# Do You Believe In God?



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Do you? I just wanted to know everyones opinions on this subject
And why? Do you / do you not believe in a god! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!

I believe that Jesus died for our sins, and i guess that makes me a christian
And yes I believe in God
Do you? Please answer in the comments section! I'd love to see what you all think on this matter!

EDIT: Also, do you believe in an afterlife? A Heaven or reincarnation? Please share!


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 9, 2015)

No I don't. I have my reasons.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

Wow, that's a can of worms even I didn't want to open for the debate club

However, yes, I personally do. I don't, however, believe in much more than what is backed by the red letters. I know that will probably make me unpopular in the Christian world but quite frankly, meh


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> No I don't. I have my reasons.


Which are? If you don't want to share thats ok but if you don't mind i would love to hear!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Wow, that's a can of worms even I didn't want to open for the debate club
> 
> However, yes, I personally do. I don't, however, believe in much more than what is backed by the red letters. I know that will probably make me unpopular in the Christian world but quite frankly, meh


Fair enogh


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Which are? If you don't want to share thats ok but if you don't mind i would love to hear!


I don't want to tell. sorry.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> I don't want to tell. sorry.


kk!


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't know anymore


----------



## TheLastFallen (Dec 9, 2015)

I do! I feel I have had several personal experiences with him! I know he's real! I am a Catholic

I'm not looking for a debate. I just wanted to share my love for God. I have my opinions


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 9, 2015)

Not really. I used to be an active Mormon, but just stopped going to Church one week. Then the next. And then the next. That was 8 years ago. I can't get into an argument to disprove God's existence, rather that I live under the feeling that I don't need a "God" in my life.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

TheLastFallen said:


> I do! I feel I have had several personal experiences with him! I know he's real! I am a Catholic
> 
> I'm not looking for a debate. I just wanted to share my love for God. I have my opinions


I am also Catholic! Sorry I figured Christian was a more well-known term . This isn't a debate, i'ts just viewing everyones opinions on it.



Cherry Pie said:


> I don't know anymore


----------



## TheLastFallen (Dec 9, 2015)

Great! Nice to see a fellow Catholic on the forums


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

OP editied


----------



## AaronUzumaki (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe there was "something" at the beginning of time (whether it was a God, a random explosion, or something else). That, or what I find more probable, the universe has been there always. Like, there was no beginning and there will be no end. As for specifically the Christian (and some other religions) God, I believe they were fabricated for the sake of owning power back in the olden times. I believe that, because many Gods were around before then and many have been created since.


----------



## zezzo (Dec 9, 2015)

I am Christian and I believe in God.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

AaronUzumaki said:


> I believe there was "something" at the beginning of time (whether it was a God, a random explosion, or something else). That, or what I find more probable, the universe has been there always. Like, there was no beginning and there will be no end. As for specifically the Christian (and some other religions) God, I believe they were fabricated for the sake of owning power back in the olden times. I believe that, because many Gods were around before then and many have been created since.


Sure, 'Something created us' But keep in mind, nothing scientists have said about the big bang has been proven..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

As for afterlife, yes, I most certainly believe in both Heaven and Hell. However, I believe that there's a bit more to it than whether you believe in Christ or not, I personally believe it has more to do with what opportunities you were presented with in life and how you acted on them.


----------



## TheLastFallen (Dec 9, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As for afterlife, yes, I most certainly believe in both Heaven and Hell. However, I believe that there's a bit more to it than whether you believe in Christ or not, I personally believe it has more to do with what opportunities you were presented with in life and how you acted on them.


Spoken very truly! I also believe that! I could never word that like you did


----------



## AaronUzumaki (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Sure, 'Something created us' But keep in mind, nothing scientists have said about the big bang has been proven..


Nor has anything been proven against it. I think the big bang is bogus, personally. Like, even if I were to accept that there was an explosion, what caused it? I feel that, at least in my mind, the only way there could be a beginning is if there was/is an all-powerful being. That's why I more support the theory that suggests the universe has simply always existed.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As for afterlife, yes, I most certainly believe in both Heaven and Hell. However, I believe that there's a bit more to it than whether you believe in Christ or not, I personally believe it has more to do with what opportunities you were presented with in life and how you acted on them.


True, us Catholics don't say we're going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. If you thought that then that was highly misconcieved. We believe, that to reach heaven you either have to be baptised, or accept Jesus sometime in your life. But i PERSONALLY believe that if somone truly had good intentions through out their life and wasn't baptised, that does NOT mean they're going to hell..

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



AaronUzumaki said:


> Nor has anything been proven against it. I think the big bang is bogus, personally. Like, even if I were to accept that there was an explosion, what caused it? I feel that, at least in my mind, the only way there could be a beginning is if there was/is an all-powerful being. That's why I more support the theory that suggests the universe has simply always existed.


Sure, but if your willing to believe something as crazy as there has been something here for infinitely forever, is it really that hard to grasp the idea of an all powerful being? (Again not judging here)


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2015)

I know my believes are a can of worms onto their own, but I don't believe in the Biblical God. I am however, a Theistic Luciferian Satanist, I do believe in a Satan and a Lucifer and that there are more Gods out there. I don't worship them, I see them are guides and teachers down the Left Hand Path. 
I however, don't disrespect those who believe anything different from me. I am willing to admit that I don't know if I am correct, but I find my religion works best for me. 
Personally, the way I see it, you can worship a rock, just don't hit me with it and I won't hit you with my rock.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I know my believes are a can of worms onto their own, but I don't believe in the Biblical God. I am however, a Theistic Luciferian Satanist, I do believe in a Satan and a Lucifer and that there are more Gods out there. I don't worship them, I see them are guides and teachers down the Left Hand Path.
> I however, don't disrespect those who believe anything different from me. I am willing to admit that I don't know if I am correct, but I find my religion works best for me.
> Personally, the way I see it, you can worship a rock, just don't hit me with it and I won't hit you with my rock.


