various theories have been put forth which have evolved into religion. Buddhists & Hindus believe in reincarnation, while the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity believe in an afterlife reunited with their one true god, who/whatever that may be.
I don't see this being much different than the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman myths. These myths were created in order to answer questions that the scientists of the times couldn't figure out. Why is there thunder and lightning? The gods must be angry. Why do volcanoes erupt? A god is jealous of another god. Why do locusts swarm sometimes? Humans have sinned and must be punished.
Sounds ridiculous now, but these beliefs were held as absolute truths since science couldn't disprove them. Now we know better. Likewise, over time I believe science will answer more and more unknown questions and reveal the truth. There is no "supreme being".
I don’t think there is one root question. There are several. Some examples are: What happens when we die? How were we created? Why do I have some void in my life that nothing seems to fill?
I don’t think science has answered any of these questions personally. Let’s take the “what happens when we die” question.
Science says when we die, our bodies decay and life on Earth ceases to exist. Christianity agrees with this. Christianity believes that we each have a soul and a biological body. This biological body is much like a machine, and the soul the operator. Our biological bodies die and stay on Earth. Our souls, however, have two possible destinations.
Science has yet to prove that there is an afterlife, however it can also not disprove it. Since science cannot disprove an afterlife, it remains a possibility.
Will science ever be able to prove or disprove this? No. Science does not have all the answers.
How can science disprove the existence of a supreme being?
Kydorias makes a great and I completely agree with Semaros. Like I said, it's just a way to control the masses.
Religion may be used as a device to control. Some have certainly attempted to use Christianity to control the masses. However, you’re wrong in dismissing it as existing only for that function. The problem is not with religion. The problem is the people who use it to exploit.
Gandhi once said, “I like their Christ, I don't like their Christians.” I think many people would feel this way if they actually knew that Jesus taught as opposed to the actions of the supposed followers.
Gnioss
01-25-2005, 12:23 AM
The problem is that what Jesus the man taught is now so incredibly twisted by the political institution that calls itself his church, that his original messege is almost entirely inconsequential. It's used as an excuse to hate people, and feel morally justified in doing so.
The problem is that what Jesus the man taught is now so incredibly twisted by the political institution that calls itself his church, that his original messege is almost entirely inconsequential. It's used as an excuse to hate people, and feel morally justified in doing so.
1) Church hasnt had any real strong plitical power since around 1400
2) Theres nothing in the bible about hating people
3) Only time Church was ever powerful was when an outside ruler used it for his own purposes.
Gnioss
01-25-2005, 02:30 AM
1) Church hasnt had any real strong plitical power since around 1400
2) Theres nothing in the bible about hating people
3) Only time Church was ever powerful was when an outside ruler used it for his own purposes.
Are you joking me? The church has no political power? There's nothing in the bible about hating people? Dang, I don't know if we're thinking of the same christianity.
Gnioss
01-25-2005, 02:54 AM
As for the political power of the modern church, It's harder to point to who exactly has the power, as it's become decentralized. The church can't depose kings or launch crusades anymore, at least not directly, but it's influence is obviously felt in the right wings of the american republic party. Ever since the red scares of the 1950s, the religious right has used fear and misinformation to influence the path of the politics of the most powerful nation on earth, with varying degrees of success. Just because it isn't a papal edict doesn't mean it isn't the church's political power in action. It's just decentralized, like any modern movement.
As for the bible being full of hate, If you'll read again, you'll see I never claimed it was. However, like I said in the first place, It's a huge scource of material for bigots, idiots, and zealots to justify violence and hate. And it's used.
3) Only time Church was ever powerful was when an outside ruler used it for his own purposes.
I'm not even sure what this means. What do you consider an "outsider"?
As for the political power of the modern church, It's harder to point to who exactly has the power, as it's become decentralized. The church can't depose kings or launch crusades anymore, at least not directly, but it's influence is obviously felt in the right wings of the american republic party. Ever since the red scares of the 1950s, the religious right has used fear and misinformation to influence the path of the politics of the most powerful nation on earth, with varying degrees of success. Just because it isn't a papal edict doesn't mean it isn't the church's political power in action. It's just decentralized, like any modern movement.
As for the bible being full of hate, If you'll read again, you'll see I never claimed it was. However, like I said in the first place, It's a huge scource of material for bigots, idiots, and zealots to justify violence and hate. And it's used.
I love how people blame Catholics for the actions of Protestants... nice.
1) Pope has had no real political authority for a long time
2) Catholicism has been open to reform and change. The protestant reformation was just an arguement of the pope moving to slow. Yet Erasmus, and more intellectuals at the time wanted change over time rather than a revolution. Which was worse? And no it wasnt the popes Army fighting for it. It was various secular rulers hoping to gain land and territory out of the ordeal and concealing it under the the guise of religion.
3) MOST Christians dont believe in dirt tricks like you mentioned
4) MOST Christians dont try to pretend that there were mistakes that the church made. But then agian WHAT organization hasnt made mistakes? The USA? Nope, we had our own little nazi camps err i mean temporary housing =/.
5) Bigots use a lot of things to make their points, doesnt make them right. Heck read Romans, you dont have to believe everything thats said but there are many statements that follow the lines of "Do not judge others". And "Do not act in the name of the Lord".
6) You contradicted yourself
"There's nothing in the bible about hating people? Dang, I don't know if we're thinking of the same christianity."
"As for the bible being full of hate, If you'll read again, you'll see I never claimed it was."
There was one part in the bible that actually made me laugh quite hard. It was somewhere in the old testament where they were doing the thou dost not lie with heathens and such. Anyways, there is a part where it says if two men are fighting and a woman assaults one in the genitals that you must SHOW HER NO MERCY!
lol I dont know why but that one has always stuck with me.
Let me see if I can find it somewhere.
Deuteronomy chapter 25 (TEV)
11 "If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's genitals, 12 show her no mercy; cut off her hand.
:rofl: Love it
Gnioss
01-25-2005, 03:43 AM
Warning: Intensely boring board warrioring commencing now...
2) Catholicism has been open to reform and change. The protestant reformation was just an arguement of the pope moving to slow. Yet Erasmus, and more intellectuals at the time wanted change over time rather than a revolution. Which was worse? And no it wasnt the popes Army fighting for it. It was various secular rulers hoping to gain land and territory out of the ordeal and concealing it under the the guise of religion.
I'm not really sure where you're going with this, my point isn't that catholicisim or any other christian sect isn't open to reform. Any organization with a mind for self-preservation must be subject to regular reformation if it wants to continue to exist. christianity is nothing if not perseverant.
3) MOST Christians dont believe in dirt tricks like you mentioned
Irrelevant. I never claimed that the majority of christians are horrible immoral bastards. I only said that some people who seek power can and do use christianity and warped christian ideals to get what they want.
4) MOST Christians dont try to pretend that there were mistakes that the church made. But then agian WHAT organization hasnt made mistakes? The USA? Nope, we had our own little nazi camps err i mean temporary housing =/.
Again, I'm not sure if this is in some way a response to my quote, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm not making a personal attack on every person who calls himself a christian. I'm saying that the original message of Jesus is not the driving force of most "christian" politics.
The difference between the USA and the church is that the USA doesn't claim to be the servant of God and Jesus Christ, whereas the church does. As you pointed out, the level of corruption and dishonestly is about equal in both, so why would the church be considered more holy? You're only proving my point that the church as an institution has moved away from it's original values and become a full fledged bureaucracy, complete with it's own self interests.
5) Bigots use a lot of things to make their points, doesnt make them right. Heck read Romans, you dont have to believe everything thats said but there are many statements that follow the lines of "Do not judge others". And "Do not act in the name of the Lord".
I definitely never claimed that bigots were somehow right to interpret the literature of christianity in a way that allows them to justify thier shortcomings. I simply said they do. The bible is just a book, it's not going to outlaw gay marriage or bomb another country under the pretense of religious/cultural war. It's up to people to take that step. And as it turns out, that's what they use for justification.
You contradicted yourself
Well, if god can do it, why can't I?
Roxie
01-25-2005, 08:51 AM
Just curious, but how does God contradict himself?
Gnioss/Slak,
I’m not going to attempt to justify the actions of the organized churches because I don’t participate in any and I don’t believe they’re necessary.
Churches are not mentioned in the Bible. When the Bible says the Church, the entire body of Christians is meant. Christianity is pretty straightforward if the scriptures are actually read from a reputable translation.
Churches do have power. They have influence over those that are members. However, the man-made churches are to blame here – not Jesus. I don’t believe the action of others nullifies or makes Jesus’ message any less important. If nothing else, we need his teachings today more than ever.
Mutt,
There are plenty of rules and such in the Old Testament. Some seem pretty strange and weird in our times. However, when Jesus came, so many things changed. The New Testament reflects this. Jesus would have never cut a person’s arm off, nor would he want us to.
Kydorias
01-25-2005, 09:30 AM
I agree that religion is for people that need to believe that we have more of a purpose than this short, fairly inconsequential time we are on earth. A lot of people need to believe and its comforting for them to believe that there is more out there for them and their loved ones.
Absolutely. Its not comforting to think that our consciousness simply fades away into oblivion once our bodies shut down. We want to believe that there is more to our existence than the relatively infintessimal time that we inhabit our tiny planet in this great big universe of ours. So I certainly don't fault the various religions and those that follow them for wanting to believe that there is more to our life after we die. I just personally don't see anything to indicate otherwise other than what's written in various theological books like the Bible and Koran. And as far as I'm concerned, those documents are modern day myths whose details have been, and will continue to be, disproven over time by science.
I don’t think there is one root question. There are several. Some examples are: What happens when we die? How were we created? Why do I have some void in my life that nothing seems to fill?
Sure, but they are all related questions. Ultimately they all lead to the question of what happens to our consciousness when our bodies shut down.
Our biological bodies die and stay on Earth. Our souls, however, have two possible destinations.
I see no scientific evidence which proves this. However, you are correct when you say there is no evidence which disproves this. I'm of a more scientific mind though, and support empirical evidence which proves a particular theory rather than simply trusting the theory to be true. Therefore, I'll believe this theory when I see evidence to back it up rather than simply trusting it to be the case. Sure, I've been accused of having no faith. But that's my choice.
Will science ever be able to prove or disprove this? No. Science does not have all the answers.
How can you say this? Science has proved many a myth to be untrue over time. Now we know what atmospherical conditions cause lightning and thunder. Now we know about geologic plate tectonics which cause volcanoes to erupt. Now we know about the spawning and migratory patterns of locusts which cause them to swarm.
All were myths that are now disproven by science. If you would have suggested back in the Roman times that volcanoes are ultimately caused by great shifting islands of land floating above a molten earthen core, you probably would have been stoned to death for heresy.
Right now we can't disprove the theory of an afterlife because we have no idea how to implement experiments to disprove it. Likely there were advanced Roman thinkers who instinctively knew there was a scientific explanation for volcanoes, they just had no idea how to gather the scientific evidence to prove it. Like volcanoes, time and the advance of science will prove whether an afterlife really exists or not. It may take two or three thousand years, but look how far we've advanced scientifically over the last two thousand years.
Two thousand years down the road, our successors will laugh at our silly Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu myths just like we are amused by the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian tales.
How can science disprove the existence of a supreme being?
Patience grasshopper. Or more accurately, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, or great great grand children, etc... will one day know the truth.
Cinnabar
01-25-2005, 09:33 AM
Churches are not mentioned in the Bible. When the Bible says the Church, the entire body of Christians is meant. Christianity is pretty straightforward if the scriptures are actually read from a reputable translation.
I'm not the most Bible savy but am I correct in saying that Christianity wasn't even a widespread religion at that time? The Church references are to Judaism, right?
Cinnabar
01-25-2005, 09:37 AM
Science has yet to prove that there is an afterlife, however it can also not disprove it. Since science cannot disprove an afterlife, it remains a possibility.
Will science ever be able to prove or disprove this? No. Science does not have all the answers.
How can science disprove the existence of a supreme being?
It seems like you're trying to apply the logic of the American political system to the science/religion debate. A whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept in the form of: until science can prove that there is no supreme being, it is possible. However, I think that the burden of proof lies on religion due to the fact that even though science is not able to prove the existance of a supreme being to be false, it has much physical evidence which can counter the bible's readings or cause it to be questioned. Religion has, well, nada.
Kydorias
01-25-2005, 10:00 AM
I know I sound like a faithless heathen, but let me make my position clear regarding religion.
I think religion is a good thing overall. I have a healthy respect for the values they teach as well as the encouragement religion provides towards "being a good person". Every single major religion emphasizes tolerance towards your neighbor and forgiving their transgressions.
