Jesus is pro-guns!

[Dave_L]

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/jesus-with-rifle-thumb.jpg

Take that you hippies! :rofl:

[Brian]

He's also a fictional character in a book invented to scare the public into submission.

[nxbrennan]

:werd:

[Weston-work]

He's also a fictional character in a book invented to scare the public into submission.

Not really... even Jewish people will tell you that he was a real person; they just don't believe that he was the son of God. Also, he was only featured in the sequel to the "book invented to scare the public into submission". The Old Testament is the one that scared people and condemned them all to hell; the New Testament is more positive and hopeful.

Even if you take the total atheist point of view and say that Jesus was fictional and the bible was just a piece of fiction written to get people to behave, you can't really say that it's a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you have these religous nuts that insist that they have the one true faith, then that divides people and even causes wars. Of course, if they actually followed what they claimed to be a part of, we wouldn't have that problem. So even if it's all fake, most religion has good advice and teaches people to be good people, which is a positive influence on the world, but it's lost on stupid people and elitist-wannabes, which is who causes problems by using it for bad reasons. Like anything, it can be used for good or bad, but at least the real point and intent of it is for good.

I say let people chose their faith on their own... it's important that their own free will makes the choice. I really doubt God would want people to follow him only out of fear or peer-pressure, because that's not their free will, so they're not really true believers. I believe in God and have faith in him, but I don't really follow any particular religion myself... it's not following the one true faith (if there even is one) that makes you a good person, it's knowing the difference between right and wrong, and choosing to do the right thing, even when it's hard or doesn't appear to benefit you. The whole point is to be a good person, not to be a member of the right club, cult, or church.

[David]

Religion is supposed to make you a good person, usually doesn't work out that way though.

[Weston-work]

Oh, and on the actual subject of this thread... Jesus is pro-guns for defensive use, if you come to the reasonable conclusion that a gun today is equivilent to a sword in biblical times.

[stu]

Wow, Weston pulled that whole thing right out of my mouth. It was only a few weeks ago that I was thinking about how two of the most important things the world has ever seen in order to make it the way it is today are organized religion (even though I hold no part of that) and free market commerce. :)

[David]

Isn't it one in the same?

[ohhhh]

[Dave_L]

Isn't it one in the same?

[ohhhh]

Thats christmas.

[Brian]

I should have elaborated. I didn't mean Jesus as a person never existed, I mean to say exactly what you did. He likely WAS a person and likely was crusified by the romans as thousands of other people were. That does not make him the son of god however.

[6MT&LSD]

Old news - haven't you guys seen the Family Guy episode where Peter gets a gun?

Moses and Jesus had machine guns!! :rofl:

[Dave_L]

Moses and Jesus had machine guns!! :rofl:

Oh yeah! HAHAHAHAHA! THats a funny episode!

[Kwando]

i never got into the family guy craze

[Weston-work]

i never got into the family guy craze

:werd:

[David]

^ die hard Wheel of Fortune fans right there

[Weston-work]

Vanna White > you

[Kwando]

WOF is the shit!

[DrJones]

Not really... even Jewish people will tell you that he was a real person; they just don't believe that he was the son of God. Also, he was only featured in the sequel to the "book invented to scare the public into submission". The Old Testament is the one that scared people and condemned them all to hell; the New Testament is more positive and hopeful.

Even if you take the total atheist point of view and say that Jesus was fictional and the bible was just a piece of fiction written to get people to behave, you can't really say that it's a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when you have these religous nuts that insist that they have the one true faith, then that divides people and even causes wars. Of course, if they actually followed what they claimed to be a part of, we wouldn't have that problem. So even if it's all fake, most religion has good advice and teaches people to be good people, which is a positive influence on the world, but it's lost on stupid people and elitist-wannabes, which is who causes problems by using it for bad reasons. Like anything, it can be used for good or bad, but at least the real point and intent of it is for good.

I say let people chose their faith on their own... it's important that their own free will makes the choice. I really doubt God would want people to follow him only out of fear or peer-pressure, because that's not their free will, so they're not really true believers. I believe in God and have faith in him, but I don't really follow any particular religion myself... it's not following the one true faith (if there even is one) that makes you a good person, it's knowing the difference between right and wrong, and choosing to do the right thing, even when it's hard or doesn't appear to benefit you. The whole point is to be a good person, not to be a member of the right club, cult, or church.


It's true there was probably some facts based around the historical person known as Jesus. One theory (that has just as much evidence as others) is that he wasn't a person, but rather a group of people. The stories of him and what he did are actually based on real events that happened to several people, so he's kind of a colaboration.

However, weither you believe in religion or not, one thing is for certain. There was a miracle that took place.

No, it wasn't the virgin birth, it was that someone born here (http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511029/Bethlehem_(West_Bank).html) looks like this (http://www.webspinners.futura.net/zumaltsp/Jesus2.jpg) instead of like this (http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/osama-strat1.jpg)

[Kwando]

paul do you still detail cars?

[Brandon]

It's true there was probably some facts based around the historical person known as Jesus. One theory (that has just as much evidence as others) is that he wasn't a person, but rather a group of people. The stories of him and what he did are actually based on real events that happened to several people, so he's kind of a colaboration.

However, weither you believe in religion or not, one thing is for certain. There was a miracle that took place.

No, it wasn't the virgin birth, it was that someone born here (http://encarta.msn.com/map_701511029/Bethlehem_(West_Bank).html) looks like this (http://www.webspinners.futura.net/zumaltsp/Jesus2.jpg) instead of like this (http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/images/osama-strat1.jpg)


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Brian]

I personally believe in the flying spaghetti monster (http://www.venganza.org/). I even have one of his magnetic plaques :)

[DrJones]

paul do you still detail cars?

A little here and there, but no where near what I used to. It was just a hassle trying to keep track of everything and lugging everything around. I know a guy with a decent shop in Golden though, so during the summer I might just move everything there and start back up again. Still a little undecided about it though (need to see how much free time I'll have to do it).

[boostedEG]

No, it wasn't the virgin birth...

about that, i pretty much think of it as... if you believe in god, you believe ghosts impregnate virgins. and if thats the case i cant wait for the after life.

[Brian]

and if you believe in that I have a bridge to sell you. suckers!

[Nightfall]

There has to be some type of "higher power". Everything didn't always exist... that's impossible. There had to be a point in time where nothing existed, and the first tangible thing that appeared couldn't have just popped into existance out of no where. :confused:

[Weston]

There has to be some type of "higher power". Everything didn't always exist... that's impossible. There had to be a point in time where nothing existed, and the first tangible thing that appeared couldn't have just popped into existance out of no where. :confused:

:werd:

[Brian]

So the universe had to have a creator, but god didn't need a creator? That's a pretty ignorant view.

[Brian]

God just came out of nowhere and created everything? Come on, listen to how retarded that sounds.

[ChunsaEyes]

God just came out of nowhere and created everything? Come on, listen to how retarded that sounds.

Roffle waffle!!:rofl: ;HeY;

[Weston]

No, we are simply saying that someone had to have created all of this. We're not trying to also explain what created him. I'm sure that's far beyond our comprehension. But simple logic tells us that something had to have started all of this. It would be a "pretty ignorant view" to say that we just magically appeared out of nothing.

Let me ask you this... if you don't believe in a higher power or anything beyond this life, then why even bother living? If you just simply cease to exist when you die, then nothing matters... so, if you're so sure of your belief that there is no god or heaven, why don't you just kill yourself now and find out. After all, if you're right, it doesn't matter if you live to be 30 or 300, because you're gone and no part of you is left to even remember your life. No, I'm not telling you to kill yourself... just pointing out that for someone who believes in nothing, you sure do seem to care a lot. If you're right, then nothing matters, and there's no point to argue or do anything with your life, because we'll all just simply cease to exist.

[Brian]

Life itself is worth living. I don't need a magical fairytale to make me feel good about waking up every morning. I think it is sad when people need a crutch like that to feel better.

I do care a lot. I care about my life, the life of my family and friends. I don't need a mythical story to care about life or people. Why do you need that? It isn't me that seems to be lacking, now is it?

Science doesn't say that we appeared out of nothing. Ever read or watch anything by stephen hawkings? Science doesn't have All of the answers, but it follows a hell of a lot more logic than a book that a bunch of guys wrote over a thousand year period to control a population that needed solidarity. Christianity is nothing more than population control for the ignorant.

[ChunsaEyes]

Simple logic does not tell us that something had to have started "all this." Humans always feel the need to find the "cause" for "effects," which is exactly what you are arguing right now. You refuse to believe that the universe "magically appeared" (which is not what I'm arguing right now) but you're willing to believe that "God" did?? Your logic is flawed. Please tell me where "God" came from...

There are many people that believe in a higher power because they need a reason to live. How many religions teach that the more you suffer on "Earth" the more you'll be rewarded in Heaven??? Good way to control the masses. Good way to control the poor and meek.

I don't believe in a higher power---but I still think there are plenty of reasons to live. And although I may not be around 100 years from now--my children's children, etc. will be---which is reason enough for me to make the most of what I have here.