Ok thanks for sharing! Your takes on afterlife? (If you'd rather not thats cool too!)


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 9, 2015)

I was raised Catholic, but barely.  Seldom went to church or anything, religion was never a big thing in my house, so it never really stuck.  As a result I'm decidedly atheist; I've got this far without believing in a god and I think I've come on pretty well, so what do I have to lose.

@Crystal the Glaceon I always love seeing you post about your beliefs.  It's so justified and understandable, but at the same time it's so against the grain of social norms to claim to be a form of Satanist, and I just love it.  You keep doing you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

AaronUzumaki said:


> Nor has anything been proven against it. I think the big bang is bogus, personally. Like, even if I were to accept that there was an explosion, what caused it? I feel that, at least in my mind, the only way there could be a beginning is if there was/is an all-powerful being. That's why I more support the theory that suggests the universe has simply always existed.


Funny story, my mind was always kind of fragile but I literally pushed myself over the edge of anxiety when I was younger by trying to figure out how the universe started

Like just think of it as a mental exercise and try to stay sane before the end of it:
Imagine the beginning... but then go back further. What would be there before the beginning of time? Nothing? What would nothing look like? If truly "nothing" couldn't exist in the universe then I suppose it must have no beginning and end but... how would that work? Time surely doesn't reach a nexus point where it just kind of loops over again. So then surely the universe must have been created. That solves the nothing problem, because SOMETHING would have been there to form the universe. But... what was there before the Creator? Was the Creator created by something else?

It's mindblowing and will actually physically hurt after a while lol


----------



## Arecaidian Fox (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't want to go into huge amounts of detail on my beliefs, so I will put it in the following nutshell; I believe that all higher powers of the many, many religions of the world are many facets of the same singular higher power. I may not agree with some religions (or as the case may be, what some religions have mutated into), but I won't actively bash or shame someone for their core beliefs, not will I outright say someone is wrong (unless there are extreme circumstances) or try to convert them. As for my own personal beliefs, yes I believe in a higher power, and I pray to several different facets of that higher power. I guess the closest definition I can come up with for myself would be that I'm a pagan, with roughly this definition...

pa·gan
ˈpāɡən/
_noun_
noun: *pagan*; plural noun: *pagans
1*.
a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Ok thanks for sharing! Your takes on afterlife? (If you'd rather not thats cool too!)


I actually don't know if I have an answer for that. I would like to believe there could be life after death or even reincarnation, but to me personally, I don't have answer because I am not dead. I don't provide answers to what happens after death because I can't, so I choose to live life to the fullest. Because to me, what happens after I die, doesn't concern me well I live.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Sicklyboy said:


> I was raised Catholic, but barely.  Seldom went to church or anything, religion was never a big thing in my house, so it never really stuck.  As a result I'm decidedly atheist; I've got this far without believing in a god and I think I've come on pretty well, so what do I have to lose.


Sure maybe nothing in this life, but maybe in the afterlife? I don't know about you guys but it REALLY scares me thinking about the afterlife or heaven. What if there is none, and we just lie in the dirt for eternity? What if there really IS a heaven in hell, and we burn in it for ETERNITY (which is a CRAZY idea to grasp).
What can we do? I mean really we just don't know! I'ts really something as humans we can't know until we die...




Arecaidian Fox said:


> I don't want to go into huge amounts of detail on my beliefs, so I will put it in the following nutshell; I believe that all higher powers of the many, many religions of the world are many facets of the same singular higher power. I may not agree with some religions (or as the case may be, what some religions have mutated into), but I won't actively bash or shame someone for their core beliefs, not will I outright say someone is wrong (unless there are extreme circumstances) or try to convert them. As for my own personal beliefs, yes I believe in a higher power, and I pray to several different facets of that higher power. I guess the closest definition I can come up with for myself would be that 'm a pagan, with roughly this definition...
> 
> pa·gan
> ˈpāɡən/
> ...


Thanks for sharing!


Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I actually don't know if I have an answer for that. I would like to believe there could be life after death or even reincarnation, but to me personally, I don't have answer because I am not dead. To me, I don't provide answers to what happens after death because I can't, so I choose to live life to the fullest. Because to me, what happens after I die, doesn't concern me well I live.


Well put! Thanks for sharing guys!


----------



## GalladeGuy (Dec 9, 2015)

My answers for all the questions: Meh.


----------



## AaronUzumaki (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> True, us Catholics don't say we're going to hell if you don't believe in Jesus. If you thought that then that was highly misconcieved. We believe, that to reach heaven you either have to be baptised, or accept Jesus sometime in your life. But i PERSONALLY believe that if somone truly had good intentions through out their life and wasn't baptised, that does NOT mean they're going to hell..
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Well, specifically pertaining to religion, yes. As, much history suggests religion was used as a means of holding power. Plus, religion is the cause of a great many wars. I believe if there is an all-powerful being, they aren't exclusively observing Earth or humans, as there's a billion other galaxies out there. I find it impossible to think that this is the only planet in the universe that is habitable. And, since no big religion mentions anything beyond Earth, I find it very hard to support any of them. I classify myself as agnostic, because I believe there could be a God, but I don't particularly believe in any one nor am I against the idea that there simply isn't one.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

AaronUzumaki said:


> Well, specifically pertaining to religion, yes. As, much history suggests religion was used as a means of holding power. Plus, religion is the cause of a great many wars. I believe if there is an all-powerful being, they aren't exclusively observing Earth or humans, as there's a billion other galaxies out there. I find it impossible to think that this is the only planet in the universe that is habitable. And, since no big religion mentions anything beyond Earth, I find it very hard to support any of them. I classify myself as agnostic, because I believe there could be a God, but I don't particularly believe in any one nor am I against the idea that there simply isn't one.