Its a shame not every follower of a particular religion takes this to heart. Its not the moderate religious population that concerns me, its the ones that take religion to an extreme. Trying to force your values and opinions on someone else is not my idea of a contributing member of overall human society. And inflicting harm, whether physically or socially, upon those who don't believe in your strictly interpreted definition of faith is totally inexcusable.
And just for the record, I'm not trying to force my opinions on others nor even trying to convince anyone of my beliefs. Its just my opinion and everyone is welcome to agree or disagree. That's the beauty of a free society.
Aradorn
01-25-2005, 10:03 AM
btw please dont lump religious groups into 1 pile. Me and lozzt both attend a church that is non-demoninational and is as far from the catholic views as you can get. Its also nothing like the baptist, methodist, mormons etc...
Our beliefs are word for word from the bible and nothing else is involved. No priests or middleman between us and God, no musical instruments in worship, lord supper every sunday, no women preachers, etc...
I hate how people lump all the christian religions together then start talking about catholocism like thats the mainstream religion everyone follows...
Also when refering to "the church" dont refer to dates in history that correspond to religous movements such as the protestant reformation etc... "the church" does not refer to a religious orginization (as an entity) but the people follow and practice it. But in that stance, you cant just call every church "the church" and not offend someone, because like me and lozzt's view point on religon, our beliefs entail that many religous orginzations do no uphold the standards and practices that early church (church at Ephises, Thesolanika (i know these are spelled wrong) etc...) were instructed to perform and are not considered part of "the church"...
Diraker
01-25-2005, 01:44 PM
The burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. There is no need for the atheist to prove god doesn't exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The theist is making the claim, but without evidence. And even before that the theist must first define god, otherwise the whole discussion is sematics and grammar plays.
Also for me to take anything seriously it first needs to be falsifiable. Which means, there needs to be a way for me to at least attempt to proove it false via experimentation. The idea of god isn't falsifiable because theists claim that their god is special and can't be seen or observed. Hmm pretty convenient. I might as well claim that when I drop my pen invisible angels come and take the pen from my hand and put it on the floor. These angels can not be detected in any way. My theory rocks! No? Well prove it false!
In addition to not being falsifiable there's simply no evidence for the god concept. Every advance in science pokes more and more holes into the literal interpretation of religious ideas. I think religions as a whole need to step into the mordern world and not take their documents so literally. Most of the people I know are christians of some sort. Most don't believe in the Bible literally, but more as a story, a myth. The story helps teach you that ways you should live.(That's not to say there isn't truth to the Bible...there was a big flood, there was fire and brimstone, and partings of seas, etc.)
And just because it's sorta on topic. There's basically two kinds of atheism. Strong atheism and weak atheism. Strong atheism is a positive assertion that there are no gods. Strong atheists are likely to argue that theological texts have been shown to be false so many times that testing the god theory is no longer needed. A strong atheist is likely to talk about pushing reindeers off building to prove that they don't fly. Afterall how many times must you witness the reindeer falling to it's death before realizing that reindeer can't fly? 1? 2? 10? 100? 1,000,000? All of them? How many? I am a strong atheist and I know that reindeer can't fly; even though I haven't seen every last reindeer fall to it's death.
Weak atheism is the idea that theists have yet to prove god's existence. Some weak atheists may think strong atheists are just as thick headed and close minded as theists. That since there's no proof either way the default position is weak atheism.
IMO strong atheism is the default position. It comes from my inherent skepticism, especially in regards to faith, or belief without evidence. On the other hand, science isn't the be all end all to truth as we know it. To think so would be arrogant and naive. Science is a way to find the best possible explanations, based on evidence, to figure out our world. As new evidence comes in, changes are made. Sometimes the changes are small, sometimes the changes are huge. Sometimes cornerstone ideas must be thrown out. This is why science is different than religion. Science is a work in progress, it's always ongoing. Religions were made thousands of years ago, entrenched into culture, and are heldover from times past. Culturally religion is a great thing. It's part of the reason why humans were able to advance as far as we have.
long post oh my
Cinnabar
01-25-2005, 01:50 PM
I like that stance
Gnioss
01-25-2005, 02:51 PM
I don't like your face. It's ugly.
Cinnabar
01-25-2005, 03:09 PM
hey i'm thirsty
Shokar
01-25-2005, 03:18 PM
I like fudge brownies ... with milk .... yummy.
I see no scientific evidence which proves this. However, you are correct when you say there is no evidence which disproves this. I'm of a more scientific mind though, and support empirical evidence which proves a particular theory rather than simply trusting the theory to be true. Therefore, I'll believe this theory when I see evidence to back it up rather than simply trusting it to be the case. Sure, I've been accused of having no faith. But that's my choice.
I’m not asking anyone to believe anything I’m saying. I’m simply saying that no one here can disprove the Christian beliefs through science.
How can you say this? Science has proved many a myth to be untrue over time. Now we know what atmospherical conditions cause lightning and thunder. Now we know about geologic plate tectonics which cause volcanoes to erupt. Now we know about the spawning and migratory patterns of locusts which cause them to swarm.
All were myths that are now disproven by science. If you would have suggested back in the Roman times that volcanoes are ultimately caused by great shifting islands of land floating above a molten earthen core, you probably would have been stoned to death for heresy.
Right now we can't disprove the theory of an afterlife because we have no idea how to implement experiments to disprove it. Likely there were advanced Roman thinkers who instinctively knew there was a scientific explanation for volcanoes, they just had no idea how to gather the scientific evidence to prove it. Like volcanoes, time and the advance of science will prove whether an afterlife really exists or not. It may take two or three thousand years, but look how far we've advanced scientifically over the last two thousand years.
Two thousand years down the road, our successors will laugh at our silly Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, and Hindu myths just like we are amused by the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian tales.
I never denied that science hasn’t proved many myths to be false. I did say, however, that some things couldn’t be solved through science. Two examples of these things are the question of a supreme being and the existence of an afterlife.
Your example of a volcano is flawed because it can physically be proved through experiment and observation. A supreme being and an afterlife can’t be measured using instruments or by working out a math problem.
I don’t believe you’re faithless by any means. You have plenty of faith in science. Hopefully science will disprove an afterlife in each of our lifetimes.
Patience grasshopper. Or more accurately, your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, or great great grand children, etc... will one day know the truth.
I appreciate the concern, and I pray that they do find the truth.
I'm not the most Bible savy but am I correct in saying that Christianity wasn't even a widespread religion at that time? The Church references are to Judaism, right?
The Church references were to all believers. Jesus made it clear that not just Jews were invited into heaven.
It seems like you're trying to apply the logic of the American political system to the science/religion debate. A whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept in the form of: until science can prove that there is no supreme being, it is possible. However, I think that the burden of proof lies on religion due to the fact that even though science is not able to prove the existance of a supreme being to be false, it has much physical evidence which can counter the bible's readings or cause it to be questioned. Religion has, well, nada.
I’m not trying to apply the American judicial system to religion at all. I’m using simple logic. The American judicial system uses simple logic, so there is a correlation.
Do you believe that there is no possibility of a supreme being or an afterlife? If so, why do you believe this? Science isn’t able to provide any physical evidence. What it comes down to is my faith in God versus your faith in science.
Diraker, I agree with what you said about proof.
There simply isn’t any way to prove or disprove Christianity. We won’t really know until we die. Unfortunately we can’t report the results back to everyone else, but I believe that was how it was intended.
Until we die, we'll just have to make assumptions and best guesses.
Believe whatever you need to believe to make it from day to day as long as your beliefs arent forced on others
Roxie
01-25-2005, 08:43 PM
Believe whatever you need to believe to make it from day to day as long as your beliefs arent forced on others
But that applies to everyone, even those who don't believe in anything at all.
Diraker
01-25-2005, 09:01 PM
What it comes down to is my faith in God versus your faith in science.
I think you are using the word faith too liberally. For me the word faith is an all or nothing sort of thing. If I don't have 100% faith then it's really not faith is it? I probably have about a 85% faith in science but I guess it depends what science we were talking about.
People have 'faith in science' because their personal experience has shown them that science does a pretty good job of making meaning of the way the world works. Without science I wouldn't be typing on the computer now. Most of us would be dead of some illness or infection that only medicine (science) can fix. Without science we wouldn't even be able to build fires or make spears.
And like I mentioned in the previous post. Science is setup to accept change. None of science is set in stone, absolute truth, end of story. So I'm not sure what you mean by having 'faith in science' when science doesn't depend on faith. Science depends on evidence. Without evidence, it's not science.
So basically I don't think its' correct to say that faith in science is equivalent to faith in god. Unless of course you wish to reduce faith to about an 85% thing.
Again semantics. Terms like 'faith' and 'god' need to be defined.
Kydorias
01-26-2005, 12:44 AM
A great movie which really addresses the "faith in god" vs. "faith in science" idea is 'Contact' with Jodie Foster. Man do I ever love that movie. Brilliant and fascinating.
Elora
01-26-2005, 01:24 AM
Faith and God can only be defined on an individual basis. What is true for me is not true for you. Which is what makes these sort of topics so heated and interesting. And what is keeping me mostly out of this one.
Kydorias... that is a fabulous movie!
Diraker
01-26-2005, 01:26 AM
Carl Sagan wrote the book. Never got around to reading it...one day. But I didn't really enjoy the movie too much, although the ideas were neat.
Diraker, I was referring to Cinnabar’s post when I was talking about faith in science. I took note that you weren’t using science 100% to make your decision.
Again, I think science does great things and solves plenty of problems. It works very well in its broad niche. However, technology and medicine advancements tell me nothing about the afterlife or the existence of a supreme being
If I’m sick, I go to the doctor. However, if my computer has a virus, I take it to a computer repairman. If I took it to the doctor, he probably wouldn’t know how to fix it because it’s not his area of expertise. I feel the same way about using science to determine an afterlife and a supreme being. Science just doesn’t apply to all things, no matter how good its track record is.
When I say faith in science, I am referring to those that believe science will someday be able to disprove the afterlife and the existence of a supreme being. As a Christian, I have faith that there is an afterlife and a supreme being. If you don’t believe that science will be able to answer those questions, then forget I said ‘faith in science’ because it wasn’t meant towards you.
Just to note, my faith is supported by evidence, although I’m sure some would dismiss it as coincidental events. I can’t prove to some people that prayer and faith has caused things to occur that I feel wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. To me, I have more evidence of the existence of a supreme being that science does.
Kydorias
01-26-2005, 08:15 AM
On the one hand I enjoy arguing about religion simply because I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of a debate with smart people. On the other hand I don't like to argue about it because then it feels like I'm trying to convince people I'm right and they're wrong. While I have no problem doing that with politics, I feel religion is a totally different matter. Its much more personal.
Additionally, what I believe is certainly not something I would want to convince lots of people anyway. I have great admiration for the moral values that religion preaches and recognize the beneficial effect that religion has on human society. I also think its a good thing overall for humans to believe that they will face consequences for the bad things they do in this life. Not that its a huge deterrent, but if the world's population believed that what they did in this life held no consequence after they died, there would be less incentive to act in a moral, beneficial manner towards their fellow human beings.
Also, believing what I believe makes what other people believe irrelevant. At least to me. If I'm convinced that our consciousness fades away into oblivion when we die, then what do I care if others believe they will join their god when they die?
Anyway, that's a long way of saying I'm bowing out of any further discussions regarding religion. To each his/her own I say.
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 08:31 AM
Diraker, I was referring to Cinnabar’s post when I was talking about faith in science. I took note that you weren’t using science 100% to make your decision.
Again, I think science does great things and solves plenty of problems. It works very well in its broad niche. However, technology and medicine advancements tell me nothing about the afterlife or the existence of a supreme being
If I’m sick, I go to the doctor. However, if my computer has a virus, I take it to a computer repairman. If I took it to the doctor, he probably wouldn’t know how to fix it because it’s not his area of expertise. I feel the same way about using science to determine an afterlife and a supreme being. Science just doesn’t apply to all things, no matter how good its track record is.
When I say faith in science, I am referring to those that believe science will someday be able to disprove the afterlife and the existence of a supreme being. As a Christian, I have faith that there is an afterlife and a supreme being. If you don’t believe that science will be able to answer those questions, then forget I said ‘faith in science’ because it wasn’t meant towards you.
Just to note, my faith is supported by evidence, although I’m sure some would dismiss it as coincidental events. I can’t prove to some people that prayer and faith has caused things to occur that I feel wouldn’t have occurred otherwise. To me, I have more evidence of the existence of a supreme being that science does.