If you're so sure that heaven exists and you have a ticket in, why don't you go kill yourself now?? Earth can be a shitty place to live in---why are you wasting your time here? No, I'm not telling you to kill yourself... just pointing out that for someone who believes so strongly in the afterlife, you sure do seem to care more about life on Earth then an afterlife of Eternal Bliss ;)

[Brian]

Exactly, why would I kill myself? You're the one that believes in "heaven", not me. If you are going to live forever in this magical afterlife, then why waste your time here? End it all now so you can get your 100 virgins or whatever your religion makes you believe. I on the other hand wil be busy making the most of my life while I am here.

[Weston]

Life itself is worth living. I don't need a magical fairytale to make me feel good about waking up every morning. I think it is sad when people need a crutch like that to feel better.

I do care a lot. I care about my life, the life of my family and friends. I don't need a mythical story to care about life or people. Why do you need that? It isn't me that seems to be lacking, now is it?

You're taking it awfully personally for someone who claims to be so secure with his beliefs... you might as well be one of these religous nuts, given the way you resort to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with you. I never said it was a crutch or used it in such a way. I'm far from religous, but I do believe in something bigger than myself and that good deeds are eventually rewarded. Some of us just aren't so arrogant as to claim that we know it all and that everything is within our comprehension. Maybe one day you'll get your own proof of something beyond this existance... either way, no one is going to change your mind today, because you wont listen to a point of view other than your own. Why bother trying to debate the issue at all?

Science doesn't say that we appeared out of nothing. Ever read or watch anything by stephen hawkings? Science doesn't have All of the answers, but it follows a hell of a lot more logic than a book that a bunch of guys wrote over a thousand year period to control a population that needed solidarity. Christianity is nothing more than population control for the ignorant.

I'm well aware of science and Mr Hawking... the best scientists admit that we really don't know much about the universe. So then where did the laws of physics come from? Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Science is nothing more than our best theory as to how things work, based on things we've discovered, often by accident or luck. Even the law of gravity is in question (they have found evidence that conflicts with the widely accepted theory of gravity).


In any case, if you choose to have no faith, then that's your decision. I have no intention of convincing you otherwise, but don't be so arrogant as to preach to people that there is no god and they are all ignorant, acting like you aren't. The whole human race is ignorant as far as I'm concerned, and the sooner we realize that, the better. BTW: you two really don't know much about religions, so you aren't exactly subject matter experts.

[DrJones]

Everyone is going to believe something different. It's like the one part of being human that we can all agree on. So not much fuss debating it.

However, I will suggest to people that if you are looking at basing your beliefs on a book, I have found the Harry Potter series much more enjoyable to read than the Bible.

[stu]

DrJones: You never read the bible....


Anyway, those posts are too long. God created everything, but no one created him? RIDICULOUS!

The Big Bang happened out of no where? EQUALLY RIDICULOUS.

Bottom line, it doesn't really matter, both science and god can exist at the same time.

P.S. My girlfriend would shit a brick if she read this. We recently got into a fight because she is more religious than I am and I told her that I didn't believe in angles.

MrJones has a point here. It doesn't really matter what you choose to believe, since there is an equal LACK of proof both ways.

P.S.S. Just because you are religious and believe in God, doesn't mean that you have to believe that the world is only 1,800 years old or anything.

[DrJones]

DrJones: You never read the bible....


Correct, but I have tried and found it hard. However, I have completed the harry potter series (books 1-6, 2845 pages in all) four times now (reading a few of the books 5 times) found no trouble doing that, because as I said it was far more enjoyable :)

[stu]

I can't argue with you about that. Authors have gotten so much better since the begining of time. That's for damn sure. I'm reading the Narnia series now. Not quite as good, but still plenty enjoyable.

[Weston]

There are more user-friendly versions of the bible available. Of course, it's all translated and interpreted by someone else, so who knows if you are getting the accurate story or not.

[DrJones]

There are more user-friendly versions of the bible available. Of course, it's all translated and interpreted by someone else, so who knows if you are getting the accurate story or not.

You mean like this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0718014669/qid=1137141215/sr=8-9/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i9_xgl14/103-0409848-9025443?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) and this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585160660/qid=1137141215/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-0409848-9025443?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) and this (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0785200819/qid=1137141215/sr=8-3/ref=pd_bbs_3/103-0409848-9025443?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)?

Yea, that's exactly what I'm looking for. In order to be saved by seeing the truth I need to rely on the advertising geniouses who know that products with the word "Extreme" are EXACTLY what I want. :rolleyes:

[stu]

Those Bibles make me want to Rollerblade.

[Nightfall]

I don't believe in God, persay. More less a "higher power".

[ChunsaEyes]

You're taking it awfully personally for someone who claims to be so secure with his beliefs... you might as well be one of these religous nuts, given the way you resort to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with you.

As are you.

either way, no one is going to change your mind today, because you wont listen to a point of view other than your own. Why bother trying to debate the issue at all?

Just as you are not going to change your mind either. You have a point that goes both ways. :)

Science is nothing more than our best theory as to how things work, based on things we've discovered, often by accident or luck. Even the law of gravity is in question (they have found evidence that conflicts with the widely accepted theory of gravity).

Just as religion is a lot of other people's best theory as to how things work. I suppose you could say that science is my religion. There has also evidence that God may not exist and that the stories of the Bible may not be true... weird.

BTW: you two really don't know much about religions, so you aren't exactly subject matter experts.

Where I have claimed to know everything about religion?? I haven't. I know all that I need to know about it as far as I'm concerned. I'm more than happy to debate--but please stop taking things so personally. No reason to try to be an E-Thug ;)

[Dave_L]

Exactly, why would I kill myself? You're the one that believes in "heaven", not me. If you are going to live forever in this magical afterlife, then why waste your time here? End it all now so you can get your 100 virgins or whatever your religion makes you believe. I on the other hand wil be busy making the most of my life while I am here.

If you knew anything about religion, you would know why a religious person would not kill themselves. I believe in God but not one certain religion. I take bits and pieces and come to my own conclusions but I have experienced stuff that has made me a believer in God. To each their own, I never try to change someone's mind about this type of thing tho.

[Weston-work]

...
Where I have claimed to know everything about religion?? I haven't. I know all that I need to know about it as far as I'm concerned. I'm more than happy to debate--but please stop taking things so personally. No reason to try to be an E-Thug ;)

You two were making arguments against religion / spirituality / me, but clearly did not understand what you were arguing against. It's kind of like if you told me that I'm an idiot for owning a purple car, but I actually own a white car. You didn't even attempt to understand my point of view; you just argued against me, using this generalized concept of religion that doesn't really apply to me.

But, I can let that go... The only reason I took anything "personally" is because I asked some legitimate questions about 1EightT's agnostic point of view, in an attempt to understand his beliefs, or lack thereof, and he replied basically saying that me and everyone who believes in God is an idiot. I'll admit, that caught me off guard... of all the people that I'd expect to lash out when I asked about their beliefs, an atheist is not one of them. Why would someone who believes in nothing care so much about what other people think or believe?

My understanding of an atheist / agnostic person is that they believe that we simply cease to exist when we die, so then that makes me wonder why they think we should do anything. Why live a good life if it's all for nothing and you wont even be able to so much as think about it after you die? Is that not a legitimate question?


If you knew anything about religion, you would know why a religious person would not kill themselves. I believe in God but not one certain religion. I take bits and pieces and come to my own conclusions but I have experienced stuff that has made me a believer in God. To each their own, I never try to change someone's mind about this type of thing tho.

:werd: That's my point of view as well. I'm also fairly fascinated by some people's beliefs and like to try to understand them...

[Brian]

Live a good life because it is the right thing to do in society, not because "god" dictates it to you.

[Weston-work]

Live a good life because it is the right thing to do in society, not because "god" dictates it to you.

Well, I can certainly agree with that. That's one of the problems I have with most religions and some parts of the bible... they teach people to fear God's wrath and to act a certain way because of it. IMO, that's not really true faith, because it's based on fear and peer pressure, not your free will. If God wanted to force or scare people into compliance, there's no reason to use religion, because a big booming voice from the sky would do the trick pretty easily. Instead, I believe that God wants people to choose him on their own, and that's why he doesn't simply prove his existance to everyone... if he did, it would ruin the whole point of having people choose him. Religous people would seem to believe that, but most of them don't follow it, which annoys me greatly. I also get annoyed by people who are so convinced that they have the one true faith, especially when they try to force their beliefs on others. If their beliefs are so strong and so right, then why does it matter what I or anyone else believes?

In any case, not all of us who believe in God and an after-life do it out of fear or because it's the popular thing to do. I see both as being positive things that are meant to be enjoyed, not something that we are supposed to be a slave to.

[ChunsaEyes]

You two were making arguments against religion / spirituality / me, but clearly did not understand what you were arguing against. You didn't even attempt to understand my point of view

While you are doing the same thing. Just face it. You're not going to convince me. I see and respect your point of view---but my point of view is
not going to change. Just as yours probably won't either.


Why would someone who believes in nothing care so much about what other people think or believe?

And why would you care so much about the opinion of those that don't believe in religion?? If you are right in the end---then you'll be "saved" and we'll all be doomed to hell. I would expect someone with your beliefs to "turn
the other cheek" rather than to suggest that a person who doesn't believe in the afterlife should go kill themselves. Even just as an "example" it shouldn't have been used.