Ok, thank for sharing and backing up your beliefs with a good, well built argument! I see your point now!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm unaware of any reason to believe gods exist, so I don't.


----------



## AaronUzumaki (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Ok, thank for sharing and backing up your beliefs with a good, well built argument! I see your point now!


No problem. Thanks for being open to accepting others' beliefs without bashing them for being different from yours .


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

AaronUzumaki said:


> No problem. Thanks for being open to accepting others' beliefs without bashing them for being different from yours .


Yeah, i'm not trying to make you all believe what i do, i'm just asking for peoples opinions on this subject!


Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of any reason to believe gods exist, so I don't.


Mind sharing why?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Mind sharing why?


I'm not sure what you're asking me. I care if my beliefs are true, which means I require sound reasoning before I will believe something is true.


----------



## endoverend (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm a Catholic. I really don't see any reason why this thread should be for defending your beliefs, I mean I suppose I could try to defend catholicism but I don't see why we should be questioning what other people believe here. I'm no online missionary, and I don't believe anyone here is. So maybe stop pestering people to explain/defend everything? It's like everyone on the internet thinks they are a damn theologian these days. It's like everyone thinks they can "checkmate" someone else's entire belief system with a single post in the internet.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking me. I care if my beliefs are true, which means I require sound reasoning before I will believe something is true.


I think he was asking if there's any specific event or something that prevents you from believing in organized religion


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Lacius said:


> I'm not sure what you're asking me. I care if my beliefs are true, which means I require sound reasoning before I will believe something is true.


Mind sharing the reasoning behind why you believe there is NO god or supreme being?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



endoverend said:


> I'm a Catholic. I really don't see any reason why this thread should be for defending your beliefs, I mean I suppose I could try to defend catholicism but I don't see why we should be questioning what other people believe here. I'm no online missionary, and I don't believe anyone here is. So maybe stop pestering people to explain/defend everything? It's like everyone on the internet thinks they are a damn theologian these days.


I'm not trying to get ANYBODY to defend their beliefs, this thread is just a simple question, Do you believe in God?


----------



## Lacius (Dec 9, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think he was asking if there's any specific event or something that prevents you from believing in organized religion


Nope.


Jack_Sparrow said:


> Mind sharing the reasoning behind why you believe there is NO god or supreme being?


That's not what I said.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> I'm not trying to get ANYBODY to defend their beliefs, this thread is just a simple question, Do you believe in God?


I do get what he's saying, it's probably better (and more organized) if you put "and why?" in the OP and let people answer why if they want, that way it's their choice rather than feeling pressured to answer.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Nope.
> 
> That's not what I said.


You said you do not believe in God, i am asking why, if you'd rather not share thats ok...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I do get what he's saying, it's probably better (and more organized) if you put "and why?" in the OP and let people answer why if they want, that way it's their choice rather than feeling pressured to answer.


Edited OP


----------



## Rizzorules (Dec 9, 2015)

I  believe in god but i dont believe in the holy bible. Sometimes i think he doesnt exist when i see a kid with cancer but then i remember that i dont lose anything believing


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Rizzorules said:


> I  believe in god but i dont believe in the holy bible. Sometimes i think he doesnt exist when i see a kid with cancer but then i remember that i dont lose anything believing


Thanks for a full answer! No questions needed! Yeah, i get that feel man, just because God CAN prevent something doesn't mean he WILL, i mean think of all the people who died in World War II!


----------



## jDSX (Dec 9, 2015)

I am more spiritual than religious that being said I was brought up catholic and I am now considered non religious since I don't go to church like I used to. I do believe in god (or the great spirit as I call it) but with different views and stances on what the bible actually says and the timeline too.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm a 6,2ft Christian and I attract all the ladies you atheists don't.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

king_leo said:


> I'm a 6,2ft Christian and I attract all the ladies you atheists don't.


Well, I mean, logically yes


----------



## DarkCoffe64 (Dec 9, 2015)

Never cared 'bout this stuff. But if I had to answer, no. I don't. I'm more of a science person.
As for an afterlife... Nah. I think you got one go, and after that, done. But maybe reincarnation could actually be something. My reasoning for believing so is that sometimes I get nostalgic at stuff I've never seen before. Like the game Nights into dreams. I saw that game for the first time years ago in a magazine, but I felt like I've already seen it and played it. When I finally did play it years later, with the ps3 port, I just had this nostalgic feeling through the entire game. Or maybe I'm just crazy. Who knows.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

king_leo said:


> I'm a 6,2ft Christian and I attract all the ladies you atheists don't.


Yep, them girls who go to church are real heartthrobs!


----------



## EMP Knightmare (Dec 9, 2015)

No, but I am polytheistic.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> You said you do not believe in God, i am asking why, if you'd rather not share thats ok...


Right, but there's a difference between when I said, "I don't believe god(s) exist," and when you said, "You believe no god(s) exist."

I told you why I don't believe any gods exist; there is no sound reasoning to believe gods exist, and a person who cares whether or not his or her beliefs are true requires sound reasoning before accepting a claim as true. A person who accepts a claim as true before possessing a logically sound reason to believe that claim is a person who cares more about the belief than its truthfulness, which in my opinion would make the concept of _belief _meaningless.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe in god, but I'm really not passionate about my atheism; I just don't think about it much 

Why? I just find it a little hard to believe, I guess. And also because I don't feel it answers any questions because of the whole "If God created everything, who created God" type of question


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Right, but there's a difference between when I said, "I don't believe god(s) exist," and when you said, "You believe no god(s) exist."
> 
> I told you why I don't believe any gods exist; there is no sound reasoning to believe gods exist, and a person who cares whether or not his or her beliefs are true requires sound reasoning before accepting a claim as true. A person who accepts a claim as true before possessing a logically sound reason to believe that claim is a person who cares more about the belief than its truthfulness, which in my opinion would make the concept of _belief _meaningless.