Do you believe that you would have the same position had your parents never told you about Christianity? What if your parents blatantly told you that when you die, you will morph into a lizard? You are only under the impression that there even is a supreme being and/or afterlife because that idea was hammered into your head. Do you support the same political party as your parents? It's the same thing in a sense.
Science does apply to everything, however, it often takes a lot of time for the "how" to be revealed.
Aradorn
01-26-2005, 08:58 AM
I look at things in science/nature and think to myself how could there not be some "higher power" some God that has put all this in motion?
Look at things like pi...
The harmonic scale of music and how it reoccurs throughout nature.
There are many more but its too early for me to name them off, but these two things above are MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR parts of our lives. pi is used in just about every field of math/science/engineering you can think of and harmonics is used in our daily lives with music and general sound. These things just didnt come about and just happen out of coincidence.
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:18 AM
I look at things in science/nature and think to myself how could there not be some "higher power" some God that has put all this in motion?
Look at things like pi...
The harmonic scale of music and how it reoccurs throughout nature.
There are many more but its too early for me to name them off, but these two things above are MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR parts of our lives. pi is used in just about every field of math/science/engineering you can think of and harmonics is used in our daily lives with music and general sound. These things just didnt come about and just happen out of coincidence.
I don't think this is a very good explanation.
You are saying that in your mind it is honestly more feasible to believe that the idea of some invisible being that you have never seen, created all of this vs. physical evidence and logical theories that support the scientific approaches to the topic? What do you find so spiritual about pi or recurrences in nature? Go watch the movie Pi if you haven't seen it because I get the impression that you've watched it, liked the idea of it, and decided you'd stick with it.
What claims that they are coincidence? Coincidence in what way?
My parents never talked with me about Christianity. I came to the conclusion on my own, believe it or not. My parents never tried to sway me either way and we had no discussions as a child. In fact, I don’t recall religion ever being discussed in my home growing up. Nice try, though!
I don’t support the same political party as my parents. Then again, I don’t support any political party. I support the right versus the wrong, not the right versus the left.
Your science statement proves that you have faith in science. You believe something that has given you no physical evidence either way on the matters of an afterlife and a supreme being. I believe something that has given you no physical evidence either way. You can’t say much about my faith without it applying to yours as well.
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:31 AM
I haven't actually said what my beliefs are, at least not to a degree in which anyone could say that they know what my opinion is. I just like to discuss these types of topics.
So you don't believe that science will disprove the afterlife and the existence of a supreme being? Now I'm confused.
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:40 AM
I think it's a moot point. If it does, it does. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Ultimately it doesn't matter either way. Even if science disproved it, it wouldn't be unanimously accepted but in the event that it was, it would cause such an upset that who knows what would happen. The world would turn into a very shitty place as many of the formerly religious would no longer have to worry about being sent to Hell. Crime would increase, etc. etc.
Then you believe people have a tendency to be evil in general?
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:45 AM
I think evil is a big overstatement but people are definitely not inherently good/innocent. That's partly society-based but isn't too far off for humans in general. Humans are inherently greedy for one, which leads to many other less-than-great traits.
If people are not inherently good/innocent, what makes some good/innocent? Why are some people not greedy?
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:51 AM
If people can inherently run, why are some faster than others?
Diraker
01-26-2005, 09:56 AM
I don't think religion and science are competing instituitions. Science tries to make sense of our physical world, the reality we all know and enjoy. Whereas religion helps people with the spiritual world, or the world that is (or might be) beyond. Any sort of conflict between the two is politics at work...the republicans want there to be this whole issue of science vs. religion. It's manufactured controversy for political gain. Sad, but a sign of the times. Everything from moral superiority to foreign and environmental policy has religous overtones in the Bush adminstration, pitting the religous values vs the elite liberal intellectuals.
Science isn't in the business of disproving theories that aren't falsifiable. It is not the job of science to trump religion. For example just because we know that the earth revovles around the sun and not visa vera doesn't mean all religions that claim otherwise are bunk. It simply means that the idea of the sun moving around the earth needs to be updated or explained in the various religions that make this claim.
And also to touch on what Cinn said. If you were born 5,000 years ago in ancient south america you have faith in the Inca gods rather than the current god you do now. Just shows that the concept of faith isn't something that's really all that special...it's sorta just a social norm. And that your faith is a consequence of the times in which you live.
Cinn is your 'faith in science' 100%. Inotherwords do you take what you read in a science book and believe it 100% without question? Do you not care how the scientists came up with the explanation? This is there difference between blind faith and earned faith. SO like I said, faith is really an all or nothing thing; ether you have 100% faith or you don't have faith at all. Dong, are you claiming that Cinn's faith in science is 100% like your faith in god? Anyway IMO people who do take science as 100% absolute truth are on the same road as the religious who take their religion as 100% absolute truth.
And once last thought to ponder. Seems as though most people are atheists who believe in one less god than I do. So when they understand why they dismiss all those other gods, they can understand why I dismiss theirs.
this thread is now moving too fast
So you're saying we're good because we're either born that way or we can train to be that way?
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 09:58 AM
So you're saying we're good because we're either born that way or we can train to be that way?
You're thinking too far into it and missing the point. The point is that while there is a general rule of thumb, an exception can always be found.
If people are inherently greedy, why is that person generous?
If people can inherently run at 3mph, why can that person run at 4mph?
The difference is most of us have the ability to run, it’s the speed at which we run that differs.
You’re saying that people are generally evil and greedy, it’s the degree of evil and greed that differs?
Let’s avoid the running example and just answer the question. :)
Diraker
01-26-2005, 10:03 AM
So you don't believe that science will disprove the afterlife and the existence of a supreme being? Now I'm confused.
Even if science somehow prooved the idea of an afterlife and supreme being to be false, people would still have faith because that what faith is. Belief without (or despite) the evidence. Some religious people already don't believe in evolution even though evolution is pretty well documented and is one of the better scientic thoeries out there.
ANyway I know the question was for Cinn, but I'll answer for myself. NO, I don't think science will ever disprove an afterlife and a supreme being, because these things are not falsifiable and not open to scientific examination.
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 10:04 AM
I've already said that evil is an overstatement. People, in my opinion, are not inherently good. While much of that is brought on by the environment in which we live, it's also natural. I look at some people as being exceptions but if you would like to view that as meaning to a lesser degree, that works also.
Thanks, Diraker. I appreciate the well thought replies!
Diraker
01-26-2005, 10:10 AM
Humans are inherently good and altruistic. This is one of the cornerstone reasons why humans have developed so far. We help each other.
I'd also add here that I am a moral relativist. That is to say that there are no moral absolutes and morals depend on the time and situation. For example stealing is generally considered morally wrong but what if it's a husband stealing overpriced medicine for his sick wife.
Diraker, now that you’ve explained why you think we’re inherently good (survival), I’m curious what you think about evil. Why does it exist? Why are humans pulled towards it? Why do we have a choice to do both good and evil instead of our animal instincts taking over?
Cinnabar
01-26-2005, 10:19 AM
Diraker, now that you’ve explained why you think we’re inherently good (survival)
I don't think he presented survival as the reason we are inherently good but rather a result of it.
Diraker
01-26-2005, 10:53 AM
I sort of suggested that good = altruism, so I guess evil = selfishness.
People are selfish because some amount of selfishness is tolerated in human society. For instance, infanticide might seem really immoral and harsh but if your community can't support more population there's really no other choice (other than to discourage sex, look I'm back on topic har!). I guess what I'm saying is that it's not always easy to draw a line and say, "this action was too selfish and thus evil".
As far as basic animal instincts go, I think animals are given far little credit in their ability to observe, understand, and make meaning of their world. I think animals are capable of making certain decisions that might be considered conscious decisions. So again where do I draw the line and say, "that was animal insitict, not human mentalism"?
Diraker
01-29-2005, 12:12 PM
Someone asked in this thread, "what happens when you die" or something similar.
Being dead is like being before you were born.
Just when everyone thought the thread was dead!
Diraker, I still don’t understand how the acceptance of a certain degree of selfishness explains why people do evil things. Why do we keep having sex and children if we know we're overpopulated?
Elora
01-29-2005, 02:46 PM
Because it is a species imperitive to procreate. How else do you explain "ticking clocks" and such? The human sex drive is for one purpose, to make babies. Yes, if its good, we enjoy the hell out of it, but that just makes us want it more... the purpose is the same. Sex = babies. I know very few women who haven't ached to have a baby at some point in their life.
As for birth control... bah! I've had five babies and one miscarriage and only one of those was unprotected. Nature made me for having kids, and Nature don't care how populated the planet is. (The factory has since been shut down... cuz Nature can kiss my... er...)
How do you explain homosexuality then?
Gnioss
01-29-2005, 03:01 PM
Ohboy.
Drekor
01-29-2005, 04:34 PM
...your all nuts. Just accept the fact other people have different opinions and move on :)
Drekor, that's fully accepted and I don't think anyone is being disrespectful. We're just having a discussion.
Diraker
01-29-2005, 05:23 PM
Nature has ways of dealing with overpopulation; famines, disease, meteor impacts, changing weather, etc.
I don't know why someone would be more selfish than the next person other than it probably somehow helps the human species as a whole to at least have some oddballs. Afterall if for some reason being altruistic was detrimental, say in times of famine, at least some humans (in this case the selfish ones) survive.
I'd say that selfishness is brought about by both genetics and circumstance.
Just want to point out that if every human was the same, or had the same capacity for everything, we wouldn't last long as a species.
So Dong, you tell me, what is evil and where does it come from? While your at it, define 'God' and 'Faith'. Tell me where morality stems from, and tell me what you think of the insertion of religion into government? :crushT:
Aradorn
01-29-2005, 05:48 PM
I don't think this is a very good explanation.
You are saying that in your mind it is honestly more feasible to believe that the idea of some invisible being that you have never seen, created all of this vs. physical evidence and logical theories that support the scientific approaches to the topic? What do you find so spiritual about pi or recurrences in nature? Go watch the movie Pi if you haven't seen it because I get the impression that you've watched it, liked the idea of it, and decided you'd stick with it.
What claims that they are coincidence? Coincidence in what way?
Do you even know what pi is? Im not saying that pi is spiritual. Im saying taht the occurence of pi is not just some freak chance in nature.
Elora
01-29-2005, 06:05 PM
How do you explain homosexuality then?
I'm not sure I would presume to explain someone else's choice. But I will tell you what I believe. I think that for some people, its wiring, plain and simple. They are who they are and they are someone drawn to the same sex. I think there are some people who turn away from members of the opposite sex by choice or trauma. In old days, spurned women went into convents. Now, perhaps some turn to other women.
Of course, then you get into the realm of bisexuals... what's to explain people who just don't care about the packaging?
If you're looking for a cosmic reason, though, I think Nature finds a way to attempt to maintain a balance. Back to the old days, there were plagues all over the place. People dropped at phenominal rates due to poor hygeine and rampant rats/fleas/rabid bunnies/etc. Then we discovered soap and anti-biotics and Nature's little killer bugs became less effective. We're constantly trying to find a way to stay alive, to prolong life. That's a good thing, sure, but if people don't die, there's no room for the new folks who come along. And as we still enjoy sex, there needs to be another way to combat over-population and try to preserve the balance. Maybe the PTBs marked a certain number of us to be unable to create life by making them prefer the same half of the forumla.
/shrugs
Just my two cents. And for the record, I love conversations like this... so if I offend, I'm truly sorry.
Kydorias
01-29-2005, 11:24 PM
Why do people talk about "nature balancing things" as if it were a sentient entity? A volcano is going to blow based on geologic conditions, not because the world has become overpopulated. Same with earthquakes. A meteor is caused by a random piece of space debris happening to have the same travel path as our planet.
Other things like plagues can be attributed to human causality, but there is no "powerful being" levying punishment on the human race because they sinned or became overpopulated.
Kydorias
01-29-2005, 11:29 PM
Do you even know what pi is? Im not saying that pi is spiritual. Im saying taht the occurence of pi is not just some freak chance in nature.
No one knows yet, but its probably something similar in nature to triangles, squares, and hexagons. The only shapes formed in nature which fit solidly together without gaps. The strongest and most durable of physical material have molecular structures which follow a triangular, rectangular, or hexagonal pattern. Because they are more durable, they are also the most common.
Gnioss
01-30-2005, 02:43 AM
Why do people talk about "nature balancing things" as if it were a sentient entity?