I have never said that all religious people are idiots. In fact, there are a lot of Eastern religions that I truly respect and admire. You just have to understand that you too made huge generalizations about what is the "logical" explanation for the creation of the universe (therefore alluding to the idea that atheists are not intelligent) by stating that intelligent design is the only reasonable explanation for how the world came about. I know that I certainly don't have the answers to everything---I just choose to side with scientific evidence and theories rather than literature.

Generally I don't partake in these kinds of discussions because it's the same old argument from both sides---and someone always takes things personally. I guess I just don't understand why you were so offended by Brian's supposed generalization of calling all religious people idiots. I would think that if you are truly secure in your belief system that you would've just taken it with a grain of salt and moved on...:confused:

That is all. I bid you all adieu. :)

[Dave_L]

Wheres my gun!?

[Weston-work]

While you are doing the same thing. Just face it. You're not going to convince me. I see and respect your point of view---but my point of view is
not going to change. Just as yours probably won't either.



And why would you care so much about the opinion of those that don't believe in religion?? If you are right in the end---then you'll be "saved" and we'll all be doomed to hell. I would expect someone with your beliefs to "turn
the other cheek" rather than to suggest that a person who doesn't believe in the afterlife should go kill themselves. Even just as an "example" it shouldn't have been used.

Actually, I did ask questions in an attempt to understand. I'm not trying to change your point of view or convert you... Like I said, I don't consider myself part of any particular religion, so I wouldn't even have anything to convert you to, if I wanted to. The subject simply interests me, and I'm willing to learn about more than just my own point of view, which is why I've been asking questions. Also, I never suggested that anyone go kill themselves... You're taking that way out of context. I just asked a logical question based on my perception of his beliefs. If I wanted to simply attack his beliefs, as he had done to mine, I would have. Instead, I asked a reasonable question in an attempt to understand his point of view.

I have never said that all religious people are idiots. In fact, there are a lot of Eastern religions that I truly respect and admire. You just have to understand that you too made huge generalizations about what is the "logical" explanation for the creation of the universe (therefore alluding to the idea that atheists are not intelligent) by stating that intelligent design is the only reasonable explanation for how the world came about. I know that I certainly don't have the answers to everything---I just choose to side with scientific evidence and theories rather than literature.

I didn't bring up the logic argument until after he attacked my point of view several times, with no provocation. If you come out of nowhere and call me (and everyone else) ignorant, when you've already shown that you don't know what you're arguing against and have no desire to understand it, then you'll get that kind of response from me. Still, I was a lot nicer about it than I would have been in other circumstances... I just happen to take an interest in this subject, so I'd rather it didn't turn into the typical useless flamewar. I would welcome an adult discussion on the subject, but that means saying things like "I believe ...", not aggressively stating that you are right about everything and everyone else is ignorant.

Generally I don't partake in these kinds of discussions because it's the same old argument from both sides---and someone always takes things personally. I guess I just don't understand why you were so offended by Brian's supposed generalization of calling all religious people idiots. I would think that if you are truly secure in your belief system that you would've just taken it with a grain of salt and moved on...:confused:

That is all. I bid you all adieu. :)

I am secure with my beliefs, but that doesn't mean I wont stand up for myself when someone calls me an idiot for not beleiving the same thing that he does. I figured if anyone could appreciate independant thought, it would be an atheist, but I guess not.

Go back and read this thread again... first he turns this thread (which was obviously meant as a joke) into a place to spread his anti-god message. Ok, that's fine... some people may see that as trying to push his beliefs on people a little bit, but it's really not an issue and I can live with it. I just pointed out a couple of facts in a respectful manner (and everyone agrees they are facts), and explained my point of view, which happens to be not far from his... except that I do believe in God; no problem and there's no trashing on his views or any kind of personal attack. A few other people state their beliefs, but no one is trashing on anyone. It's still all polite and adult at that point... Then he calls us "suckers" for believing in God, then says it's a "pretty ignorant point of view" to think that someone had to have created all of this, and then says it's retarded. Sorry, but I'm not going to just sit here and let someone trash on my beliefs when I have done anything to provoke him, nor has anyone else here.

I respect other people's beliefs and I expect the same in return. If you want to tell everyone what you believe in, I'm willing to hear it, but don't get all hurt when someone else explains their views and it doesn't happen to be the same as yours. There's no reason to start hateful personal attacks over it.

[M@]

IMO, religion has no room on a forum. EVER. Too many people and too many opinions for such a sensitive subject.

[Weston-work]

IMO, religion has no room on a forum. EVER. Too many people and too many opinions for such a sensitive subject.

It doesn't have to be a flame-war though. If people simply state their opinions and don't get arrogant or hateful/intolerant of other beliefs, then it can be a good and useful exchange of ideas... Perhaps even the deepest discussion that a forum can have. It's about saying what you believe in and hearing what others believe themselves... exchanging ideas and concepts, not arguing and pointing out why you think everyone else is wrong or ignorant (when the truth is that no one really knows for sure). It just needs to be treated as a positive thing, rather than some political campaign where you spend more time trashing on the other guy than actually addressing the issue.

If you have a legitimate point of view and you are respectful of others, I welcome your opinion, no matter how different it is from my own.

[M@]

Alright then, that's a valid point. I'll allow it. :D

[ChunsaEyes]

Actually, I did ask questions in an attempt to understand.

You give yourself too much credit. This was the only question that I read before the flame wars began. Which, I might add, was answered. In fact, he gave an extremely detailed answer as to why he believes life is worth living.

If you don't believe in a higher power, or anything beyond this life, then why even bother living?

....

I am secure with my beliefs, but that doesn't mean I wont stand up for myself when someone calls me an idiot for not beleiving the same thing that he does. I figured if anyone could appreciate independant thought, it would be an atheist, but I guess not.

I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that religion is considered a form of "independent thought." However, I know that you stated earlier that you don't associate yourself with any one religion, so I'll let that go. :)

Go back and read this thread again... first he turns this thread (which was obviously meant as a joke) into a place to spread his anti-god message. Ok, that's fine... some people may see that as trying to push his beliefs on people a little bit, but it's really not an issue and I can live with it. I just pointed out a couple of facts in a respectful manner (and everyone agrees they are facts), and explained my point of view, which happens to be not far from his... except that I do believe in God; no problem and there's no trashing on his views or any kind of personal attack.

Just to show you that I AM listening to your statements... I went to the beginning of the thread. :sigh: Which, if you go back and read the posts, he actually retracted what he had said from his first statement.

A few other people state their beliefs, but no one is trashing on anyone. It's still all polite and adult at that point... Then he calls us "suckers" for believing in God, then says it's a "pretty ignorant point of view" to think that someone had to have created all of this, and then says it's retarded.

RECAP:

about that, i pretty much think of it as... if you believe in god, you believe ghosts impregnate virgins. and if thats the case i cant wait for the after life.

and if you believe in that I have a bridge to sell you. suckers

There has to be some type of "higher power". Everything didn't always exist... that's impossible. There had to be a point in time where nothing existed, and the first tangible thing that appeared couldn't have just popped into existance out of no where.

So the universe had to have a creator, but god didn't need a creator? That's a pretty ignorant view. God just came out of nowhere and created everything? Come on, listen to how retarded that sounds.

1)He said suckers in response to the discussion on the "virgin birth."

2)He states that it is ignorant to believe that God had no creator--which you even admitted earlier that you can't explain. In fact, you stated that the creation of God was probably beyond human comprehension.

Hmmm... Speaking of taking things out of context... ;)

When you ask most religious people "Who created God?" the typical answer is that he is eternal and uncreated, otherwise he would not be God. Why is it that the universe can't be considered eternal? Although he could've been a little more PC by not using terms such as "ignorant" or "retarded," he makes an excellent point.

Most arguments for intelligent design and the existence of God are simply begging the question. All he was trying to point out is that most religions assume the truth of what they are trying to prove---i.e. begging the question :rolleyes: With the exception of mostly religious conservatives, most philosophers and theologians regard this argument as being unsound. If you would like a breakdown of why this is, I would be more than happy to oblige :)

I respect other people's beliefs and I expect the same in return. If you want to tell everyone what you believe in, I'm willing to hear it, but don't get all hurt when someone else explains their views and it doesn't happen to be the same as yours.

I'm not hurt at all---I'm just pointing out the fallacies that I see in your arguments. Good bout though! :)

[Slo4G63]

Let me ask you this... if you don't believe in a higher power or anything beyond this life, then why even bother living? If you just simply cease to exist when you die, then nothing matters... so, if you're so sure of your belief that there is no god or heaven, why don't you just kill yourself now and find out.

Hmmmmmm....coming from possibly a religious person?

[lswhitecivic]

So the universe had to have a creator, but god didn't need a creator? That's a pretty ignorant view. God just came out of nowhere and created everything? Come on, listen to how retarded that sounds.

No matter what religion you are, or aren't at some point going back in time there is going to be something that has to have just existed. You can't just keep saying while if he created everything, who created Him? That way of thinking is just like the chicken and the egg, there is no right or wrong answer. At somepoint there has to be something that has just existed. You can ask the same question about the big bang theory.