And i was asking if you'd wan't to share your sound reasoning

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lucifer666 said:


> Why? I just find it a little hard to believe, I guess. And also because I don't feel it answers any questions because of the whole "If God created everything, who created God" type of question


Yeah thinking about that stuff is kind of a Mind Fuck


----------



## Lucifer666 (Dec 9, 2015)

LOL I just noticed what this looks like on the front page and I'm DYING


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Lucifer666 said:


> LOL I just noticed what this looks like on the front page and I'm DYING


Yeah, i kinda was scared to see what somebody named Lucifer had responded with in my thread, but it turned out to be fine!


----------



## Lacius (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> And i was asking if you'd wan't to share your sound reasoning


I don't think you understand. I'm saying there is no sound reasoning to believe a god exists, so there's nothing for me to share.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Lacius said:


> I don't think you understand. I'm saying there is no sound reasoning to believe a god exists, so there's nothing for me to share.


Ok ! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## ScrublordPrime (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe in god, but the idea behind the gods of ancient history are really cool. 
Erebus, the Primordial Greek God of Darkness.
Aphrodite: Formed from the seafoam of Uranus's testicle (No I am not joking).
Susanoo: Japanese god of wind *WHO KILLED YAMATO-NO-OROCHI AND GAINED A SWORD FROM THE SEVERED HEADS!*


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

I despise religion due to how it led people to firmly believe that being anything LGBT was wrong and led to countries such as the USA (land of freedom my ass) actually treating people like us as lesser beings.
It actually led to things being outright outlawed and then we celebrate the US making gay marriage legal? No way man, we shouldn't have to celebrate that, it should have been a given from the start.
And even if the countries themselves improve and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, you bet there's going to be religious fanatics treating people like crap for being different. Why? Religion.
The world would be a much better place without it.

I don't deny that there is some good in religion, and I'm sure there are religions that don't really promote anything hateful towards other people for being different.
But you can't deny that if it had never been a thing, we would be much better off.

Does that answer your question? Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> I despise religion due to how it led people to firmly believe that being anything LGBT was wrong and led to countries such as the USA (land of freedom my ass) actually treating people like us as lesser beings.
> It actually led to things being outright outlawed and then we celebrate the US making gay marriage legal? No way man, we shouldn't have to celebrate that, it should have been a given from the start.
> And even if the countries themselves improve and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, you bet there's going to be religious fanatics treating people like crap for being different. Why? Religion.
> The world would be a much better place without it.
> ...


Good Answer!


----------



## Deboog (Dec 9, 2015)

No.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

I encourage those of the good religions that promote peace and equality, but those religions don't really exist much in the west, they don't have an impact, not as much as Christianity has.
Heck if you actually read the bible you'd find that people don't actually know their religion, they just twist it to fit their views and then they teach that to others who just accept it as truth.
For every christian who displays hateful behavior towards people who are different, there is a christian who forgets that their own religion said Jesus and God love everyone.
But it doesn't matter what the bible says because that's not really what people follow anyway.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Deboog said:


> No.


Ok!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Pingouin7 said:


> I encourage those of the good religions that promote peace and equality, but those religions don't really exist much in the west, they don't have an impact, not as much as Christianity has.
> Heck if you actually read the bible you'd find that people don't actually know their religion, they just twist it to fit their views and then they teach that to others who just accept it as truth.
> For every christian who displays hateful behavior towards people who are different, there is a christian who forgets that their own religion said Jesus and God love everyone.


I was NEVER trying to show hate upon other peoples religions i hope i got that through to everyone!


----------



## Deboog (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> Jesus and God love everyone.


God did kill literally ever living thing on earth except for two of each species that one time.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Deboog said:


> God did kill literally ever living thing on earth except for two of each species that one time.


Sure but we all deserved it!


----------



## EMP Knightmare (Dec 9, 2015)

Damn so many valid points


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 9, 2015)

Wow, this thread is remaining remarkably civil... good job cap'n jack.

Anyway, I'm a Christian (not catholic though) and believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, all that.  I don't believe that faith should be blind, however, and that we all should have a logical base to what we believe.  For example, part of why I believe the Bible are the hundreds of specific prophecies that have already been fulfilled (that the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that Israel's Babylonian captivity would last 70 years, that the Messiah would be declared king while riding a donkey into Jerusalem, that His hands and feet would be pierced, the circumstances of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, etc.)


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> I was NEVER trying to show hate upon other peoples religions i hope i got that through to everyone!




Oh, no, I didn't imply that you were. I was posting this as a continuation of my previous post.

Some seem to think that being a christian and firmly believing that all this stuff is sin makes you a good person. Those people are delusional. If you treat another as a lesser being just because they are different, no, you are not a good person, but you won't admit it (not talking to anyone in particular, just to a christian who believes in that kind of stuff and displays hateful behavior towards people who are different.)

I'm not actually against the idea of religion, I'm against what religion is, how it's evolved, how it's negatively affected us as a society. If you're a firm believer, but you are a good person, open-minded and you treat everyone equally as they deserve to? Congrats, keep it up like this, and hopefully encourage others to act the same way.
But can't deny that it has done much more wrong than good.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> Oh, no, I didn't imply that you were. I was posting this as a continuation of my previous post.
> 
> Some seem to think that being a christian and firmly believing that all this stuff is sin makes you a good person. Those people are delusional. If you treat another as a lesser being just because they are different, no, you are not a good person, but you won't admit it (not talking to anyone in particular, just to a christian who believes in that kind of stuff and displays hateful behavior towards people who are different.)
> 
> ...