People aren't personifying nature, it's just a convenient way to explain interactions between a system. You can say THERE WERE TOO MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE VOLCANO SO MOMMY NATURE FIXED IT UP or you can say that in the geological cycle of eruptions that particular volcano went through, one happened to occur at a time period in which there was a high human population density. The more people spread out and the tighter together they pack themselves, the greater the chance of a natural catastrophe wiping them out. It's just semantics!
What is the significance of PI outside of a base 10 number system? Perhaps in octal or something else its just another constant like Plancks or Bohrs or some such.
Cinnabar
01-30-2005, 03:47 AM
What is the significance of PI outside of a base 10 number system? Perhaps in octal or something else its just another constant like Plancks or Bohrs or some such.
Watch the movie Pi and you'll understand completely. Obviously the jews are out to get us.
Elora
01-30-2005, 03:50 AM
Why do people talk about "nature balancing things" as if it were a sentient entity?
Well, I do it because I like to think there really is someone in charge... whatever you want to call it, whatever form you want to give it. I think organized religion is bumpus, but I've got a spiritual side and like to think there's someone out there... not punishing us or micro-managing, but... keeping things balanced, on the big scale.
kk this one right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi_(movie)
Kydorias
01-30-2005, 07:39 AM
Well, I do it because I like to think there really is someone in charge... whatever you want to call it, whatever form you want to give it. I think organized religion is bumpus, but I've got a spiritual side and like to think there's someone out there... not punishing us or micro-managing, but... keeping things balanced, on the big scale.
Ah, I see. So when the worlds population exceeds 5 billion or some arbitrary number, the "being in charge" unleashes an earthquake that kills men, women & innocent children?
Also, what about natural disasters that strike more well-developed countries with strict building codes and fast emergency response services? Does the fact that less people die in those countries during such disasters mean they are "more deserving" to live in the eyes of this being?
Diraker
01-30-2005, 10:06 AM
As gnioss said, natural disasters are just part of the earth's cycle. And if there are more humans, then each natural disaster would have more of an effect on the human population.
As far as Pi goes, it's no suprise that Pi turns up in many things in out universe because circles, curves, and elipses are fairly common shapes we need to deal with. And Intelligent Design isn't a theory, it's a euphamism for Creationism which says, "goddidit".
Diraker, since you asked, I’ll give you my beliefs.
First you ask about evil. Like darkness is the absence of light, so is evil the absence of good. I believe God created mankind, and it was good. Over time, mankind has tried to become gods themselves. They attempt to create happiness for themselves outside of God.
“And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call human history – money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery – the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.” – C.S. Lewis
Evil has existed in man ever since mankind walked away from God, which was early in its existence. In order for mankind to have freewill, evil has to exist. If good was the only choice, we would love God not out of faith but out of automation.
God is the creator – the architect.
Faith has two meanings. First, faith can be belief that does not rest on proof or evidence. Faith specific to Christianity is the firm belief in God and an acceptance in God’s will.
I think what you’re asking as far as morality is how should it be applied. Morality, to me, is like a road trip. In order for the trip to be successful, a few things have to occur. First, the car cannot collide with other cars or objects. Secondly, the car’s engine must in good condition to avoid breakdowns. Thirdly, the car must be following the correct road in order to reach the intended destination.
The first part is what most considers morality – how we interact with each other.
The second part goes hand in hand with the first part. In order to interact morally, we can’t have things about us that would lead to the contradiction of the first part.
The third part is what sets Christianity apart. It’s not just good enough to do the right thing to others and do the right thing internally; one also has to do the right thing for God. Cars weren’t created to move randomly. They were created with the purpose to get from one place to a specific destination. I believe we, too, were meant to reach His kingdom.
As far as government and religion, I view Christianity and government as having two separate roles. Christianity’s role is to do what God wills. A government’s role is to exercise authority.
I don’t believe making something illegal will save souls, so I don’t see the point spending time and effort on doing so. There are better uses for both time and effort in this world.
I’d like to keep politics out of this discussion. I’ll be glad to discuss it on a separate thread.
I definetly agree with Dong about faith and why people don't understand. It takes faith to believe in a supreme being,"God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit" which are one. As for science... Planet earth is barely 6000yrs old. If you want to talk about science and how it interacts with the Bible, I am more than happy to expain in a different thread. As far as government and Christianity United states.. "America" was built on a Christian foundation. I will definetly supply you with facts if you want to post about that to. I would suggest watching "America's Godly Heritage" a film narrated by David Barton. It definetly goes into detail how our forefathers believed in Christ and why they believed in Him. The "English Primer" was about God and his principles and commandments for daily living. When students studied the alphabet they had to memorize a verse from the Bible with each letter they studied. Many of our presidents also emphasized how important God is in our country. John Quincy Adams stated that, "The central government and Christianity are tied together. He goes on to explain how that most of the influential people of our history were Christians. Point is .. we are throwing away what our forefathers have worked so hard to establish. Which is why as "christians" we should pray for our government.
What is our purpose on earth? What is our purpose of living? To die ? ... negative mateys.
Gnioss
01-30-2005, 04:53 PM
Planet earth is barely 6000yrs old
wowowowowoowoowwhhhwaatttt?!?!?!
after careful consideration, the only thing i'm contributing to this argument is the following:
Radio.
Carbon.
Dating.
Gnioss
01-30-2005, 05:02 PM
we are throwing away what our forefathers have worked so hard to establish.
A seperate church and state? I agree.
6000 years? So dinosaurs are only like what 5000 years old?
5000? lol... They died in the flood obviously. If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2) once again Faith comes in here.
Those are "facts" for yah :)
Aradorn
01-30-2005, 08:01 PM
seems to me numb has hit the nail on the head =)
Diraker
01-30-2005, 08:07 PM
"America's Godly Heritage" a film narrated by David Barton
Here's a link to one of the many websites that refute Barton's claims.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bjcpa1.htm
"David Barton, in his taped presentation called America's Godly Heritage, peddles the proposition that America is a "Christian Nation," legally and historically. He also asserts that the principle of church-state separation, while not in the Constitution, has systematically been used to rule religion out of the public arena, particularly the public school system. This is not a new argument, but Barton is especially slick in his presentation. His presentation has just enough ring of truth to make him credible to many people. It is, however, laced with exaggerations, half- truths, and misstatements of fact. His citation to supporting research is scant at best and at times non-existent."
bold emphasis mine
David Barton is a christian revisionist historian. His agenda is to push the idea that the US is a christian nation founded by christians. He has no credibility.
And I echo Gnioss last post on the separation of church and state. Our founders went out of the way to keep the constitution secular, and to insist on it in the first amendment. The very first item mentioned in the Bill of Rights is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
again bold is mine
Check out Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/index.shtml). It's a pretty short read.
If all the dinosaurs died in one fell swoop then their bodies would all be found in the same layer of earth, which would also be rife with flood debris.
I remember watching a program about finding a layer that might denote a huge flood of some kind and they were trying to match that layer in other areas of the world. However that layer is still quite fresh compared to the ones where dinosaurs are commonly found.
GuilT
01-30-2005, 09:00 PM
I knew there was a reason i felt '!!DANGER!!' when ever i looked at this thread...
Diraker, you are definetly right! I had to watch that movie in my govnerment class and actually.. I just printed that out and I'm going to show the whole class. I have read the entire article you showed me. The main thing I was getting at is our forefathers were Christians or believed in a "Supreme being". That article is such a dagger... I am actually kinda of pist even though my professor said he didn't believe some of the views Barton had. I'm obviously going to show im but, I think he as seen it already.
Diraker
01-30-2005, 10:10 PM
Hey I'm glad you liked that article. I haven't read the whole thing and it's just the first thing I could find. Over on some other forums there's sometimes threads about Barton and that was one of the links someone had used.
Definetly gave me a brighter view! Even though I like some of his views.
Armind
01-31-2005, 12:52 AM
It is, however, laced with exaggerations, half- truths, and misstatements of fact. His citation to supporting research is scant at best and at times non-existent."
lol, this sounds like a kind description of a someone else I know, Michael Moore anyone?
Gnioss
01-31-2005, 02:34 AM
michael moore is a pandering lowlife moron.
Ablate
01-31-2005, 02:51 AM
He's rich too.
Touching this thread with anything less than 20 foot poles is a bad idea, the craziness within is potentially contagious, and sanity threatening.
Diraker
01-31-2005, 03:16 AM
sounds like Hannity, Limbaugh (sp), Ann Coulter, etc. All those right wing pundits.
Not that I'm defending Michael Moore.
But still if you knew anything about Barton (and I know only a little), that desription is disturbingly accurate.
Armind
01-31-2005, 04:18 AM
Only the "right-wing" pundits, Diraker?
As for the thread, I too am steering clear of it.
Neither the left of right are doing God's will, so there's no need to throw politics in this thread.
As for the Earth's age, I plan on looking at the original words that were used to translate into English this week. I've read something interesting that supports the theory that the Earth is billions of years old, but I need to personally verify it. I'll post my results if anyone is interested in seeing them.
Just out of curiosity, for the non-Christians, is the Earth's age belief a big factor in why you don't believe the Bible?
Kydorias
01-31-2005, 08:54 AM
Just out of curiosity, for the non-Christians, is the Earth's age belief a big factor in why you don't believe the Bible?
Earth's age and more. I have yet to see irrefutable proof that earth was "created" by a supreme being. Actually I have yet to see even flimsy proof.
Granted, scientific theories like evolution aren't necessarily unassailable, but there is a much larger pool of evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism.
Looking at Numb's timeline, I'm very curious as to why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible. Other less intimidating creatures were detailed, why not huge carnivorous reptiles that surely would have feasted on the deliciously soft humans? Surely they would have had enough of an effect on human psyche to get a psalm or two.
"An lo, for Satan unleashed upon Jeremiah the eleventh plague, a Tyrannosaurus Rex with fearsome tooth and sharp claw."
-Michael 3:18
Diraker
01-31-2005, 09:20 AM
I don't believe in the literal word of the Bible partly because of the scientific inaccurracies. But for me christianity is no different than other religions. Other religions that I'm sure you yourself dismiss. Like Zueism, or Thorism, or maybe Hindi or Wicca, etc.
Anyway the way liberal christians have explained the young earth model in the Bible to me is that a god day could be billions of years. So when god created the earth in 6 days, we aren't talking 24 hour days, but more like a 750 million year long day.
I get into discussions with my agnostic theist friend all the time. He tries to combine science with his theism, like that god plays a role in the randomness that we see. And that it's not randomness, it's god. So even the most liberal/progressive ideas about god aren't for me, nevermind the concept of an ancient fearful people's god.
So if you want to know why I dismiss your religion, just look to the reason why you dismiss other religions. (yeah I said that already, but I like it heh).
Armind
01-31-2005, 11:11 AM
Neither the left of right are doing God's will, so there's no need to throw politics in this thread.
That's your opinion. But I bet many of them feel differently Im sure. And I was just replying to Diraker, who seems to find fault with the right quite a bit more often then the left.
Elora
01-31-2005, 12:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, for the non-Christians, is the Earth's age belief a big factor in why you don't believe the Bible?
Well, I don't believe the bible because it was written by the hand of man... of many men. A committee decided what went into it. Yes yes, it was inspired by God and all that, but man wrote it, man designed it, man translated it a thousand times. Its a nice little book with some great ideas and some really wild tales.
Again, before I get stomped into the ground... my opinion only. If you believe in the bible and follow it, that's a good thing for you. More power to ya.
Roxie
01-31-2005, 12:50 PM
That's your opinion. But I bet many of them feel differently Im sure. And I was just replying to Diraker, who seems to find fault with the right quite a bit more often then the left.
Hey, just because people feel like they may be doing the right thing, doesn't mean it is true. However, I think it is obvious that neither side is doing God's will, if you look at current issues and events from a Biblical standpoint.
All I have to say for evolutionists.. is why we haven't evolved today. OR, where did it come from? I'd rather put faith in something then believe something that couldn't even happen. As for the Dinosaurs, they are classified as reptiles. When does a reptile stop growing? never. but, to answer that question I can't. I have no idea...but, I do now that the Bible is inspired by God. Diraker, explain to me one scientific inaccurracies in the bible.
Diraker
01-31-2005, 01:26 PM
Numb here's a link to some other links on the topic of evolution and creationism.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=92385
and maybe these PBS movies will work
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
Gnioss
01-31-2005, 02:53 PM
"An lo, for Satan unleashed upon Jeremiah the eleventh plague, a Tyrannosaurus Rex with fearsome tooth and sharp claw."
-Michael 3:18
Best thing in this whole thread.