And about religion being a crutch, I seem to feel the opposite way. You say that religion is for the weak, yet it seems to me that the atheist is the weaker person because they can pretty much makup whatever morals they would like. Whereas a religious person has some sort of moral to follow even if it may be difficult at times to follow.

I'm not trying to say that my way is better than anyone elses for them. I'm just telling you how I feel. You have every right to believe whatever you feel.

[Weston]

You give yourself too much credit. This was the only question that I read before the flame wars began. Which, I might add, was answered. In fact, he gave an extremely detailed answer as to why he believes life is worth living.

In his "extremely detailed" answer, he did little more than trash on other people's religous beliefs, and even said "Christianity is nothing more than population control for the ignorant.". While he is entitled to his own opinion, that's a pretty disrespectful way to express it and it has no place in a constructive discussion. It's begging for a flame war. If you want people to respect your views, you have to respect thiers, no matter how silly they may seem to you, otherwise you'll just be picking a fight.

I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that religion is considered a form of "independent thought." However, I know that you stated earlier that you don't associate yourself with any one religion, so I'll let that go. :)

There's no reason to "let that go"... by making a statement like that, you are trying to make it look as though you've proved me wrong or found some hole in my argument. That is not the case.

I certainly agree that religion itself is not independant thought, but that doesn't mean that people who follow it do not have independant thought and their own reasons to be a part of it. However, that's not what I was referring to earlier... I have stated many times that I have my own experiences and beliefs about things; I don't follow any specific religion or anyone else's beliefs. That's the very definition of independant thought.

I may even one day find a religion that fits most of my beliefs and choose to become a part of it. But that would not mean that I would be any less capable of independant thought than I am now, or that I would believe that the religion is 100% accurate; sometimes it's just nice to constructively share opinions and experiences with others, and religion is one way to do that. Religion doesn't always have to be about controlling people, and not all religions are. The biggest qualities I see is that it can bring people together and encourage the good in them. Even if the atheists are right and religion is 100% fake, when done right, most religion still encourages the good qualities in people. So, what's the harm then? Especially if we simply cease to exist when we die and nothing really matters, then what does it matter if we believe in something that's fake?

Of course, some of us have our own reasons and experiences that prove to us that it's not fake, and that's why we believe in some of the things we do. I can't blame someone for not believing in something that they haven't had any experience with or proof of, but they have no right to trash on people who do believe in it. It's not like I'm going around demanding that you believe in such things because of what I have experienced myself; I haven't even mentioned it or otherwise tried to recruit/convert people, so what are you fighting me over? Just because I have my own beliefs that don't match yours and you can't tolerate that?

Just to show you that I AM listening to your statements... I went to the beginning of the thread. :sigh: Which, if you go back and read the posts, he actually retracted what he had said from his first statement.

RECAP:
...

1)He said suckers in response to the discussion on the "virgin birth."


Yup, he sure did, and by doing so, he called 70% of this country "suckers". You may not believe in a virgin birth, but a lot of people do, and that's blatantly trashing on them. Frankly, I have no idea... Neither of us were there, so neither of us have any right to to insult people who have an opinion one way or the other; doing so would be quite ignorant, as well as insecure.

You could use "logic" to argue it and say that we have no proof of that kind of thing ever happening to anyone, and then the other side would say that whoever/whatever was powerful enough to create the universe would logically be able to manipulate minor details like that. Personally, I see more logic in the second argument, but it doesn't matter... it's just speculation either way... it's far from proof and it doesn't give anyone any right to trash on other people's beliefs.

2)He states that it is ignorant to believe that God had no creator--which you even admitted earlier that you can't explain. In fact, you stated that the creation of God was probably beyond human comprehension.

You say I "admitted", implying that I was somehow wrong about something or that he had answers when I didn't. That's some more clever word play from you, but again, the picture you would paint is not the truth. The truth is that it's something that neither of us can explain or even comprehend... someone had to have created our universe, because something can't just come from nothing. But that means that our creator had to have been created by someone, who also had to have been created by someone, and so on... there's no end. Our best scientific logic would say that at some point, something had to have come from nothing, but we can't even wrap our minds around that possibility. That neither proves nor disproves the existance of God, but it does lend some credibility to the idea that there is one ultimate God that created everything, because our logic tells us that at some point, something did come from nothing, even though we don't know how that's possible.

[stu]

I'm surprised at the amount of people who think that anyone really gives a shit what they think. LOL

[Weston]

Hmmmmmm....coming from possibly a religious person?

That wasn't a suggestion, but rather a question. The impression I get is that he doesn't believe in anything and thinks that we will just simply cease to exist when we die, in which case, nothing about your life or anything else matters, because you won't even be around to remember it. So, I think that's a pretty legitimate question. He has a different attitude than I'd expect from someone with those beliefs, and I'm trying to understand why. Obviously, the impression that I got was off in some way, so I'd like to know what part I am misinterpreting.

[Slo4G63]

Good deal, thanks everyone for giving me a few minutes of reading here n there while I'm still stuck at work :) Only 30 more minutes.

[Weston]

No matter what religion you are, or aren't at some point going back in time there is going to be something that has to have just existed. You can't just keep saying while if he created everything, who created Him? That way of thinking is just like the chicken and the egg, there is no right or wrong answer. At somepoint there has to be something that has just existed. You can ask the same question about the big bang theory.


And about religion being a crutch, I seem to feel the opposite way. You say that religion is for the weak, yet it seems to me that the atheist is the weaker person because they can pretty much makup whatever morals they would like. Whereas a religious person has some sort of moral to follow even if it may be difficult at times to follow.

I'm not trying to say that my way is better than anyone elses for them. I'm just telling you how I feel. You have every right to believe whatever you feel.

:werd: IMO, it would be easier for me to be an atheist, because then I could just do whatever is socially acceptable. But in my experience, I have found that taking the easy way out is often not the right thing for me, and I would be better off in the long run if I had done the hard thing instead. Religion/spirtiuality doesn't define my morals, but it does serve as a good frame of reference and helps keep them from gradually degrading.

[Weston]

I'm surprised at the amount of people who think that anyone really gives a shit what they think. LOL

Stu, everyone cares about what I think. ;)

[ChunsaEyes]

I'm going to keep this short because this is going nowhere. I'm sorry if you feel that I am personally attacking you or your religion---because that is not what I intended. In fact, if you feel that religion helps you to be a better person--I'm all for it. Also, I have never accused you of trying to "recruit" me. Where is this coming from?

The point that I was trying to make is that your argument for the existence of God is unsound. And your last comment concerning the "supposed" correlation between morality and religion is also unsound. Do you even know what "begging the question" means? I'm beginning to think you don't. Perhaps you should take a couple courses on philosophy before you try to convince me of what is or is not logical. :)

[Nightfall]

I'm sorry if you feel that I am personally attacking you or your religion---because that is not what I intended.
I didn't know there were any personal attacks going on. Sounded more like an informative argument to me. (Debate?)

[ChunsaEyes]

I didn't know there were any personal attacks going on. Sounded more like an informative argument to me. (Debate?)

I thought so too---but someone taking things personally is bound to happen when a topic like this is broached.

[Weston]

I'm going to keep this short because this is going nowhere. I'm sorry if you feel that I am personally attacking you or your religion---because that is not what I intended. In fact, if you feel that religion helps you to be a better person--I'm all for it. Also, I have never accused you of trying to "recruit" me. Where is this coming from?

It wasn't you. You're merely trying to defend and somehow justify the actions of the person who did. I think he's more than capable of speaking for himself though. The reason I say you're acting like I'm trying to convert/recruit you is because you take such issue with my views and argue with me like I am. It's like you can't stand to have someone voice beliefs that aren't compatible with your own, without telling them that they are wrong.

The point that I was trying to make is that your argument for the existence of God is unsound. And your last comment concerning the "supposed" correlation between morality and religion is also unsound. Do you even know what "begging the question" means? I'm beginning to think you don't. Perhaps you should take a couple courses on philosophy before you try to convince me of what is or is not logical. :)

What argument was that? I explained my views and said what makes sense to me. I didn't try to tell you that you're wrong or even that I'm right, but that obviously didn't keep you from calling my views "unsound", even though you have absolutely no qualifications or evidence to make such a statement, seeing as how there is no proof that there isn't a god. Or, are you trying to argue with my statement that "our best scientific logic would say that at some point, something had to have come from nothing, but we can't even wrap our minds around that possibility"? Please do, because I'd really like to hear you try to explain that one away. I'll give you a hint, it's a paradox... We know that things don't just come out of nothing, but then why do we exist? The fact that we exist means that our matter came from somewhere, but how could the universe start from absolutely nothing? Obviously, we can't answer that question because it's beyond our comprehension, but please go ahead and try to argue it...

And yes, I know what "begging the question" means; I have considered that particular question many times myself... That's only obvious, seeing as how I talked about the something-created-out-of-nothing paradox in my earlier post as well. I'm also well aware of what is or is not logical... math and science are my strong points, and I deal with logic for a living. Believe it or not, I take quite an interest in physics, about as much as I do in religion and philosophy. They are not incompatible. Perhaps you should take a couple of courses on reading and comprehension before you try to convince me that you know what you're arguing about.