People should be judged by the actions they make, not their race, or religion, or by how they look. All people should be treated equally and yeah, i do feel that some christians want to put up a fight and tell you your wrong. Which definitely does not make you a better person.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 9, 2015)

Not in the slightest.  I've yet to come across any compelling evidence to support the such a belief.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

If it was just a few religious fanatics being hateful towards LGBT folk then it would be a different story, except this grew massive enough to affect the growth of an entire society.
Stuff like Westboro Baptist Church? That's small and everyone agrees that they're idiots lol
But if it hadn't been for religion, people wouldn't have to hide in fear of being persecuted for being different.
Heck the vote for marriage equality only barely passed, and then you had toooooons of ignorants saying that they were gonna move to Canada because they were against gay marriage (rofl)
This is the kind of people who vote.



grossaffe said:


> Not in the slightest.  I've yet to come across any compelling evidence to support the such a belief.



That is one way to view it, but we could also say that there is no evidence against it.

For all we know there is a god, but we just don't know because he acts in a way that we never notice it.

Or for all we know, God caused the big bang at the beginning. Who knows?

I don't understand why creationists feel like evolution attacks their beliefs. What if God made the big bang happen, what if God made things in such a way that life would eventually evolve over very long periods of time?


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> If it was just a few religious fanatics being hateful towards LGBT folk then it would be a different story, except this grew massive enough to affect the growth of an entire society.
> Stuff like Westboro Baptist Church? That's small and everyone agrees that they're idiots lol
> But if it hadn't been for religion, people wouldn't have to hide in fear of being persecuted for being different.
> Heck the vote for marriage equality only barely passed, and then you had toooooons of ignorants saying that they were gonna move to Canada because they were against gay marriage (rofl)
> ...


True, no one really no's for sure, and i doubt we ever will..


----------



## Deboog (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> But if it hadn't been for religion, people wouldn't have to hide in fear of being persecuted for being different.


Noooooo way. Before Buddhism China didn't have much of any religion, and Chinese people still had no problem thinking of their neighbors as barbarians. Europe fought non-stop during the dark ages, and they were all the exact same religion. Maybe gay rights took a few extra years because of Christianity, but religion is used after the fact as an excuse for bad behavior. I don't think very many people are actually inspired to act badly because of religion.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> Heck the vote for marriage equality only barely passed, and then you had toooooons of ignorants saying that they were gonna move to Canada because they were against gay marriage (rofl)


Location: Canada

... were you one of them?


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm a muslim and I do believe in God as you know. 

But even scientifically I think big bang was not an natural phenomenon something had to be there someone to cause it and I think it was God in that case, not claiming just personal opinion. 

I have also have many personal experiences with God helping me but I cannot share them. Life after death? Same concept of heaven and hell.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Location: Canada
> 
> ... were you one of them?


Are you for real? lol


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

MionissNio said:


> I'm a muslim and I do believe in God as you know.
> 
> But even scientifically I think big bang was not an natural phenomenon something had to be there someone to cause it and I think it was God in that case, not claiming just personal opinion.
> 
> I have also have many personal experiences with God helping me but I cannot share them. Life after death? Same concept of heaven and hell.


Don't answer if you don't feel comfortable, but whats your take on ISIS and the islamic state? And just because your muslim does not mean i think your part of ISIS


----------



## cearp (Dec 9, 2015)

The only God is Zordon and He will watch over us all. Everyone else is a sinner and will repent.


----------



## Deleted-236924 (Dec 9, 2015)

Sargeras is the only true god.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

cearp said:


> The only God is Zordon and He will watch over us all. Everyone else is a sinner and will repent.


Never liked that show growing up...


----------



## cearp (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Never liked that show growing up...


show? you mean documentary right?


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

cearp said:


> show? you mean documentary right?


Dude its fucking Power Rangers isn't it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

http://powerrangers.wikia.com/wiki/Zordon
Dont try to bullshit me!


----------



## cearp (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Dude its fucking Power Rangers isn't it?
> http://powerrangers.wikia.com/wiki/Zordon
> Dont try to bullshit me!


Yes the documentary (gospel) is called Power Rangers.
I'm not sure what the problem is.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

cearp said:


> Yes the documentary (gospel) is called Power Rangers.
> I'm not sure what the problem is.


xD


----------



## Margen67 (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in God, but I believe gay marriage should be legal.
You're not gonna just turn them straight lol

edit: I also don't like worship music. It's wimpy, and all sounds the same.


----------



## _v3 (Dec 9, 2015)

No. Everything that God supposedly created can be explained scientifically.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> Are you for real? lol


I was trying to figure out which smiley to use.  Couldn't decide on one, so I went with the dry delivery.


----------



## Sheimi (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in Inari Okami if that counts...If it doesn't, Shinto/Buddhism 

I do believe in reincarnation. We are always learning something.


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 9, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Don't answer if you don't feel comfortable, but whats your take on ISIS and the islamic state? And just because your muslim does not mean i think your part of ISIS


I will take a fucking nuke anyday and drop on Syria and Iraq if I had a chance to!

I think they're doing wrong, even if they claim they are doing right (imo which is just an excuse to justify their actions) the only things to go to heaven in Islam is to pray and perform charity and Pilgrim and fast in holy months! They are just coward who actually are frustrated from the rules of the religion (no pre marital woohoo) and so on hence they think die fast and kill those who can.

In the end religion is something that is interpreted, we have a history of crimes done in the name of religion, if someone is educated sensible and kind hearted thru will interpret a lovable character of religion and opposite for those who are mad non-educated and mean as well cowards (Aka Islamic terrorists).

I know women are more capable then men but enforcing 'Jihad' on them? They just crossed the limit!


Edit: Stupid autocorrect, why I'd nuke poor Sheila? I meant Syria!