Armind
01-31-2005, 03:09 PM
Hey, just because people feel like they may be doing the right thing, doesn't mean it is true. However, I think it is obvious that neither side is doing God's will, if you look at current issues and events from a Biblical standpoint.
The "right thing" according to Christian beliefs?
Roxie
01-31-2005, 03:37 PM
The "right thing" according to Christian beliefs?
Biblical perspective != All Christian belief
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 03:38 PM
Diraker, explain to me one scientific inaccurracies in the bible.
The entire timeline itself would be a scientific inaccuracy ...
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 03:45 PM
5000? lol... They died in the flood obviously. If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2) once again Faith comes in here.
LOL you can't honestly believe this. It has been disproven in so many ways.
Earth's age and more. I have yet to see irrefutable proof that earth was "created" by a supreme being. Actually I have yet to see even flimsy proof.
Granted, scientific theories like evolution aren't necessarily unassailable, but there is a much larger pool of evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism.
Looking at Numb's timeline, I'm very curious as to why dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible. Other less intimidating creatures were detailed, why not huge carnivorous reptiles that surely would have feasted on the deliciously soft humans? Surely they would have had enough of an effect on human psyche to get a psalm or two.
I believe everything of this universe has a beginning. The only way the universe can be created is by something or someone out of this world. People can argue about who that supreme being is, but to deny that one doesn’t exist – that the universe has just existed forever without a beginning – doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m pretty sure the 6000 years timeline comes from a source outside of the Bible, so I won’t comment on it. Again, I haven't read in the Bible where the age of Earth is told. The 6000 year theory is a popular one, though.
I don’t know exactly why the dinosaurs weren’t mentioned specifically in the Bible, but I would expect for the same reason toe nail fungus wasn’t mentioned – it doesn’t pertain to the Bible’s purpose. Just because the Bible doesn’t mention dinosaurs or toenail fungus doesn’t mean the Bible says they didn’t exist.
So if you want to know why I dismiss your religion, just look to the reason why you dismiss other religions. (yeah I said that already, but I like it heh).
I dismiss other religions because of my faith in God, not because I don’t believe anything I can’t prove.
That's your opinion. But I bet many of them feel differently Im sure. And I was just replying to Diraker, who seems to find fault with the right quite a bit more often then the left.
Agreed. I was just hoping this thread wouldn’t turn into the left versus the right.
Well, I don't believe the bible because it was written by the hand of man... of many men. A committee decided what went into it. Yes yes, it was inspired by God and all that, but man wrote it, man designed it, man translated it a thousand times. Its a nice little book with some great ideas and some really wild tales.
Again, before I get stomped into the ground... my opinion only. If you believe in the bible and follow it, that's a good thing for you. More power to ya.
I agree that many things get lost in translation. However, the fundamental core of Christianity is the same in every Bible translation I’ve read. If you’re like me, though, the difference does bother you and you’d like to figure out the truth. I’m afraid the only way to do so is through self-study.
Gnioss
01-31-2005, 04:29 PM
I believe everything of this universe has a beginning. The only way the universe can be created is by something or someone out of this world. People can argue about who that supreme being is, but to deny that one doesn’t exist – that the universe has just existed forever without a beginning – doesn’t make sense to me.
Why is it that because we don't fully understand the nature of our reality it had to be created by some kind of all-seeing all-knowing beard in the sky? It seems reminiscent of the ancient man who saw a lightning storm and wondered if it was the product of a wrathful god.
Diraker
01-31-2005, 04:56 PM
So back to my intitial point of this thread. Does being a christian with faith mean you are morally superior to non christians?
ANd to keep the thread moving...at what point does science break down and religion takes over. I mean it's because of science we have computers. It's the same science that helps man get into space, the same science that tells us that lifeforms evolve, the same science that tells us that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the universe is HUGE and expanding.
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 05:11 PM
Religion is a person's way to cope with that empty feeling people sometimes feel. Many people feel insecure if there isn't some visible purpose. They don't want to seem insignificant in the big picture. I do believe that in time science will continue to further disprove what is presented as religious fact.
Elora
01-31-2005, 05:17 PM
So back to my intitial point of this thread. Does being a christian with faith mean you are morally superior to non christians?
Oooooh! Do you poke sharp sticks at lions in cages, too?
Moral superiority, as with faith, is a matter of persepctive. When it comes to religion, there is no right or wrong. There's just what you believe. That tends to apply to morals, too, aside from the ones we all agree on (no, you can't kill that annoying neighbor... no, you can't rob the bank to pay for a new car).
But what a fun conversation! Let me get some popcorn before the fur starts to fly...
Just out of curiosity, for the non-Christians, is the Earth's age belief a big factor in why you don't believe the Bible?
Some could agree with some of the lessons the Bible has to offer, without "believing" in the any of the theories that are associated with it. Someone else said it earlier, but I see the bible as a book of fables.
As far as the whole man is only 6000 years old ordeal....Numb, really? Dinosaurs are less than 6000 years old? How DO you disprove carbon dating? Have you ever taken a physical anthropology class? And we ARE evolving, it is just that the chunk of time that you are looking at is so small in comparison, that the changes are not large enough to easily recognize.
What about the idea that there IS a higher power that may have had a helping hand in creating all of nature around us but maybe the timeline is off...
Diraker
01-31-2005, 05:35 PM
Most religious people think that morals stem from god(s). Most religious people are moral absolutists. I think my question is valid and is not an attempt to stir the pot, although it should be pretty clear that I like conversations about religion and politics. Not taboo for me.
Elora
01-31-2005, 05:37 PM
Of course it is valid... I did not mean to imply your only goal was to upset people.
:)
Why is it that because we don't fully understand the nature of our reality it had to be created by some kind of all-seeing all-knowing beard in the sky? It seems reminiscent of the ancient man who saw a lightning storm and wondered if it was the product of a wrathful god.
Gnioss, if everything in the universe has a beginning, the universe itself also had to have an origin. This origin cannot happen inside the universe because the universe would not exist at the time of its own beginning. Therefore, my conclusion is that someone or something outside of the universe created it. Many people argue who or what that supreme being is, but it’s hard to deny its existence without violating established scientific laws, such as the impossibility of energy being created or destroyed.
So back to my intitial point of this thread. Does being a christian with faith mean you are morally superior to non christians?
ANd to keep the thread moving...at what point does science break down and religion takes over. I mean it's because of science we have computers. It's the same science that helps man get into space, the same science that tells us that lifeforms evolve, the same science that tells us that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the universe is HUGE and expanding.
Do you want to know if Christians think their views are right and others are wrong, or why that appears to happen with humankind in general? I’m not sure I understand the question on moral supremacy.
Science can explain how things work, but it doesn’t answer why they work. Science and religion are two different things – not two equal things fighting for the same role.
Religion is a person's way to cope with that empty feeling people sometimes feel. Many people feel insecure if there isn't some visible purpose. They don't want to seem insignificant in the big picture. I do believe that in time science will continue to further disprove what is presented as religious fact.
You may believe that’s the purpose of religion, but that’s not the case with everyone. That’s like saying all people who play female characters in online video games have gender identity issues.
There are many reasons why people turn to religion.
Diraker
01-31-2005, 08:19 PM
Science can explain how things work, but it doesn’t answer why they work. Science and religion are two different things – not two equal things fighting for the same role.
This is where we agree, and much of my point throughout my posts. But if science and religion are different things than why are some people young earth creationists despite what science has to say?
As far as morality goes. If christian morality stems from god, where does that leave people who don't have faith?
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 08:42 PM
Gnioss, if everything in the universe has a beginning, the universe itself also had to have an origin. This origin cannot happen inside the universe because the universe would not exist at the time of its own beginning. Therefore, my conclusion is that someone or something outside of the universe created it. Many people argue who or what that supreme being is, but it’s hard to deny its existence without violating established scientific laws, such as the impossibility of energy being created or destroyed.
Yes it does and there are theories on all of it just as religion is merely a theory. If your conclusion is that someone outside of the universe created it, where exactly is outside of the universe? In the special invisible land?
I'm assuming that when you say the impossibility of energy being created or destroyed you meant that matter can neither be created nor destroyed and the scientific theories as to the beginning of the universe do not say it just popped out of nowhere. The predominant theories say that the expansion of the universe began with a primeval atom, not nothingness.
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 08:46 PM
As far as morality goes. If christian morality stems from god, where does that leave people who don't have faith?
Immoral heathens, of course. ;)
Outside the universe cannot be explained in our terms because it is not of this universe and we cannot conceive what it is like.
Where did the atom come from? What forces acted upon it to create the universe?
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 09:05 PM
Outside the universe cannot be explained in our terms because it is not of this universe and we cannot conceive what it is like.
Where did the atom come from? What forces acted upon it to create the universe?
Where indeed? That question can't yet be answered just as none of religion can.
As far as forces - instability.
The difference here that there is some evidence to support the scientific theory but there still remains none to support the religious.
Then the atom isn’t the origin of the universe.
And instability isn’t a force.
What evidence do you have that the universe was created from a single atom?
Cinnabar
01-31-2005, 09:39 PM
Then the atom isn’t the origin of the universe.
And instability isn’t a force.
What evidence do you have that the universe was created from a single atom?
Do some reading up on the Big Bang Theory. Here's a bit of info that might help:
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.
Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.
In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.
Even more recently, NASAs COBE satellite was able to detect cosmic microwaves eminating from the outer reaches of the universe. These microwaves were remarkably uniform which illustrated the homogenity of the early stages of the universe. However, the satillite also discovered that as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation. These fluctuations in the universe provided a more detailed description of the first moments after the Big Bang. They also helped to tell the story of the formation of galaxies which will be discussed in the next chapter.
The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.
Now that an attempt has been made to grapple with the theory of the Big Bang, the next logical question to ask would be what happened afterward? In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.
As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.
After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.
After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.
While it is true that much of this information is speculative, as the universe ages we are able to become increasingly confident in our knowledge of its history. By studying the way in which the universe exists today it is possible to learn a great deal about its past. Much effort has gone into understanding the formation and number of baryons present today. Through finding answers to these modern questions, it is possible to trace their role in the universe back to the Big Bang. Subsequently, by studying the formation of simple atoms in the laboratory we can make some educated guesses as to how they formed originally. Only through further research and discovery will it be possible to completely understand the creation of the universe and its first atomic structures, however, maybe we will never know for sure
Thanks for the information. I read where there’s evidence that the universe is constantly expanding from one point. Everything else is based off of speculation. It even says “What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.”
It still doesn’t explain the origin of the atom and how it became unstable, or really even if it originated from a single atom.
Gnioss
01-31-2005, 10:50 PM
on the subject of life, the universe, and everything: I can't possibly hope to explain the science behind it, there are people who are a thousand times smarter then me that don't have a handle on it, but one thing you can say for sure is that the laws of our reality aren't constant throughout every reality that has ever or will ever exist. It is generally accepted that our universe is merely one in a series of universes that have existed and died. The methods by which they are born and die range from big bangs to brane interactions to all kinds of things. We really don't have the technology to prove any theories yet, we're kind of like cavemen trying to build an atomic reactor. In time we will know more, but we'll never know it all. The difference is that I'm not going to trying to explain away what I don't know by saying god dun it. I'll just say I don't know, but I hope we one day do.
Gnioss
01-31-2005, 10:56 PM
Thanks for the information. I read where there’s evidence that the universe is constantly expanding from one point. Everything else is based off of speculation. It even says “What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation.”
It still doesn’t explain the origin of the atom and how it became unstable, or really even if it originated from a single atom.
In the beginning, there were no atoms. Matter was formed of a highly energetic, incredibly dense plasma-like material. As the universe grew (the term grew is misleading, there is no central point that you can say THERE is the center of the universe, it's really expanding everywhere at once) but anyway, as it grew the universe had the same amount of energy in a larger form so the matter cooled and condensed, forming hydrogen, the first element. Over time various interactions formed the other elements, and so on.
That's only one theory, the other theory involves mutiple universe "branes" that collided across dimensions, creating big bangs in universes that already existed. That's why it's called theoretical physics, it's all untestable right now. However, one day we will know the answers, but until then there's no reason to insist the universe needs a creator.
I heard once that life is merely the universe's attempt to percieve itself, and I thought it was incredibly poetic. Conciousness begets gods, and not the other way around.
I guess my point is science has no firm grasp on how the universe was created, yet a supreme being is automatically ruled out as a possibility by most people.