[Zach]

If you knew anything about religion, you would know why a religious person would not kill themselves. I believe in God but not one certain religion. I take bits and pieces and come to my own conclusions but I have experienced stuff that has made me a believer in God. To each their own, I never try to change someone's mind about this type of thing tho.

way to be man.

ill just throw in my 2 cents. my dad is a pastor at a church in boulder, and as such i was brought up in a christian home. that however, had little to do with my personal choice to be a believer in Christ. i have seen and experienced so many things in my life, that blatently state Gods presence, to ignore them would be like trying to ignore the sun.

honestly, have no way of proving God's existance to you, so i will not try. i merely think of it like this: if there is a God, then i have made the right choice in life, and my life has been better for it. if there isnt, i waste an hour a week of my time (time doesnt really exist, but i wont get into that) and my life has been better for it. its a win win situation in my book.

[Weston]

way to be man.

ill just throw in my 2 cents. my dad is a pastor at a church in boulder, and as such i was brought up in a christian home. that however, had little to do with my personal choice to be a believer in Christ. i have seen and experienced so many things in my life, that blatently state Gods presence, to ignore them would be like trying to ignore the sun.

honestly, have no way of proving God's existance to you, so i will not try. i merely think of it like this: if there is a God, then i have made the right choice in life, and my life has been better for it. if there isnt, i waste an hour a week of my time (time doesnt really exist, but i wont get into that) and my life has been better for it. its a win win situation in my book.

:werd: I was brought up in a fairly non-religous way... my parents tried at first, but eventually backed off and let me figure things out for myself. I viewed religion and the bible as just things that were made up in order to keep people civilized. I was quite agnostic for many years, but my scientific curiousity of the unknown eventually led me to find truth in the bible... how ironic. Can't say it's 100% accurate, being that it was written by man and translated/interpreted into it's present form, but some of it was right on the money for me. I don't read too much into what it says; I just go with the concepts it covers and they fit my experiences really well, even though I definately did not believe it at first (then it proved me wrong). I'd actually like to make some time to read all of it one of these days...

In any case, everyone needs to think for themselves and have their own reasons to believe or not believe. There's no point in trying to convince someone one way or another, because they need their own experiences to prove it to them, but I do believe that there is value in sharing ideas and experiences between open minded people. The best way to fight ignorance is to share information. Unfortunately, the close-minded people feel threatened by that. And just because someone believes in God does not make them "open minded"; there are many that are quite the opposite.

[ryanman]

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/5089/hugeugh1id.gif

[rmcdaniels]

P.S. My girlfriend would shit a brick if she read this. We recently got into a fight because she is more religious than I am and I told her that I didn't believe in angles.



How can you not believe in angles? What is it that YOU think happens when two lines diverge from a common point?

[Weston]

How can you not believe in angles? What is it that YOU think happens when two lines diverge from a common point?

Stu is anti-geometry. Angles are just something that ignorant people believe in. ;)

[rmcdaniels]

Stu is anti-geometry. Angles are just something that ignorant people believe in. ;)

I suppose he doesn't believe that Euclid is a real person either, fucking athiests.

[stu]

I don't believe in planes either. Sorry.

[ChunsaEyes]

It wasn't you. You're merely trying to defend and somehow justify the actions of the person who did. I think he's more than capable of speaking for himself though. The reason I say you're acting like I'm trying to convert/recruit you is because you take such issue with my views and argue with me like I am. It's like you can't stand to have someone voice beliefs that aren't compatible with your own, without telling them that they are wrong.

What argument was that? I explained my views and said what makes sense to me. I didn't try to tell you that you're wrong or even that I'm right, but that obviously didn't keep you from calling my views "unsound", even though you have absolutely no qualifications or evidence to make such a statement, seeing as how there is no proof that there isn't a god. Or, are you trying to argue with my statement that "our best scientific logic would say that at some point, something had to have come from nothing, but we can't even wrap our minds around that possibility"? Please do, because I'd really like to hear you try to explain that one away. I'll give you a hint, it's a paradox... We know that things don't just come out of nothing, but then why do we exist? The fact that we exist means that our matter came from somewhere, but how could the universe start from absolutely nothing? Obviously, we can't answer that question because it's beyond our comprehension, but please go ahead and try to argue it...

And yes, I know what "begging the question" means; I have considered that particular question many times myself... That's only obvious, seeing as how I talked about the something-created-out-of-nothing paradox in my earlier post as well. I'm also well aware of what is or is not logical... math and science are my strong points, and I deal with logic for a living. Believe it or not, I take quite an interest in physics, about as much as I do in religion and philosophy. They are not incompatible. Perhaps you should take a couple of courses on reading and comprehension before you try to convince me that you know what you're arguing about.

I have no problem with your beliefs at all, and again--I apologize if it came off that way. I was just trying to point out that your argument of "everything must have a cause" is unsound. I'm happy that you have experience in math and science--but that has not seemed to help with your logic. And by that I'm not saying that you aren't intelligent--only that your argument falls aparts. There have been philosophers debating for centuries on the "First Cause" or "Cosmological" argument--and anyone who has any knowledge of the structure of a sound vs. an unsound argument knows that this particular argument (that you were using) fails. I suggest that you read up more on your philosophers and history before you tell me to take courses on reading and comprehension---because I know what I am talking about in this instance. And just because your argument fails DOESN'T mean that there isn't a God--it just means that you would need to use a better argument (that isn't begging the question) to prove the existence of one. If you need a more in-depth answer I would be more than happy to cut and paste any article that shows how this particular argument IS begging the question and why it fails.

And just as a note---although philosophers such as Ducasse called the "First Cause" argument a "logical monstrosity," many of them still believed in the existence of God.

[Weston-work]

I never tried to prove the existance of God. I have no obligation or intent to prove such things to people. Remember what I said earlier about how people need to choose to have faith in him; they shouldn't do it out of fear or peer pressure. Universal proof of his existance would ruin that.

I simply said that the idea that something came from nothing lends credibility to the idea that there is an ultimate being (ie God) that started it all. Remember, I'm talking about credibility and ideas/theories, not proof; neither side of the arguement have proof. It's funny how both believers and non-believers in God make the same argument against each other... the non-believers ask how God could just simply exist and be the ultimate being, with nothing higher than him; how could he come from absolutely nothing? The believers then ask how could our universe just simply exist; how could the matter in our universe come from absolutely nothing? No matter what the response is, no one can explain how something could come from nothing, and that applies to both sides of the argument. Therefore, the only wise answer is to admit that we are ignorant and we can't comprehend it.

So, no one is qualified to say that anyone's theories or beliefs on the matter don't hold water. By claiming that someone's theory is impossible or unsound, you are saying that you understand the true nature of the universe (as well as anything beyond it), which is obviously extremely ignorant and arrogant. We can only what we know is possible (based on what we have seen happen before) and what our beliefs/ideas/theories are... the only thing that is impossible is to prove that something is impossible.

[ChunsaEyes]

Everytime you reply, you start to sound like you're going in the right direction---and then you go back to the same place you started from. You just said it yourself---your theory doesn't hold. Neither would someone saying that the universe could just "exist." I stated that earlier to show that my saying that would be just as ridiculous as you saying that (which it is). My point was that the argument you are using is unsound, and I stand by that. It is nothing against you. It would be just as unsound for me to say "God doesn't exist because he would have need to created from something else." Of course, as a human being, it is almost impossible to think that something could come from nothing--but just because we can't comprehend that (as you have said) DOESN'T mean that there HAS to a "First Cause."

For example, you stated:

Our best scientific logic would say that at some point, something had to have come from nothing, but we can't even wrap our minds around that possibility. That neither proves nor disproves the existance of God, but it does lend some credibility to the idea that there is one ultimate God that created everything, because our logic tells us that at some point, something did come from nothing, even though we don't know how that's possible.

You begin by saying the argument could go either way (which is what I'm trying to show you... which is why the argument is unsound)--but then you end up saying that your side is more "scientifically credible."

[Brian]

Scientists have shown that matter can come from energy, so in essence the entire universe could have formed out of a concentration of energy. There is also a theory that shows promise in which the universe is in essence a recycling entity. The universe would have been formed from a burst of energy and expanded to its current state over billions of years, then gravity takes over and pulls everything back together into a singularity (infinite density such as a black hole). From there the process starts all over again.

Seems to follow far more logic than simply saying "god did it". That is simply an easy way out of something when we don't yet have the knowledge to explain it. Think of the romans and such. They had no idea how the solar system worked, so they invented gods that carried around the sun in a chariot. They were a very advanced civilization for their time, but now we look back and laugh at the idea because we know how it REALLY works. Hundreds of years from now it is likely that people will look back in the same way when they refrence our "god".

[Brian]

I'm sorry if you or anyone else takes offense to what I say or have said, but it's my opinion. If I can shake your beliefs to the core so easily by my words, then perhaps you need to take a deep look at what you believe. I've spent a great deal of time on the subject of religion. I actually study it every chance I get, but my heart and mind lie with science. I was a computer science major in college along with a minor in physics and anthropology. I've seen many different points of view and have formulated my own over the years. If I die and there is a god, then great. If I die and there is nothing I won't be surprised is all. Point is we don't need religion to dictate our moral center, nor do we need it to govern our lives. It's an old concept and an old outdated ideal. There was a time and place for it, and i'm sure some people still need that.