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2015)

Pingouin7 said:


> I despise religion due to how it led people to firmly believe that being anything LGBT was wrong and led to countries such as the USA (land of freedom my ass) actually treating people like us as lesser beings.
> It actually led to things being outright outlawed and then we celebrate the US making gay marriage legal? No way man, we shouldn't have to celebrate that, it should have been a given from the start.
> And even if the countries themselves improve and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, you bet there's going to be religious fanatics treating people like crap for being different. Why? Religion.
> The world would be a much better place without it.
> ...


Religion itself is not inherently evil, it's what humans do in the name of it that is. Religion became the scapegoat of human's evil, but honestly, without it, we would still do the same evil. Humans would kill over land, money, resources, ect. Religion is just another motive for human's misdeeds.
It's not completely religion's fault that someone takes it too far. Honestly, there's no reason to hate on the moderate because someone takes something too far. Not to say it doesn't upset me when someone uses their religion against me. Seriously, I live in a "dry state," I can't buy booze on Sunday and that's just bullshit. But I don't hate religion because other's ruined it, it's fanatical religious excuses that I hate.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> Wow, this thread is remaining remarkably civil... good job cap'n jack.
> 
> Anyway, I'm a Christian (not catholic though) and believe in God, Jesus, the Bible, all that.  I don't believe that faith should be blind, however, and that we all should have a logical base to what we believe.  For example, part of why I believe the Bible are the hundreds of specific prophecies that have already been fulfilled (that the Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that Israel's Babylonian captivity would last 70 years, that the Messiah would be declared king while riding a donkey into Jerusalem, that His hands and feet would be pierced, the circumstances of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, etc.)


This is basically my view as well


Crystal the Glaceon said:


> Religion itself is not inherently evil, it's what humans do in the name of it that is. Religion became the scapegoat of human's evil, but honestly, without it, we would still do the same evil. Humans would kill over land, money, resources, ect. Religion is just another motive for human's misdeeds.
> It's not completely religion's fault that someone takes it too far. Honestly, there's no reason to hate on the moderate because someone takes something too far. Not to say it doesn't upset me when someone uses their religion against me. Seriously, I live in a "dry state" I can't buy booze on Sunday and that's just bullshit. But I don't hate religion because other's ruined it, I hate fanatical religious excuses.


I nearly broke my phone screen when I went for the like button on that one


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe in fairy tales.

I don't mind if you believe in god, allah, flying spaghetti monster or whatever.
Just do not bother me with it and don't be a fucking extremist.

Imho, devoting your life to an imaginary god is a thing of the past.
Also, extremists aren't people, their savages.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

DinohScene said:


> I don't believe in fairy tales.
> 
> I don't mind if you believe in god, allah, flying spaghetti monster or whatever.
> Just do not bother me with it and don't be a fucking extremist.
> ...


Ok thanks for sharing your opinions!


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe in anything like a God for two words: Internet and science. (please don't ask me to expand on these. look it up yourself if you have to.)

I also don't really care what anyone else believes in, or considers themself, etc etc. as long as it's not mixed it with unrelated topics and things.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

ihaveamac said:


> I don't believe in anything like a God for two words: Internet and science. (please don't ask me to expand on these. look it up yourself if you have to.)
> 
> I also don't really care what anyone else believes in, or considers themself, etc etc. as long as it's not mixed it with unrelated topics and things.


Ok thanks!


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2015)

Not that such things are not usually civil when it crops up around here but nice one to see it still happening.

Anyway I would probably be a scientist to the core and though it does preclude belief it nearly all but guarantees its absence.

I have read basically every religious book (though in English or French as some seem to think that matters), many of the minor ones and other major works of analysis of said books or other major related works (dead sea scrolls -- not a religious book in an of themselves, worth reading/reading about anyway). Fascinating things but not things I can fully commit to a philosophy from, I might be able to draw from such a thing but as most are usually a bundling of hot desert survival (pork really does not keep well, especially not without a fridge in a hot desert) and the notion of be excellent to each other then eh. It also seems a bit lazy to take a philosophy from one but laziness is fine by me and not everybody is fortunate enough to be able to sit around contemplating philosophy anyway. If I can then draw philosophy from anywhere then "I don't believe in Peter Pan, Frankenstein or Superman" is a good one to ask why should I believe in the Abrahamic deity, the one that usually gets capitalised in English as God? There are infinite deities to choose from (and if not then I just made a deity creating algorithm so there are now infinite ones) so why that one?
Likewise I enjoy the study of the sociology and economics of religion -- things like how polytheism gave way to singular deity approaches as polytheism would have split people rather than provide a unified front. Also things like the Jizya tax; historically various Islamic states or empires before them occasionally had a tax for people of other religions, a surprising amount of people converted. Speaking of taxes a lot of the tax free stuff I see has reached piss take levels -- religious buildings/places/cemeteries are often worth visiting if you are somewhere, I visited some in the US and it was a leisure centre in all but name. To that end I would be OK with curbing a lot of that.
I do also have to point out that for many purposes the notion of "Christian" as a general descriptor is a relatively new concept, possibly one invented or at least brought to the fore by politicians in the last 100 years -- it is very neutral and non threatening but at the same time conveying something "good". To that end I am distrustful for the term, or consider it a non term until someone has defined it for a given situation.
Too much nonsense has been done in names of things as well so time for a reboot if you would wish for me to consider things.

I am happy enough to live and let live -- are you harming me or someone else, no? We are good then. That said that is hard for some to manage -- don't like abortions, don't have one and try to argue that followers of your philosophy should not have one, can't accept the evidence for evolution, OK but I am not sure what there is to do about it, don't like gay people getting married, don't marry one then and try to argue... If you can make an argument of economics (historically marriage was used to promote population growth), some kind of legal basis, possibly some kind of ethical basis (legality and ethics are intertwined but are not necessarily the same thing) and in any of those cases have it all trump what could otherwise be said to be a personal freedom then go for it. Or if you prefer then tell me why your book should change what I do.