Where did the Highly energetic,increibly dense plasma-like material come from ? Like Dong said and the "Big theory" said.... They don't know. From what you said diraker... what are people that aren't christians? The Bible says you are lost. Your eyes are closed.. and you are on your way to hell. I am being totally blunt about it.. but, I have to be. It is not funny or a joking matter at all. That is my job as a christian. Is to spread the Word of God and tell people that there is "a" God. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone. Everyone has a free will. Just getting to the point of my question in the beginigng that i think no one took serious. "Do you know were you are going when you die"?
I'm going to be a butterfly.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 01:17 AM
Actually Dong most people are theists and believe in a creator.
And Numb, gnioss said he was going to be food for worms when he dies. That his life energy is transferred to the worms (or something like that). I said that being dead is like being before you were born. I think we've answered.
I meant by most people that believe science will explain our creation some day.
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 01:35 AM
Where did the Highly energetic,increibly dense plasma-like material come from ?
There are several theories. One of the theories is that the big bang comes after a "big crunch" wherein the universe collapses back in on itself and starts anew. Another theory gaining credibility is that the big bang didnt actually happen like people think it did. It proposes that universes regularly collide with one another on interdemensional planes called "Branes" and that when it happens it releases an unimaginable amount of energy, creating something similar to a big bang. All of these are of course theories, leading up to your next point.
Like Dong said and the "Big theory" said....
It bugs me when people say "It's only a theory!" when talking about things like evolution or other concepts. Gravity is only a theory too, but that doesnt mean I'm going to believe little angels are holding me down so I don't float up into heaven!
what are people that aren't christians? The Bible says you are lost. Your eyes are closed.. and you are on your way to hell. I am being totally blunt about it.. but, I have to be. It is not funny or a joking matter at all. That is my job as a christian. Is to spread the Word of God and tell people that there is "a" God.
If such a God existed, I would label him evil beyond human imagination. If you don't follow his teachings you're going to hell? So basically he created the human race, let it go through hundreds of thousands of years of existance, damning countless generations of people to eternal damnation and torture until he finally ordained that he would allow them to know his name? What you're proposing is that such a god created a race of thinking beings only to cause them pain. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
"Do you know were you are going when you die"?
A hole in the ground, Where my nutrients will return to the ecosystem.
Kydorias
02-01-2005, 05:04 AM
So basically he created the human race, let it go through hundreds of thousands of years of existance, damning countless generations of people to eternal damnation and torture until he finally ordained that he would allow them to know his name?
Gnioss, you're forgetting the "earth is 6,000 years old" thing.
But seriously, what about Nok Hwai, the peasant farmer living in Northern China close to the border of Mongolia? He's worked hard all his life tending his fields, helping his neighbors, and raising three fine sons to continue his families' agrarian tradition. He is a highly respected member of his small community who is well known for his generosity and fairness. Yet he has never met a Christian in his life nor heard of Jesus Christ.
Are you telling me that Nok Hwai is going to Hell?
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 05:57 AM
Gnioss, you're forgetting the "earth is 6,000 years old" thing.
But seriously, what about Nok Hwai, the peasant farmer living in Northern China close to the border of Mongolia? He's worked hard all his life tending his fields, helping his neighbors, and raising three fine sons to continue his families' agrarian tradition. He is a highly respected member of his small community who is well known for his generosity and fairness. Yet he has never met a Christian in his life nor heard of Jesus Christ.
Are you telling me that Nok Hwai is going to Hell?
I know the answer to that one. According to the Bible, those who have never had the opportunity to learn of Jesus and accept him will not be held accountable.
Cool system eh?
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 05:59 AM
Where did the Highly energetic,increibly dense plasma-like material come from ? Like Dong said and the "Big theory" said.... They don't know. From what you said diraker... what are people that aren't christians? The Bible says you are lost. Your eyes are closed.. and you are on your way to hell. I am being totally blunt about it.. but, I have to be. It is not funny or a joking matter at all. That is my job as a christian. Is to spread the Word of God and tell people that there is "a" God. I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone. Everyone has a free will. Just getting to the point of my question in the beginigng that i think no one took serious. "Do you know were you are going when you die"?
But at the same time, you don't know either.
The science books say you are lost. Your eyes are closed and you are on your way to insanity. I'm going to be really blunt about it but I have to be. It's really not funny. My job as a believer in science is to spread the word and let you know that you are advocating an invisible being that waved a wand and here we were. Do you really know where you are going to go when you die?
:wave:
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 06:08 AM
Where did the Highly energetic,increibly dense plasma-like material come from ? Like Dong said and the "Big theory" said.... They don't know.
And alternatively.....where did God come from since that would be the equivalent of your question from our perspective?
And alternatively.....where did God come from since that would be the equivalent of your question from our perspective?
God is not of this universe, so he doesn't have a beginning or an end. He created beginnings and endings.
If such a God existed, I would label him evil beyond human imagination. If you don't follow his teachings you're going to hell? So basically he created the human race, let it go through hundreds of thousands of years of existance, damning countless generations of people to eternal damnation and torture until he finally ordained that he would allow them to know his name? What you're proposing is that such a god created a race of thinking beings only to cause them pain. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
This reminds me something C.S. Lewis wrote when talking about why he turned from atheism:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got the idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too – for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist – in other words, that the whole reality was senseless – I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality – namely my idea of justice – was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 08:02 AM
God is not of this universe, so he doesn't have a beginning or an end. He created beginnings and endings.
That's pure speculation just as if I said the universe also has no beginning or ending; that it only changed in form.
Kydorias
02-01-2005, 09:50 AM
I know the answer to that one. According to the Bible, those who have never had the opportunity to learn of Jesus and accept him will not be held accountable.
Cool system eh?
Ah, so Jin Hwang, a wretched criminal who kidnaps and rapes poor Nok Hwai's daughter, is assured a place in Heaven because he has never heard of Christianity or Jesus Christ?
Kydorias
02-01-2005, 09:55 AM
Another question. A Christian missionary arrives in Nok Hwai's village preaching the word of God and Jesus Christ. Nok takes him in, feeds him, and helps him build a local church while affably continuing to believe in his ancestor worship religion. Now that Nok has been introduced to the word of God, yet refuses to accept Jesus Christ as his savior, is he relegated to an eternity in Hell after he dies?
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 09:58 AM
Another question. A Christian missionary arrives in Nok Hwai's village preaching the word of God and Jesus Christ. Nok takes him in, feeds him, and helps him build a local church while affably continuing to believe in his ancestor worship religion. Now that Nok has been introduced to the word of God, yet refuses to accept Jesus Christ as his savior, is he relegated to an eternity in Hell after he dies?
yes
Kydorias
02-01-2005, 10:05 AM
So lets sum this up.
Nok Hwai, all around good guy and valuable contributer to his local society, is assured a place in Heaven. UNTIL a Christian missionary shows up and introduces him to the word of God, at which point Nok's immortal soul will be consigned to Hell if he doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his savior.
Meanwhile, Jin Hwang, notorious kidnapper and rapist, flees the village prior to the arrival of the missionary and therefore is assured a place in Heaven.
Oh yes, that makes me want to convert to Christianity.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 10:08 AM
I think it's pagan vs. infidel.
Pagans have yet to be introduced to God, while infidels reject God.
Anyway until theists can show me evidence of god(s) then I am going to continue to dismiss their claims. I keep an open mind but not so open that my brains fall out.
Kydorias
02-01-2005, 10:10 AM
Are Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all going to Hell since they don't believe Jesus Christ is the son of God?
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 10:14 AM
Are Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists all going to Hell since they don't believe Jesus Christ is the son of God?
yes
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 10:54 AM
Submit to our will or perish for eternity in the flames of hell!
Diraker
02-01-2005, 11:27 AM
This is a web site I've used for reference before, specifiacally on the cosmic microwave backround radiation.
It has all the info most people would ever want to know on the Big Bang, the evidence for it, and why it's the current accepted model of the universe.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
Armind
02-01-2005, 11:52 AM
I'm going to be a butterfly.
You are a butterfly.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 12:54 PM
heres the only thing you ever need to know about religion
Faith...
It dosnt matter if science proves or even disproves the basis of a god(s). Faith is the basis of all religions in the world and thats all thye need adhere to what they believe.
Arguging about whether God exists or does not exists is rather stupid and pointless cause
1) I cant "prove" he does exists
2) You cant prove he dosnt.
But you know whats funny bout all this. We both have faith.
I have faith in a higher being.
You have faith in your belief that a higher being dosnt exists.
So for being so different in our views, we are so alike =)
Diraker
02-01-2005, 12:55 PM
Best book ever.
Cosmos, by Carl Sagan (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345331354/ref=pd_sim_b_5/002-2857733-5497662?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance)
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 01:01 PM
heres the only thing you ever need to know about religion
Faith...
It dosnt matter if science proves or even disproves the basis of a god(s). Faith is the basis of all religions in the world and thats all thye need adhere to what they believe.
This reminds me of when I was six and I would tell my parents that it doesn't matter what they say, I still don't believe them and would have it my way only.
Arguging about whether God exists or does not exists is rather stupid and pointless cause
1) I cant "prove" he does exists
2) You cant prove he dosnt.
Anything that offers stimulating conversation is neither stupid nor pointless, especially when you consider that most of the time on here we're talking about random crap that makes no sense. i.e. threads between myself and Roxie.
But you know whats funny bout all this. We both have faith.
I have faith in a higher being.
You have faith in your belief that a higher being dosnt exists.
So for being so different in our views, we are so alike =)
There is a huge difference. Religious faith is based on...well....faith. Faith in science was earned through theories that later became proven and through evidence that supports theories that will be proven later.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 01:13 PM
I have faith that a higher being doesn't exist in the same manner that I have faith that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) or the invisible dragons in my garage don't exist.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 01:14 PM
There is a huge difference. Religious faith is based on...well....faith. Faith in science was earned through theories that later became proven and through evidence that supports theories that will be proven later.
Faith in religion is earned by studying that religion and its beliefs.
Faith in science is earned by studying that particular field and what its affect on nature etc...
So I still dont see how they are different?
The definition of faith dosnt change on what you relate it too.
# Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
# Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 01:14 PM
I have faith that a higher being doesn't exist in the same manner that I have faith that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) or the invisible dragons in my garage don't exist.
LOOOOOOL
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 01:15 PM
Faith in religion is earned by studying that religion and its beliefs.
Faith in science is earned by studying that particular field and what its affect on nature etc...
So I still dont see how they are different?
Uhh...because one offers actual physical evidence while the other does not.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 01:15 PM
Aradorn, can someone have 99.9% faith in God?
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 01:25 PM
Cinnabar, but it may be decades before the physical evidence ever appears, but we still hold those theories to be true by our faith. We still havnt proved Einstiens theory of general relativity yet, but its considered a model for astrophysics and is taught all over the world because people have faith in the fact that it is true, and tehrefore have based years and years of physics off the notion that Einstien was correct.
Now what if he was wrong? Then all physics we have discovered and created since then would be false. Thats alot of FAITH to have in a thoery...
Diraker sure someone could. Theres always some little bit of doubt in a person, heck i have doubts. Noone is perfect and they will second guess their beliefs etc... So yes someone can have 99.99% faith
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 01:27 PM
You're grasping at straws. We are talking about faith in science being based on past proven theories and physical evidence. If you want to get down to specific instances then bring in the example we've been discussing for pages now - the big bang theory.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 01:55 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52713-2004Oct21.html
The article itself sucks, it's totally written by a non science layperson for the layperson, but maybe that direct evidence for the theory of general relativity is closer than some might think.
and here's another link to general relativity and evidence...just doing google searches and looking for short reads that seem to answer the right questions
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980327b.html
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 02:00 PM
gah im not going to argue bout this i got better things to do wtih my time, was just making a statement earlier.
go take a college level calc based physics class and youll learn all you want about general relativity...
You are right that you have to put faith in God to believe in God or "a" God(s). But, for the facts... I don't have to go into much detail at all. The Bible is the most sold/written/spread throughout the word/read/ etc Book today and book that there ever will be. To back up the Bible is many things such one as the "Dead sea scrolls". To much evidence Jesus Christ walked the earth. Comparing that to A "theory" ... How a "chance" we are here and evolved and it took us 100,000,000,000, years just to get were we are today. The books in the bible are proven facts. Places/writings/prohpocy (that has been proven). yes I know were I am going Diraker when I die. And no it is not because of my "works". It is because I have confessed that Jesus Christ is my lord and saviour. Works.. don't get you to heaven. After all the Bible says "don't save your riches on earth". Just for me to put these together. The Bible has clear more evidance than ... Science can prove. Just tell me when they get a cure for aids. Or is it because men are greedy and don't make a vaccine/cure because we are making to much money on aids/cancer? GL to those who find a cure !!!! Just Tell me why I was made? and why I am here? and what is my purpose? Maybe to help the grass grow when I die ? For me... I know those answers from reading the Bible. Unlike evolutionists... who can't. or maybe IN one YEAR!!! I'll become a flying dragon and we can all play pokemon and level up together! you can call me TROGDORRRRRRR! or maybe NUMBASOUR THE MAN EATING MACHINE and I can be in science books!
enough said.
sldkljsfskl;d I'm late for my communications class :(
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 02:27 PM
gah im not going to argue bout this i got better things to do wtih my time, was just making a statement earlier.
go take a college level calc based physics class and youll learn all you want about general relativity...
lawl...