[rmcdaniels]

Why should religions have to be justified by the existence of God? Perhaps I'm being too much of an engineer here, but as far as religion is concerned I like to look at the value received for the cost (in time and money). Personally my church represents a good value for what I contribute. It has some good programs (baby-sitting co-ops, community programs, an excellent school, some fun events, some good families to associate with) and also has a solid framework of values and some excellent rules for living a socially responsible and constructive life. It helps a lot with the kids, because they are not yet old enough to understand long-term indirect consequences (or karma, or synchronicity, etc), so the prospect of a codified morality standard handed down by an onmipotent being is a great time-saver. When they grow up they can make their own decisions, until then they shouldn't kill people (even if they can get away with it under secular authority) because God says it is wrong.

This may be a somewhat cynical view of organized religion, but having studied the Bible and a number of other religious works, especially the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the ones that the Catholics didn't steal) and tanslations of some of the Pre-Constantine works and gospels, I have come to believe that a good organized religion is a very pragmatic entity. Rules are promulgated based on what is best for the Church and most practical for the congregation (study Emperor Constantine and the real story of the apostle Paul for excellent examples of this pragmatism). Issues as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus are 100% decided based on what is best for the future of the church. One example; the original Jewish churches that Jesus founded (most notably the Nazarenes and Ebionites) were all branded as heretics by the time of the Nicaean council in 325 A.D and subsequently exterminated. What we know today as Christianity bears little relation to the actual teachings of Jesus, and is the result (IMO) of Paul's Hellenistic Judaism fused with Greek mystery-religion, then Romanized for popular acceptance.

As far as the nature/existence of God, I think that is unknowable by definition. How can we nail down an omniscient/omnipotent being? If he exists and wants to be concretely identified, then he will be. If he wants to stay unknowable and reward faith, then he will do that. It seems to me like a big time-waster to spend too much time proving/disproving his nature or existence.

[chris_venturini]

Another boring HAI thread, if its not funny its not worth my time. Therefor, people should stop bumping, cause frankly i dont like looking at it. Im adding this to the list in ryanmans "annoying" thread.

[Brian]

I can completely respect this point of view and the argument made for it. I wish more people had that sort of opinion and the well thought out foundation behind it.

Why should religions have to be justified by the existence of God? Perhaps I'm being too much of an engineer here, but as far as religion is concerned I like to look at the value received for the cost (in time and money). Personally my church represents a good value for what I contribute. It has some good programs (baby-sitting co-ops, community programs, an excellent school, some fun events, some good families to associate with) and also has a solid framework of values and some excellent rules for living a socially responsible and constructive life. It helps a lot with the kids, because they are not yet old enough to understand long-term indirect consequences (or karma, or synchronicity, etc), so the prospect of a codified morality standard handed down by an onmipotent being is a great time-saver. When they grow up they can make their own decisions, until then they shouldn't kill people (even if they can get away with it under secular authority) because God says it is wrong.

This may be a somewhat cynical view of organized religion, but having studied the Bible and a number of other religious works, especially the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the ones that the Catholics didn't steal) and tanslations of some of the Pre-Constantine works and gospels, I have come to believe that a good organized religion is a very pragmatic entity. Rules are promulgated based on what is best for the Church and most practical for the congregation (study Emperor Constantine and the real story of the apostle Paul for excellent examples of this pragmatism). Issues as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus are 100% decided based on what is best for the future of the church. One example; the original Jewish churches that Jesus founded (most notably the Nazarenes and Ebionites) were all branded as heretics by the time of the Nicaean council in 325 A.D and subsequently exterminated. What we know today as Christianity bears little relation to the actual teachings of Jesus, and is the result (IMO) of Paul's Hellenistic Judaism fused with Greek mystery-religion, then Romanized for popular acceptance.

As far as the nature/existence of God, I think that is unknowable by definition. How can we nail down an omniscient/omnipotent being? If he exists and wants to be concretely identified, then he will be. If he wants to stay unknowable and reward faith, then he will do that. It seems to me like a big time-waster to spend too much time proving/disproving his nature or existence.

[Weston-work]

Everytime you reply, you start to sound like you're going in the right direction---and then you go back to the same place you started from. You just said it yourself---your theory doesn't hold. Neither would someone saying that the universe could just "exist." I stated that earlier to show that my saying that would be just as ridiculous as you saying that (which it is). My point was that the argument you are using is unsound, and I stand by that. It is nothing against you. It would be just as unsound for me to say "God doesn't exist because he would have need to created from something else." Of course, as a human being, it is almost impossible to think that something could come from nothing--but just because we can't comprehend that (as you have said) DOESN'T mean that there HAS to a "First Cause."

I never said my theory didn't hold, and I never said that it did. Neither of us are capable of making that assessment, you said it yourself, so let's not pretend that we are. You are acting like I used it as a reason to say that there is a God. I didn't do that... I was originally just responding to the argument that it's silly (based on what we know of science) to believe in a God. I simply pointed out that it's just as silly to say that there isn't a God, because that still is saying that all of this came out of nothing. When someone uses science and logic to make an argument against people who believe in God, don't be surprised when I use science and logic to point out that their view is equally unsupported. You can't just say that my logic is flawed or "unsound" because it conflicts with your own views; you're going to have to prove that if you want to make such claims. Now let's think about what it takes to prove such a thing... Obviously, logic can't stand on it's own to prove itself, so you need some real evidence to show that this is in fact the way things work. And again, that goes back to the whole thing about how we can't even comprehend where our universe came from, which you said you agree with.

The two points I have been repeatedly making are:

1) We can't scientifically or logically explain or comprehend where this universe came from or what may or may not be beyond it, so let's not be ignorant and arrogant by acting like we do.

2) Everyone should think for themselves and find their own beliefs. True believers in God don't need to base their beliefs on mankind's limited understanding of science, but that's something for people to find on their own...

What about those two points can you not agree with?


You begin by saying the argument could go either way (which is what I'm trying to show you... which is why the argument is unsound)--but then you end up saying that your side is more "scientifically credible."

It would be unsound if I said it was more credible, but that's not the case. I never used the word "more", and that's an important difference. I was actually responding to the argument about it being more logical that he doesn't exist. You can't just pick and choose the pieces of science and logic that will help support your views; you have to take it as a whole, or at least be prepared to address the parts that you left out. I'm simply shedding light on the omitted portions.


And again, in all of this, I'm not trying to prove God to anyone; I'm just pointing out the flaws in these incomplete "science" and "logic" based arguments against the existance of God. The bottom line is that science doesn't prove that God does or doesn't exist any more that the bible does.

[Weston-work]

Scientists have shown that matter can come from energy, so in essence the entire universe could have formed out of a concentration of energy. There is also a theory that shows promise in which the universe is in essence a recycling entity. The universe would have been formed from a burst of energy and expanded to its current state over billions of years, then gravity takes over and pulls everything back together into a singularity (infinite density such as a black hole). From there the process starts all over again.

I definately agree with that, but the question still remains... where did that energy come from? That's the big question that no one can answer. Sure, we may find something else that matter/energy comes from, but then where does that come from, and so on. Where does it ultimately come from? Also, why do the laws of the universe exist? Where did they come from? To me, it points to the existance of something greater than us, beyond our comprehension. That's just my take on it, and that alone is certainly no reason to believe in a certain religion or certain god. I let my own experiences point me in the right direction for that.

I also don't believe there is one "right" religion/cult/club/etc... IMO, the whole point is to have faith in something good that's greater than yourself, which gives you even more strength to be a good person. I think people take the bible way too literally and over-analyze it quite a bit; they need to remember that it was written by man (not God) and translated/interpreted into it's present English form, then they are making their own interpretation based on that. Just take it for the concepts and points it makes. Even if it is entirely made up, it still makes valid points and is a good manual for life. Not that people need a manual, but it doesn't hurt to have it's advice available to you, as long as you don't go nuts with it.

Seems to follow far more logic than simply saying "god did it". That is simply an easy way out of something when we don't yet have the knowledge to explain it. Think of the romans and such. They had no idea how the solar system worked, so they invented gods that carried around the sun in a chariot. They were a very advanced civilization for their time, but now we look back and laugh at the idea because we know how it REALLY works. Hundreds of years from now it is likely that people will look back in the same way when they refrence our "god".

That's certainly a valid point of view, and mine isn't all that much different. I can't say that we are much different from the Romans, but I still personally have reason to believe in an ultimate creator of all of this, as well as certain parts of current religions.

[Weston-work]

I'm sorry if you or anyone else takes offense to what I say or have said, but it's my opinion. If I can shake your beliefs to the core so easily by my words, then perhaps you need to take a deep look at what you believe. I've spent a great deal of time on the subject of religion. I actually study it every chance I get, but my heart and mind lie with science. I was a computer science major in college along with a minor in physics and anthropology. I've seen many different points of view and have formulated my own over the years. If I die and there is a god, then great. If I die and there is nothing I won't be surprised is all. Point is we don't need religion to dictate our moral center, nor do we need it to govern our lives. It's an old concept and an old outdated ideal. There was a time and place for it, and i'm sure some people still need that.