I suppose we now get to the controversial stuff. Teaching kids a religion. Variously widely held ideas of human rights do hold that being able to teach your kids your philosophy is a human right and given some of the abuses in history (see treatments of various natives in things like "education camps" for a good example, though they are far from the only ones) I can see why that might a good plan for the law. That said developmental psychology would hold there is serious truth in the old "get them to me young enough and the possibilities are considerable" adage. To that end I am not sure I could argue for a repeal of the law/human rights concepts but I will find some of the things done under their shield to be horribly distasteful. To that end I think I will end with how others start (I was raised...) and quote another song lyric -- I Started Out with Nothin and I Still Got Most of It Left, or if I may appropriate a phrase often associated with religion then I came into this world with nothing and with nothing I depart*.

*actually that is bad as it is theoretically possible that a religion could be proven, not to mention it could be that I was a Catholic the moment dad came.


----------



## DinohScene (Dec 9, 2015)

Margen67 said:


> I believe in God, but I believe gay marriage should be legal.
> You're not gonna just turn them straight lol



Honestly, there's nothing different from "gay" or "straight" marriage.
It's two people marrying each other.
Hell if I where to marry a pair of scissors to me phone, it still is a marriage.

People who make a fuzz out of gay marriage don't deserve to be married themselves.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Not that such things are not usually civil when it crops up around here but nice one to see it still happening.
> 
> Anyway I would probably be a scientist to the core and though it does preclude belief it nearly all but guarantees its absence.
> 
> ...


Yeah abortion is just outright wrong in my opinion, i don't support gay marriage but i don't think we can do anything to stop it here in America 

Thanks for sharing your opinion!


----------



## Patxinco (Dec 9, 2015)

Nope
Reason:


Spoiler




Start on 1h16m47s
Only 10 seconds, but is funny xD





Spoiler



Now the truth, i'm christian, yes, but i can't think of an only being beeing the ruler of everyone, seems more accurate to having various gods, like Egyptian and Greek gods for example


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 9, 2015)

No, can't say I do. However, if "God" is a female and hot then I may start believin'.


----------



## yuyuyup (Dec 9, 2015)

This thread sponsored by Mod-Happy mods, when the blood must spill, call Mod-Happy


----------



## Flame (Dec 9, 2015)

I AM A GOD!


----------



## mgrev (Dec 9, 2015)

technicaly i am christian (a little backstory: a couple hundred years ago in norway just about every non christian got pushed out a cliff) but i dont go to church. althought i do it a couple of times now, because of that stuff you do when ur 15 that i dont know the english name of. my family never goes to church unless its a funeral etc. my father is no longer registered as a christian because he signed out a couple of years ago when a priest lost his job because he was marrying people on top of mountains.


----------



## Black-Ice (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in the soul and I believe there's much more life out in the vastness of the Universe because its ignorant to believe we're the only life that exists. 

The deities that people worship and shoot/blow people up over, i'm not convinced.


----------



## Flame (Dec 9, 2015)

Black-Ice said:


> I believe in the soul and I believe there's much more life out in the vastness of the Universe because its ignorant to believe we're the only life that exists.
> 
> The deities that people worship and shoot/blow people up over, i'm not convinced.



you believe in the soul? I believe in the heart...


together we accept Arceus as our lord and savior.


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in God (not in the Christian way ) and I also believe in afterlife (heaven or hell).
I don't think faith means being a blind believer but there is an amount of uncharted realms of faith that we can only but believe; much like Darwinism when it claims that men were apes but no one has ever proved that with tangible evidence.
I am also amused at the idea that we're the fruit of coincidence. Has coincidence become a pattern that almost all people are born with the same organs and function the very same way? lol


----------



## Issac (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe in any god, and not for any particular reason... I just don't. 
I mean, a god watching over the tiny human race on one tiny planet in the entire universe? Nah. I am an agnostic atheist, I guess. I can't prove that a god doesn't exist, but I don't believe it does at this momenet at least. 
I do believe in some supernatural occurences though, like ghosts. 
For example, after my grand dad passed away, and some months passed, we celebrated easter. Big smörgåsbord and some aquavit (booze). My grand dad loved aquavit, and really enjoyed it the few times he drank it. 
On the first toast of the dinner, the lights in the bookshelves all died, and then went back on after half a minute. I believe that was his way of toasting with us. (Many more things have happened in my life, similar to this).


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> much like Darwinism when it claims that men were apes but no one has ever proved that with tangible evidence.
> I am also amused at the idea that we're the fruit of coincidence. Has coincidence become a pattern that almost all people are born with the same organs and function the very same way? lol



Where to possibly begin there, other than "biology, best to first try learning it before you dismiss it" anyway.
I assume by "tangible evidence" you mean nobody has dug down, found a skeleton, dug down a bit more to rocks from an earlier age found a different skeleton that was slightly different.... and ? million years ago here is the ape, or if you prefer the lack of a missing link/chain. It would be nice to see such a thing but comparative genetic analysis of apes/primates/Simiiformes and humans, retroviruses (viruses that get attached to DNA and replicated alongside "proper" DNA) all that jazz means there is no doubt in that one, evolution itself has been demonstrably observed in a lot of things.

On the organs thing had you said something like the evolution of the eye we could have possibly had a somewhat interesting discussion, even if it is more of a thought exercise used to teach people evolution and some of the more interesting concepts like parallel evolution. Anyway it sounds like we will have to overcome the puny human mind issue with large numbers (100000 seconds is a bit more than a day, 10000000 is 115 days), then we get to consider that if the human reproductive cycle (one of the longest in nature) is some 20 years then the several billion years that life has been on earth has been enough for a few such life cycles, now humans were not around that entire time but given you can stick a pig heart in a human and have it work then it is clear other animals have similar functioning organs, and if not then that they function in much the same way, use much the same chemicals and so on would.