Diraker
02-01-2005, 02:35 PM
I have a B.S. in Natural Science.
yay for me :hmm:
And Numb, I think we are comparing the big bang theory to literal interpretation of Genesis.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 02:41 PM
For the love of God(tee hee), start using paragraphs. But here we go...
You are right that you have to put faith in God to believe in God or "a" God(s). But, for the facts... I don't have to go into much detail at all. The Bible is the most sold/written/spread throughout the word/read/ etc Book today and book that there ever will be.
This is completely irrelevant. And as such, I would like to add that the Ender series of books is outstanding!!!
To back up the Bible is many things such one as the "Dead sea scrolls". To much evidence Jesus Christ walked the earth.
Back it up....how? You are talking about some pieces of parchment that were found in some jars being evidence that a supreme being exists? I don't think so. :thumbdown Science does not question the existance of the Bible(obviously) or the existance of Jesus(not only is there much evidence to support him being a real person but it's also irrelevant) but to say that any of this supports him as being the son of God is far-fetched. Perhaps we should ask God for a DNA sample and find out if he's truly the baby's daddy.
Comparing that to A "theory" ... How a "chance" we are here and evolved and it took us 100,000,000,000, years just to get were we are today.
An invisible being is so much more believable. It sounds like an excuse for someone who was too lazy to come up with anything else.
The books in the bible are proven facts. Places/writings/prohpocy (that has been proven).
Right so because the Bible says Jerusalem was a real place....and it is, the Christian God exists? That doesn't fly...hell, it doesn't even relate!
yes I know were I am going Diraker when I die. And no it is not because of my "works". It is because I have confessed that Jesus Christ is my lord and saviour. Works.. don't get you to heaven. After all the Bible says "don't save your riches on earth". Just for me to put these together.
In all honesty, no, you don't know. You can only speculate based on your faith but speculation is just that, regardless.
The Bible has clear more evidance than ... Science can prove.
Uh, sure.
Just tell me when they get a cure for aids. Or is it because men are greedy and don't make a vaccine/cure because we are making to much money on aids/cancer? GL to those who find a cure !!!!
Wow, Numb I love you man, but you have no clue what you are talking about. Do you know why we can't cure these diseases yet? It's because they are VIRAL. A virus contains some of the same structure as our own cells which causes a problem: anything that we'd use to kill the virus would not be able to tell the difference between the virus and our own cells. Conclusion: good cells die too. We'd kill ourselves faster than letting the virus kill us.
It's a bit more complicated but there's your basic bio lesson for today.
Just Tell me why I was made? and why I am here? and what is my purpose? Maybe to help the grass grow when I die ? For me... I know those answers from reading the Bible.
No you don't, you are speculating. If you can't prove it, it's not fact, despite what you tell yourself.
Unlike evolutionists... who can't. or maybe IN one YEAR!!! I'll become a flying dragon and we can all play pokemon and level up together! you can call me TROGDORRRRRRR! or maybe NUMBASOUR THE MAN EATING MACHINE and I can be in science books!
enough said.
Unlike priests...who can't!
Drekor
02-01-2005, 02:48 PM
Science = Technical jargen that nobody can understand and therefore can't follow
Religion = Fanatical BS that would be dismissed by anyone with a rational mind.
I mean honestly can you beleive that some thing just came around and went abbra kadabra then the universe appeared? And the people that established this religion originally claimed that everything in the bible was truth and today say it's all stories and the meaning is whats important? That's stupid.
Same thing applies to science everything we understand and know today can't come close to explaining how or why the universe is here, it's all just random speculation. No way of actualy proving it.
GIBBRISH!! ALL OF IT!
Problem with today's society is everyone thinks to much and lacks common sense. Why the hell would you care about all this crap? It doesn't even really effect you outside of the fact that the universe is here and we live in it. You don't analyze how your toaster came into being!
Roxie
02-01-2005, 02:49 PM
Science = Technical jargen that nobody can understand and therefore can't follow
Religion = Fanatical BS that would be dismissed by anyone with a rational mind.
I mean honestly can you beleive that some thing just came around and went abbra kadabra then the universe appeared? And the people that established this religion originally claimed that everything in the bible was truth and today say it's all stories and the meaning is whats important? That's stupid.
Same thing applies to science everything we understand and know today can't come close to explaining how or why the universe is here, it's all just random speculation. No way of actualy proving it.
GIBBRISH!! ALL OF IT!
Problem with today's society is everyone thinks to much and lacks common sense. Why the hell would you care about all this crap? It doesn't even really effect you outside of the fact that the universe is here and we live in it. You don't analyze how your toaster came into being!
Wow, dumbest post ever. Not to mention, you just insulted everyone that was trying to have a decent arguement. If you aren't interested in the topic of the debate, then kindly, STFU.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 03:00 PM
You don't analyze how your toaster came into being!
Of course you don't because the only purpose it serves for you is to get your breakfast ready.
Other people do actually analyze it. Someone invested quite a bit of time coming up with the idea for it, testing it, rebuilding it, testing it some more, and then testing it 80 more times before it was patented.
It's easy to take things for granted when you are uninterested in them.
Roxie
02-01-2005, 03:07 PM
Gnioss get AIM, I gotta talk to you.
This thread has officially went from a nice debate to insults and 12 year old behavior.
I'm done, but I'll be glad to discuss further with mature people.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 03:47 PM
Cinnabar everything is irrelevent to you, and everyone is grasping for straws when they argue on any topic with you. Thus the reason why I decided to stop.
Noone in this guild is an expert on the big bang so why should i feel the need to talk about a subject that is too advanced for anyone in this guild.
Wow, dumbest post ever. Not to mention, you just insulted everyone that was trying to have a decent arguement. If you aren't interested in the topic of the debate, then kindly, STFU.
ROX..you are insulting people for insulting people!!?? I took his post as just his opinion...everyone is allowed to express one, right??
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 03:50 PM
ROFL aradorn are you for real.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Cinnabar everything is irrelevent to you, and everyone is grasping for straws when they argue on any topic with you. Thus the reason why I decided to stop.
Noone in this guild is an expert on the big bang so why should i feel the need to talk about a subject that is too advanced for anyone in this guild.
hahahah are you serious?
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 03:55 PM
yes im for real, who here has the knowledge in astrophysics or hell even physics to explain to me on an educated level what the theory of the big bang is.
I dont want a copy/paste job from google either.
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 03:57 PM
Aradorn, your condenscending additude would be sad if it wasn't so funny.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 03:57 PM
Give me a break man. You think that people here can't regurgitate an already printed theory just because they can't explain the mathematical equation behind a black hole or some other shit?
Please explain to me how God was created and then talk about him. Until then, don't.
*edit* And just to add...your holier-than-art-thou attitude is ridiculous. Your calculus 3 class or whatever you're taking is about as much of an impact as pissing into the ocean when it comes to the big picture regarding this. If you think nobody here can explain these theories to you in an educated manner then I have no clue why you think you'd be able to understand them.
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 03:59 PM
Basically aradorn, so far your contribution to this thread has been:
1)NUMB UR RIGHT
2)LOL UR ALL DUMB
3)GO DO SOME CALCULUS
Diraker
02-01-2005, 04:07 PM
I don't think the big bang theory is too hard to understand.
some good programs here, Origins looks like the most appropriate
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archive/int_spac.html
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 04:09 PM
Diraker, you are not an astrophysicist so please don't post links to the PBS website until you know what you are talking about.
Spawl
02-01-2005, 04:11 PM
The question I allways ask myself is "Is the world better or worse because of faith". Notice I did not say religion. There are all sorts of bad things that religions have done over the years, but faith has done many wonderous things. Faith gives you hope when there otherwise wouldn't be any. Faith provides guidance in your life and sets a high standard so that we may all become better.
Science may not have any proof that God does or does not exist, but as with everything scientific, you have to prove it either way. The absence of evidence does not eliminate the possibility.
So, in a world full of many possibilities, I choose to have faith, since the world is a much brighter place with it than without.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 04:12 PM
Aradorn, I could write an essay explaing the big bang theory, but why should I. There's already thousands of such essays written on the web.
The arrogant attitude of "I know where Im going when I die, do you?" is one of the things that turns me off about any form of the Christian religion. Why would you look down upon people when you are basing your opinions on faith? Why don't you embrace the fact that we are all human and luckily there are many different faiths to choose from and your faith choice doesn't make you better or worse than anyone else.
My mom once told me that the most truly religious people are the ones that pray in their closets, and I still believe that.
Also, I am sure you all have seen it (and this doesn't apply to Numb or Aradorn), but I love that bumper sticker that says "Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole."
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 04:14 PM
gah nm this isnt worth it...
a battle of intelligence was not my motives in this thread, i was merely making the statment that everyone in the end has faith.
arguing abuot religion is like arguing what color the sky is, everyone has their own opinions of what shade of blue it really might be, and to someone thats colorblind hell it may just be grey
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 04:16 PM
Aradorn, better get back to RUNNING GOOGLE INTO THE GROUND. I have faith you can do it.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 04:18 PM
btw here ya go
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_bang_021112.html
thats not the original story i read but its along the same lines.
Basically, some scientists recreated a mini big bang and got unexpected results from the tests that shows that there are some irregularities in the thoery behind the big bang and the physical evidence. Although it dosnt disprove the theory it definately dosnt help the case either.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 04:21 PM
lol, ooooooook......
Im not going to argue this, ist stupid all I said was you guys are arguing topics that in the end noone can prove or disprove
You did try to argue it. Is it wrong to argue things that can't be proven? Doesn't that expand the drive for the quest of knowledge? Not everything is right in front of you to take.
I mean come on you guys are bickering back in forth about religion and science like you are fucking experts on all the damn topics, all i stated was noone here has enough knowledge on the big bang to teach anyone here why its theory holds up in the scientific world, you cant answer anyones questions with any certainty because of this. All you fucking know is what your BS degree High School Science teacher regurgitated out of her text book. Im not an expert either, but damn you guys are spitting around these arguments like you have published papers on them.
So because we use credible sources instead of publishing our own papers, our opinions are without credit? Please....have you ever even written a paper? If you have then you should know that your information is based on sources other than something you had written. I wrote a paper on Albert Einstein and his theories once but because I didnt' write the theories myself I guess that i'm not worthy of speaking the word relativity.
Cinn you never answered me, what is PI? If you can find that answer then you can understand my original statement on this thread as to why PI is important to both math/science and religion.
3.14etc.etc.etc. Pi can be defined as many things but the correct definition for this discussion is -- Pi(n) - irrelevant.
Im not smarter than anyone else here, but if you want to have an intellegent discussion about a theory as complex as the big bang then please show me some shread of evidence you atleast know what you are takling about and arnt just bringing it up because its the popular thing to do when talking abuot religion.
What's so complex about it? If it's too hard for that noggin of yours then follow Diraker's links to the PBS website where they broke it down for you.
It wasn't brought up because of science vs. religion. It was brought up because we were discussing the universe's origin and seeing as how it is the most predominant scientific theory to date then it might have a place here.
You are just falling back on the defensive and trying to make yourself from seeming a fool by throwing discredit on people. Just bow out of this one unless you actually have some constructive discussion to offer.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 04:23 PM
cinnabar all you have done in this thread is trash what me and numb have posted.
Diraker
02-01-2005, 04:25 PM
Cosmology has been my favorite subject for like 25 years. I used to ponder such things as an infinite universe as a child. And at one point in my life I was a dual major in astronomy and physics. And like I said I have a B.S. in natural science. I probably have 200+ credits worth of 300+ level science classes from just about every field except physics and chemistry.
Gnioss
02-01-2005, 04:25 PM
Aradorn, your commentary is useless, and here's why. You deride other's opinions without providing any of your own. You claim that everyone's post are invalid without actually specifying anything that's wrong with them. You've failed to contribute anything, while at the same time telling everyone else they shouldn't contribute anything either because you don't think they have the OFFICIAL ARADORN CREDENTIALS. Honestly, I don't even knwo why you're posting here.