The only problem I have with your statements is that they attack and disrespect other people's beliefs. If other people are trying to force their views on you, then by all means, go ahead and let them have it. I probably would too. But if they are simply stating their beliefs and not trying to convert anyone, then why do they deserve to be attacked in such a way? You can certainly state your own beliefs effectively without resorting to attacks on others. Calling them stupid, silly, ignorant, illogical, etc, and saying that they "need" to believe in something fake, are all attacks.

Our backgrounds are not much different, and we have similar views on many things... I'd be happy to listen to your thoughts on the subject, but when you attack others (even if you aren't attacking the person you're talking to), you aren't encouraging them to value your opinion. You also aren't shaking their beliefs to the core... you are just picking a fight, which shows them that you have some need to try to convince others, and many see that as something they can use against you. It's just provoking them to poke holes in your beliefs.

[ChunsaEyes]

.You are acting like I used it as a reason to say that there is a God. I didn't do that...

That's weird. Because I thought you made it quite clear right here...

That neither proves nor disproves the existance of God, but it does lend some credibility to the idea that there is one ultimate God that created everything, because our logic tells us that at some point, something did come from nothing, even though we don't know how that's possible.



I was originally just responding to the argument that it's silly (based on what we know of science) to believe in a God. I simply pointed out that it's just as silly to say that there isn't a God, because that still is saying that all of this came out of nothing.

Which I never disputed. Why are you still flaming?? :)



When someone uses science and logic to make an argument against people who believe in God, don't be surprised when I use science and logic to point out that their view is equally unsupported.

Except you didn't.. And just to remind you, I have never stated that this argument proves there ISN'T a God--only that your argument fails. I don't need to know every nook and cranny of the universe to decipher that. Here's some logic for ya ;)

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_2.htm



1) We can't scientifically or logically explain or comprehend where this universe came from or what may or may not be beyond it, so let's not be ignorant and arrogant by acting like we do.

Again, I have NEVER claimed to know where the universe came from. However, I do know the "First Cause" argument is flawed. Wouldn't you say assuming that God was the first cause is being ignorant and arrrogant?? (Note:Refer back to statement of "lend[s] some credibility to the idea that there is one ultimate God")



2) Everyone should think for themselves and find their own beliefs. True believers in God don't need to base their beliefs on mankind's limited understanding of science, but that's something for people to find on their own...

Where did this come from? I'm happy that you feel that way and I've never said anywhere that you need to have proof to belief in God--which is why I don't understand why you're getting so offended by this thread. In fact, I even noted earlier that there were many philosophers that still believed in the existence of God even though they knew the "First Cause" argument was bullshit.




It would be unsound if I said it was more credible, but that's not the case. I never used the word "more", and that's an important difference. I was actually responding to the argument about it being more logical that he doesn't exist. You can't just pick and choose the pieces of science and logic that will help support your views; you have to take it as a whole, or at least be prepared to address the parts that you left out. I'm simply shedding light on the omitted portions.

I am convinced at this point that you do not know the definitions of "unsound," "logic," and "begging the question." And when I saw "logic" I mean in the philosophical term--not just "what makes the most sense to Weston." ;)



And again, in all of this, I'm not trying to prove God to anyone; I'm just pointing out the flaws in these incomplete "science" and "logic" based arguments against the existance of God. The bottom line is that science doesn't prove that God does or doesn't exist any more that the bible does.

Again--never said the argument (that you supported about 3 pages ago) proved God didn't exist--only that the argument failed. But valiant effort in changing your argument :D

[ChunsaEyes]

Oh. And just a side note. I know that a lot of people have stated that they would rather believe in a God that doesn't exist then not believe in one and end up living a miserable afterlife. As if there is only one God or no God.

Man, are we all going to be FUCKED when Shiva gets ahold of our asses in the afterlife.:king:

[Brian]

That's the thing. There are 16,000 yes THOUSAND sects of christianity alone, plus how ever many other religions. If what each teaches holds true all but one are wrong. The odds are not looking good :).

I respect the people that use religion as a moral foundation (to a point), but that also realize the shortcomings of some of the teachings. Too much of anything ca be bad.

With that I close my arguments and wish every a happy Monday :D

[Weston-work]

That's weird. Because I thought you made it quite clear right here...


I said "lend some credibility to the idea" that there is something higher than us that started it all. Notice that I said, "lend some crediblity to the idea", not "there is a God because...". Pretty huge difference. Let's also not forget that it was in response to an argument that it's illogical or ignorant to believe in God. I simply showed the other side of the story.

Which I never disputed. Why are you still flaming?? :)

Flaming would mean that I'm angry at you. I'm not. The reason that it's still an issue is because some of your arguments seem to be based on the idea that you understand things that no human can comprehend. Calling my beliefs "unsound", for example.

Except you didn't.. And just to remind you, I have never stated that this argument proves there ISN'T a God--only that your argument fails. I don't need to know every nook and cranny of the universe to decipher that. Here's some logic for ya ;)

http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/beggingquestion_2.htm

Believe what you want. My argument only "fails" according to your "logic" about things that you admit that you can't understand.

Let's have a look at this quote from your atheist-support website... "Example #8 assumes (begs the question) two things: first, that the universe does indeed have a beginning and second, that all things that have a beginning have a cause. Both of these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand: whether or not there is a god."

I'm a bit baffled as to how you think this supports your argument, seeing as how I've said the same thing. At some point, either the universe, or what may be beyond it, apparently did not have a beginning and simply just exists on it's own. Hence my statement that this lends just as much credibility to the idea that there is an ultimate entity (ie God) as there is to the idea that the universe just simply exists on it's own.

Again, I have NEVER claimed to know where the universe came from. However, I do know the "First Cause" argument is flawed. Wouldn't you say assuming that God was the first cause is being ignorant and arrrogant?? (Note:Refer back to statement of "lend[s] some credibility to the idea that there is one ultimate God")

I covered that a while back in this thread. It was my whole point about how we can't wrap our minds around the idea that there is a first cause, just like how we can't wrap our minds around the thought of how there couldn't be one. It's a paradox. Also, it's not ignorant or arrogant to say that God is the ultimate being, because that's the very definition of God... "The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah."

Call up Webster's if you want to argue about that. Now don't pull a Bill Clinton on us and say that you were operating with a different definition of "God"... you know the context it was being used under here.

Where did this come from? I'm happy that you feel that way and I've never said anywhere that you need to have proof to belief in God--which is why I don't understand why you're getting so offended by this thread. In fact, I even noted earlier that there were many philosophers that still believed in the existence of God even though they knew the "First Cause" argument was bullshit.

The simple fact that you can't just accept my beliefs for what they are. You have to keep arguing it. All I did was stand up for myself against someone who was attacking my beliefs, and you had to jump in and argue about every little thing, even though we seem to agree on the big points.


I am convinced at this point that you do not know the definitions of "unsound," "logic," and "begging the question." And when I saw "logic" I mean in the philosophical term--not just "what makes the most sense to Weston." ;)

And I am convinced that you have trouble with reading and comprehension. The thing about "unsound" is that you aren't qualified to make that determination. As for "logic", you are again not qualified to disprove others about this subject matter. Logic is an attempt to understand they way that things are, based on what we already know to be true. My logic, that you have such a problem with, was based on a "logical" argument against the existance of God. You admitted that such a statement was flawed, and that's the point. I merely extended the logic to show that. Remember, it was a response, and not an outright statement. "begging the question" is perhaps my favorite, seeing as how your own source of information was making the same point that I was.

Again--never said the argument (that you supported about 3 pages ago) proved God didn't exist--only that the argument failed. But valiant effort in changing your argument :D

I never changed my argument. What changed is what we are arguing about... you are attacking my defense to earlier arguments, and I'm pointing out that you aren't even the least bit qualified to disprove or attack anyone's logic on the matter. No one is. You claim to agree about that, but then you go an try to do it. Obviously, not much, if anything, is getting through to you.

[Weston-work]

That's the thing. There are 16,000 yes THOUSAND sects of christianity alone, plus how ever many other religions. If what each teaches holds true all but one are wrong. The odds are not looking good :).

I respect the people that use religion as a moral foundation (to a point), but that also realize the shortcomings of some of the teachings. Too much of anything ca be bad.

With that I close my arguments and wish every a happy Monday :D

Yeah, the arrogant "we have the one true faith" attitude of many religious people is what keeps me away from them. They obviously miss the whole point.

I wouldn't say that religion/faith is really a foundation, but rather a guide and encouragement. Your foundation should be what you know for yourself, not what someone tells you. If it isn't, it wont be very strong.

[rmcdaniels]

That's the thing. There are 16,000 yes THOUSAND sects of christianity alone, plus how ever many other religions. If what each teaches holds true all but one are wrong. The odds are not looking good :).



"The Mormons. Yes, I'm afraid the Mormons is the correct answer." - South Park

[Brian]

I love south park!

[lswhitecivic]

People who believe in God shouldn't have to prove to anyone that our beliefs are correct. The whole basis of having a belief in God is having faith that he exists. There is no other reason to explain why we believe in Him.

The way I see it God is an eternal being. He is outside of the space-time continuum, therefore the rules and laws of our universe do not hold true of him; he has always been.