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 04:29 PM
diraker i originally had everyone in the guild but you probably has no real astrology or scientific knowledge about the subject, but must have erased that sentence when typing...
i know you know about the subjects.
And gnioss I have posted my opinions about what I believe, and then watch cinnabar do exactly what you just said...
Roxie
02-01-2005, 04:30 PM
ROX..you are insulting people for insulting people!!?? I took his post as just his opinion...everyone is allowed to express one, right??
Hey, I wasn't insulting anyone, I was just giving my opinion that his post was the dumbest one on this thread. Afterall, everyone is allowed to express their opinion, right?
Hey, I wasn't insulting anyone, I was just giving my opinion that his post was the dumbest one on this thread. Afterall, everyone is allowed to express their opinion, right?
Righto Sweetie pie. Please don't break up with me because of it!!!! LOL
Roxie
02-01-2005, 04:41 PM
No way. You just have a lot of making up to do for it! :blowkiss: :hug: :kiss: :smileysex
Aradorn
02-01-2005, 04:53 PM
on the subject of life, the universe, and everything: I can't possibly hope to explain the science behind it, there are people who are a thousand times smarter then me that don't have a handle on it, but one thing you can say for sure is that the laws of our reality aren't constant throughout every reality that has ever or will ever exist. It is generally accepted that our universe is merely one in a series of universes that have existed and died. The methods by which they are born and die range from big bangs to brane interactions to all kinds of things. We really don't have the technology to prove any theories yet, we're kind of like cavemen trying to build an atomic reactor. In time we will know more, but we'll never know it all. The difference is that I'm not going to trying to explain away what I don't know by saying god dun it. I'll just say I don't know, but I hope we one day do.
btw gnioss thats the best post on this thread, this is what i was talking about. Noone here knows enough abuot the big bang and such to really give any decent arguments about it. So thus the reason why I said it was kinda stupid to argue about it. Yeah you can discuss your opinions about what you beileve, but when you start throwing aruond, no thats not right, this is right etc... You get in trouble quick.
I dont claim to know everything, I have been blessed by going to college and taking the classes I have, and that has exposed me to alot of material that helps form my beliefs. And im sure this is common for everyone in the guild.
To tell someone that the belief in God and the such is false because its not back by scientific evidence is kinda crazy. Then again this is just my opinion.
Armind
02-01-2005, 05:04 PM
Did a "big bang" create the universe? That's the prevailing scientific theory. Nobody knows for sure, but for now the big bang remains just that, a theory.
There was a time not too long ago when people believed the sun rotated around the earth. Also not too long ago people believed the earth was flat. That was only a few hundred years ago, not too many generations back.
Am I saying that the "big bang" theory is as ridiculous as someone believing the world is flat, or that the sun rotates around the earth? No, because at this point in time every bit of scienctific evidence gathered points to something along the lines of a "big bang." But who knows what future scientific discoveries will unearth.
Remember from science class the whole, "an object in motion remains in motion until it meets an equal or greater force?" Well, where does the original force come from? Now I know that when I throw a ball it will eventually descend to the ground and stop because of gravity. But that energy I used to throw the ball, and the energy behind the gravity that pulled the ball to earth must have come from somewhere, originally.
How about the natural order that exists in the world? The food chain, the life cycle, etc. Every living organism has to a certain degree an amount of intelligence, where does that intelligence come from? How did this natural order come about? If it evolved, who made the rules?
Diraker
02-01-2005, 05:04 PM
The big bang theory and the god concept are not mutually exclusive. Even most scientists are theists of some sort. Most everyone I know in RL is a christian. Most believe in the big bang while still having Faith in God.
Armind
02-01-2005, 05:07 PM
And of course, the ever cynical, and always hysterical, George Carlin. Here's his take on religion. Take it with a grain of salt folks.
When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!
But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!
But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.
No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.
So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.
And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.
I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.
But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?
Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?
And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.
So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.
For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.
So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.
And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!
Diraker
02-01-2005, 05:09 PM
Armin, I was considering linking to that hehe.
Armind
02-01-2005, 05:14 PM
I've seen it on HBO half a dozen times and I piss myself everytime he does it.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 05:19 PM
cinnabar all you have done in this thread is trash what me and numb have posted.
I haven't trashed what Numb has posted. I called out his blatantly wrong and unsupported statements.
Your posts on the other hand I have trashed because like Gnioss said, you have offered nothing. You are wasting thread space by telling everyone that their opinion isn't good enough because they aren't considered subject matter experts by the scientific community. I find that extremely hypocritical because I bet if I asked the pope if Aradorn was a subject matter expert in theology, he'd probably say who the hell is Aradorn.
Armind
02-01-2005, 05:20 PM
Jeez, did anyone respond to my retard comment? I know I made it a couple days ago, but this thread has spiraled downward awfully fast and I didnt bother reading it all.
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 05:26 PM
btw gnioss thats the best post on this thread, this is what i was talking about. Noone here knows enough abuot the big bang and such to really give any decent arguments about it. So thus the reason why I said it was kinda stupid to argue about it. Yeah you can discuss your opinions about what you beileve, but when you start throwing aruond, no thats not right, this is right etc... You get in trouble quick.
That's the thing....are you even reading these posts? Nobody is arguing the details of the big bang itself. Everyone thus far has only presented to everyone else as to what the theory is, what it says, and that's about it.
To tell someone that the belief in God and the such is false because its not back by scientific evidence is kinda crazy. Then again this is just my opinion.
Why is that crazy? That's LIFE. You can't expect everyone to have your same beliefs. When they offer discussion opposing them why do you take offense? Offer some discussion back and stop being a sensetive pansy. I'm sure if you go speak to a native tribe in the Amazon and tell them that your God is the only way to eternal salvation, they'll say you are crazy too.
GuilT
02-01-2005, 07:35 PM
I dunno my post about 'danger' of the thread was pretty worthless, i think my post just might more more worthless the drekors?
Koltas
02-01-2005, 07:50 PM
Wow, dumbest post ever. Not to mention, you just insulted everyone that was trying to have a decent arguement. If you aren't interested in the topic of the debate, then kindly, STFU.
lol, nice constructive contribution to the thread, Rox! :thumbup: The man was just stating how he feels on all of this. No need to slit his throat.
I think Mutt said something earlier that needs repeating...
Believe whatever you need to believe to make it from day to day as long as your beliefs arent forced on others
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 08:07 PM
lol, nice constructive contribution to the thread, Rox! :thumbup: The man was just stating how he feels on all of this. No need to slit his throat.
I think Mutt said something earlier that needs repeating...
If you're trying to apply what Mutt said to Rox's post -- it doesn't work. She wasn't forcing a belief on Drek; just telling him to stfu.
Koltas
02-01-2005, 08:14 PM
Newp, wasn't applying what Mutt said to Roxie's post. I just read the last 10 pages of this thread, so it was mainly just repeated for the posts that I've read since then - not directly at her.
Siridean
02-01-2005, 08:19 PM
OMG I read this entire thread in one sitting! :swtf: :thud:
My only comment is: No comment!! :p: Though alot of interesting discussion going on in this topic.
Well, I have definetly enjoyed this debate; Diraker/cin/ and the rest who posted. But, I am going to take my leave as to what Dong did. This thread was a good debate until people were "personally attacking",don't take that the wrong way. What I mean is that its heathy to debate until it gets out of hand. and IMO it just went out of hand. Aradorn its worthless to argue with gnioss everyone knows that. Cinabar is right he wasn't trashing us but giving his opinion. Which wasn't much, but a hole in the ground or whatever he said :) More power to you bro! hehe Armin, that thread was just insulting but, on the other hand was kinda amussing. I did read the whole thing.. hehe. He has his opinion and like he said he has no faith.. and He wants real "things" Such as the sun to worship which takes no faith and no science. He sees the sun etc. Just for some advice... Prayer isnt like miracles laddie and gentlemen it takes time and patience. My mom has prayed for my dad to get saved for 20 years.... and her prayer just recently got answered. "patience is a virtue" enough said. As to this thread was nice debating :) Hopfully, to have more religion/science talk instead of who took what classes and who has what major and who is a scholor and who has this many doctorites. Like cinabar said its not hard to summerize a paper what or who said it. I would type more but i need to study for my fitness test. Fair winds mateys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Numb, before I read your post and forget again, USE PARAGRAPHS PLEASE. :puppy_dog
Cinnabar
02-01-2005, 08:52 PM
And of course, the ever cynical, and always hysterical, George Carlin. Here's his take on religion. Take it with a grain of salt folks.
LOOOOOOOL I cracked up while reading that whole thing
Roxie
02-01-2005, 09:10 PM
lol, nice constructive contribution to the thread, Rox! :thumbup: The man was just stating how he feels on all of this. No need to slit his throat.
I think Mutt said something earlier that needs repeating...
Yes, equally as constructive as this little gem right here,
"Fanatical BS that would be dismissed by anyone with a rational mind."
This woman was just stating how she feels about his post. :thumbup:
Koltas
02-01-2005, 09:38 PM
I am glad you feel so strongly towards his hatred on toasters <3
Roxie
02-01-2005, 09:46 PM
I am glad you feel so strongly towards his hatred on toasters <3
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about, do you, lol?
Science = Technical jargen that nobody can understand and therefore can't follow
Religion = Fanatical BS that would be dismissed by anyone with a rational mind.
I mean honestly can you beleive that some thing just came around and went abbra kadabra then the universe appeared? And the people that established this religion originally claimed that everything in the bible was truth and today say it's all stories and the meaning is whats important? That's stupid.
R34d1ng comrenshun is gud!
I don't have enough time to spell check and use correct grammar while posting :( BUT! Will do in the future heh
Koltas
02-01-2005, 10:59 PM
lol, Rox, calm down, I wasn't trying to make a tremendous point about how you disliked his toaster, I was JOKING. You have too much pent up hatred towards absolutely nothing. Calm down, take some pills, and simmer. Thanks!
Roxie
02-01-2005, 11:48 PM
lol, Rox, calm down, I wasn't trying to make a tremendous point about how you disliked his toaster, I was JOKING. You have too much pent up hatred towards absolutely nothing. Calm down, take some pills, and simmer. Thanks!
Some people have beliefs that they feel strongly about. To come along and call someone irrational, especially because of their religious background, isn't really nice. Whatever someone's beliefs are, they can express them without putting down others. Dong has conducted a pretty rational and well-thought out discussion here, and while some people may not agree with his viewpoint, he shouldn't be considered as someone irrational or lacking mental clarity. I didn't appreciate Drekor's post (and he probably didn't appreciate mine), not because I happen to agree with Dong (which I do), but moreso because Dong doesn't deserve it. Some people get sorta upset when people talk bad about their family, yanno?
I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you're getting involved at all? Especially when Mez has already reprimanded me for being rude. I'm also not sure why you would direct me in a serious manner, and then direct me jokingly. You obviously did have some sort of issue with what I said in my initial post.
But nope, no pent up hate or aggression towards Drekor or anyone, really. I do appreciate the advice however.
As a sidenote, I'll bow out of this thread like Numb, and Dong. I'm not interested in some interweb drama. If you feel the need to continue discussing this with me, then feel free to PM me.
Also, Drekor, I apologize for being rude to you.
Koltas
02-01-2005, 11:51 PM
:smile_ok:
Armind
02-01-2005, 11:51 PM
Hey, I remember hearing as a kid never discuss sex, religion or politics with friends. I've never had a problem discussing politics, but the other two have always been something I avoid.
Kydorias
02-02-2005, 01:02 AM
One thing I've noticed after many years of living overseas.
People tend to have a stronger belief in something that all the other people around them believe as well. When you see everyone else agreeing with you and believing in the same thing you do, you tend to have the perception that most of the world believes in the same thing.
Thus its a shock to some people when they travel and interact with a culture that has a completely different set of religious beliefs. Many of us dismiss these foriegn cultures with a wave of our hand and a condescending comment about how unfortunate they are. Others recognize that there are a multitude of beliefs and religions in this world, and that Christianity in fact is just a piece of the pie in this great big world of ours.
Frankly I view the monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as some of the most intolerant, holier-than-thou, and arrogant beliefs in the modern world.
All would do well to take a page from the Buddhist religion. While you certainly don't have to believe in Nirvana or reincarnation, it would be beneficial to the human race if we at least adhered to their concept of "live and let live".
Very true Kydorias.
And I really hope no one took these discussions too personal. Text has a bad way of conveying tone.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.