Modern science has already proved that the universe had a beginning, meaning you can't use the argument "Why can't the universe be eternal?". For example, if the universe were eternal, to get to where we are today would be like counting backwards from infinity to zero. Its beyond our comprehension, it can't be done.

[Brian]

I'm sorry, but that follows absolutly no logic. God doesn't have a beginning because he has magic powers, but the univers had to have a beginning?

[stu]

I'm sorry if you or anyone else takes offense to what I say or have said, but it's my opinion. If I can shake your beliefs to the core so easily by my words, then perhaps you need to take a deep look at what you believe. I've spent a great deal of time on the subject of religion. I actually study it every chance I get, but my heart and mind lie with science. I was a computer science major in college along with a minor in physics and anthropology. I've seen many different points of view and have formulated my own over the years. If I die and there is a god, then great. If I die and there is nothing I won't be surprised is all. Point is we don't need religion to dictate our moral center, nor do we need it to govern our lives. It's an old concept and an old outdated ideal. There was a time and place for it, and i'm sure some people still need that.


Yes, but people get pissed at the way you present your beliefs, like facts.

Why should religions have to be justified by the existence of God? Perhaps I'm being too much of an engineer here, but as far as religion is concerned I like to look at the value received for the cost (in time and money). Personally my church represents a good value for what I contribute. It has some good programs (baby-sitting co-ops, community programs, an excellent school, some fun events, some good families to associate with) and also has a solid framework of values and some excellent rules for living a socially responsible and constructive life. It helps a lot with the kids, because they are not yet old enough to understand long-term indirect consequences (or karma, or synchronicity, etc), so the prospect of a codified morality standard handed down by an onmipotent being is a great time-saver. When they grow up they can make their own decisions, until then they shouldn't kill people (even if they can get away with it under secular authority) because God says it is wrong.

This may be a somewhat cynical view of organized religion, but having studied the Bible and a number of other religious works, especially the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the ones that the Catholics didn't steal) and tanslations of some of the Pre-Constantine works and gospels, I have come to believe that a good organized religion is a very pragmatic entity. Rules are promulgated based on what is best for the Church and most practical for the congregation (study Emperor Constantine and the real story of the apostle Paul for excellent examples of this pragmatism). Issues as fundamental as the divinity of Jesus are 100% decided based on what is best for the future of the church. One example; the original Jewish churches that Jesus founded (most notably the Nazarenes and Ebionites) were all branded as heretics by the time of the Nicaean council in 325 A.D and subsequently exterminated. What we know today as Christianity bears little relation to the actual teachings of Jesus, and is the result (IMO) of Paul's Hellenistic Judaism fused with Greek mystery-religion, then Romanized for popular acceptance.

As far as the nature/existence of God, I think that is unknowable by definition. How can we nail down an omniscient/omnipotent being? If he exists and wants to be concretely identified, then he will be. If he wants to stay unknowable and reward faith, then he will do that. It seems to me like a big time-waster to spend too much time proving/disproving his nature or existence.

Also yes. Exactly what I was trying to say in my first post.

[rmcdaniels]

Musings on the origin and nature of the universe by members of a short-lived infestation on a portion of the outermost crust of one of a number of planets revolving around a minor sun in a galaxy among many filled with billions of such bits of matter are speculative at best, no matter what scientists say.

[ChunsaEyes]

:Sigh: Everytime I think that you have made progress, you throw me for a loop.

Summary:
-You originally stated that you agreed with the statement of "the universe must have a creator"
-You argued that it was "logical," according to the philosophy of Weston
-I never once argued that this argument proved God didn't exist (which I have stated several times throughout this thread) but you apparently have your head too far up your butt to hear this
-Then you proceeded to change your argument from "the logical explanation is that there is a God" to "I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but I know what I'm talking about"

You should probably go back and read the posts you have made. You have changed your argument for the existence of God and tried to make ME look like the ignorant one by stating that I was arguing that the "First Cause" argument proves that God doesn't exist. We didn't agree on many points until the last few threads where your argument suddenly changed. I never said you were unsound (although I'm starting to question that;)) or that your beliefs are unsound---only that your argument was unsound. Get your panties out of a bunch and stop being so sensitive.

And if you'd like, I can shoot you the email of one of my philosophy professors. There is an actual procedure for looking at an argument to decide whether or not it is "logical." In fact, I think I still have my notes if you want to borrow them. All I'm trying to say is STOP acting like I am personally attacking you and START realizing that the definition of "logic" that you found in Websters is different from philosophy's definition of logic. The latter definition of "logic" is not subjective--there truly is just a sound or unsound argument (i.e. right or wrong).

You can believe in God or several Gods or no God. I don't care. Just pointing out that your ORIGINAL argument (Remember that "First Cause argument we discussed) has been proven to be unsound for eons before you and I were ever here. Get over it :)

[Weston-work]

People who believe in God shouldn't have to prove to anyone that our beliefs are correct. The whole basis of having a belief in God is having faith that he exists. There is no other reason to explain why we believe in Him.

The way I see it God is an eternal being. He is outside of the space-time continuum, therefore the rules and laws of our universe do not hold true of him; he has always been.


:werd: Those are my views as well. The way I think of it is...

Let's say that I wrote a computer program, and within that program, there is matter, energy, laws of physics, etc., but it's just stuff I made up myself and I throw in a few new concepts. It would be a universe completely separate from ours, and it's inhabitants couldn't possibly understand how the universe I exist in works. Who's to say that we don't exist like that ourselves. Of course, this is just an analogy... one big glaring difference is that we are self-aware and have free will. Those are things that you can't give to a computer; it is 100% logic and is actually incapable of even generating a truely random number (it's just a very complex algorythm, usually based on the computer's clock).

Modern science has already proved that the universe had a beginning, meaning you can't use the argument "Why can't the universe be eternal?". For example, if the universe were eternal, to get to where we are today would be like counting backwards from infinity to zero. Its beyond our comprehension, it can't be done.

Well, that's what's being argued about so much... As 1EightT previously mentioned, there are some who think that it recycles. But the bottom line is that it's just as logical to say that a higher being created all of this as it is to say that the universe simply exists on it's own. Either way, we can't explain why anything exists in the first place. Of course, true believers in God have our own experiences and reasons to believe, so we don't need to use our understanding of science to justify it, therefore it doesn't put our beliefs into question at all.

[Weston-work]

:Sigh: Everytime I think that you have made progress, you throw me for a loop.

Summary:
-You originally stated that you agreed with the statement of "the universe must have a creator"
-You argued that it was "logical," according to the philosophy of Weston
-I never once argued that this argument proved God didn't exist (which I have stated several times throughout this thread) but you apparently have your head too far up your butt to hear this
-Then you proceeded to change your argument from "the logical explanation is that there is a God" to "I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but I know what I'm talking about"

You should probably go back and read the posts you have made. You have changed your argument for the existence of God and tried to make ME look like the ignorant one by stating that I was arguing that the "First Cause" argument proves that God doesn't exist. We didn't agree on many points until the last few threads where your argument suddenly changed. I never said you were unsound (although I'm starting to question that;)) or that your beliefs are unsound---only that your argument was unsound. Get your panties out of a bunch and stop being so sensitive.

And if you'd like, I can shoot you the email of one of my philosophy professors. There is an actual procedure for looking at an argument to decide whether or not it is "logical." In fact, I think I still have my notes if you want to borrow them. All I'm trying to say is STOP acting like I am personally attacking you and START realizing that the definition of "logic" that you found in Websters is different from philosophy's definition of logic. The latter definition of "logic" is not subjective--there truly is just a sound or unsound argument (i.e. right or wrong).

You can believe in God or several Gods or no God. I don't care. Just pointing out that your ORIGINAL argument (Remember that "First Cause argument we discussed) has been proven to be unsound for eons before you and I were ever here. Get over it :)

I'm sorry that my statements bother you so much. Perhaps if you had some motivation here, other than just to argue and "win", you would find this to be a more enjoyable and interesting discussion. If you want to believe that you're always right, twist everything around to make it look that way, make personal attacks when people don't agree with you, and act like everyone else in the world is an idiot, then I guess that's your problem. I think it's unfortunate, and I believe that you're capable of more than that, but I guess that's up to you.

Maybe one day, when you are not so stubborn and close-minded, you will understand the points I made, or maybe even realize the true reason why so many people believe in such "illogical" things. But for now, you are not ready for such things. I am not angry with you, and I will gladly speak with you when and if that day comes.

I'll go ahead and stop responding to your arguments here so that you can feel that you have won and get the closure that you need. I see no value in continuing my discussion with you, as it is only serving to upset you and cause you to lash out. I don't wish to encourage that behavior regarding this subject.

[ChunsaEyes]

Wow. I admire you. I never thought you would stop. I'm sorry that I upset you and that you feel that you have bothered me--because you haven't. I only wish that you could read my statements as a whole rather than pick and choose what you wish to dissect. I'm glad that you feel that you are being a big person for not responding--because if it makes you a better person, I am here to support you.

Maybe one day when you sign up for Phil 101 and the professor is lecturing on "begging the question" and the "First Cause" argument you can sit back and say "Man.. that girl on the internet was right... Well I'll be damned" :D But for this we can only pray and hope.

[M@]

Holy shit.. this thread is STILL going on?