Seriously though pick up a book on biology. There are many unanswered issues within it but your two examples are not even close to being ones.


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 9, 2015)

the idea of the universe being somewhat sentient i could get behind. but the idea of god from christianity or the other major religions? nah it's too nonsensical to even contemplate.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Dec 9, 2015)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I know my believes are a can of worms onto their own, but I don't believe in the Biblical God. I am however, a Theistic Luciferian Satanist, I do believe in a Satan and a Lucifer and that there are more Gods out there. I don't worship them, I see them are guides and teachers down the Left Hand Path.
> I however, don't disrespect those who believe anything different from me. I am willing to admit that I don't know if I am correct, but I find my religion works best for me.
> Personally, the way I see it, you can worship a rock, just don't hit me with it and I won't hit you with my rock.


I got you there.
I also believe in Lucifer, he is very real, he just beat my ass hard on Devil Survivor.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 9, 2015)

"this thread is like the biggest can of worms I've ever seen . . . .you can fit a small country in here  . . .lol"

 i don't believe in any _god_ as you put it (and or gods and or goddess ect.)
most would then classify me as an atheist but i do have beliefs they just don't involve any type of omnipotent creator


----------



## Pacheko17 (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in peace :^)


----------



## rasputin (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe everything came into being by 10 cagiliandillian chance coincidences. Oh, also I believe, right now as I type this on my phone, that I'm shooting through the universe at 2.877 million miles per hour in all directions whist simultaneously spinning at @1000mph around the centre of this planet.


science!


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 9, 2015)

No, but pretty much everyone in my family does in one way or another lol
I won't bug people about them being religious though. (unless they bug me about not being religious or something like that) Partially because I don't like stirring up shit


----------



## yodamerlin (Dec 9, 2015)

I do not believe in a God, mostly because I don't think it is right to put all my belief into something written by a person. I don't think people nowadays can look back on older religions, such as Greek religion, and write it off as stupid without seriously looking at their own religion. If you believe in something with only the only proof being written by a person to prove it, then you probably shouldn't criticize others for having beliefs in things written by a person, like unicorns.


----------



## BobDoleOwndU (Dec 9, 2015)

I used to think about this sort of thing all of the time. Then I thought too much into it and everything became confusing.

"If there's a god, what came before god?" "If there was the Big Bang what happened before that?" "How did something come from nothing?" "How does space-dust turn into life?"

Something must have always existed; but what is it that existed? And if something has always existed, it creates a paradox. "There can't have been an infinite amount of time before this point, because if there was, we would have never gotten to this point." Which leads to the question, is time real, or only a human concept? Events occur between other events, which shows that time should exist; but if something has always existed (for an infinite amount of time), time must be a completely different concept than how we currently think about it.

The other thing is souls. To have a soul seems very odd. If we are souls only using our bodies as vessels, then why does something like brain damage affect us? Technically we are our brain, which really dissuades me from thinking we have souls. People tell stories about ghosts. Ghosts would be evidence of a soul-like state, but are any of those stories true? I've never seen a ghost personally, so I'm inclined to say no unless I actually see one first-hand. Then the whole concept of death comes in. You can't imagine nothing. And if there's no afterlife, nothing is exactly what we get. It feels odd that life would just come to a sudden halt. Something's there, now there's nothing.

This was pretty much all of the things I thought of, when I did think about this stuff. Thinking about it would give me a headache and make me anxious from being unable to answer any of these questions; so I chose to stop thinking about it and move on. If there's an afterlife, I'll worry about it when I'm dead. Until then, I'm going to enjoy my life as a human.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 9, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> I got you there.
> I also believe in Lucifer, he is very real, he just beat my ass hard on Devil Survivor.


That will learn ya!


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2015)

BobDoleOwndU said:


> "How does space-dust turn into life?"
> ...
> Which leads to the question, is time real, or only a human concept? Events occur between other events, which shows that time should exist; but if something has always existed (for an infinite amount of time), time must be a completely different concept than how we currently think about it.



The other questions are for philosophers, psychologists or scientists in a few hundred years/the AI that will replace us. The two sliced out are more readily addressed though.

For the purposes of this we will have to define life as the sort of stuff we see around here, mainly as thinking about how biology might play out in places where gravity different, air pressure is different, air makeup is different (air does not react the best, however if there is less oxygen is changes how a low of biological reactions work...), temperatures are different... is crazy hard. We can see some of this in extreme conditions on earth (stuff like the bacteria seen in volcanic vents, some of the stuff that grows in permanently dark places...) and by thinking how physics plays out (the material known as bone not being able to sustain a creature the shape/size of godzilla or something) but it would be more than present science does terribly well at. So ignoring that and going back to plain old earth there has been a fair bit of research done in "early earth" type scenarios, which take the sorts of chemicals you see floating around in space dust clouds (which is not just rock dust and meteorites) but will have all sorts of good stuff in it and then planets after they have formed and cooled down and see what goes. Evolution is the study of the (increasing) complexity or adaptation of life forms but field of study, the formation of life from non living matter, usually goes under labels like abiogenesis. From there various things form carbon compounds which do self propagate, mix in some partial oxidation, possibly some lightning strikes* and you can get some RNA, the precursor to DNA. It is still a very active area of study with all sorts of things happening to this day, not that evolution study is a slouch either, and I am more of a casual observer of it but if you want to go looking it is out there to read.

*unrelated but bacteria and lightning strikes is a good topic. There were some studies that observed bacteria gobbling up random chunks of DNA around points of lightning strikes, assuming they were close but not close enough to be killed.

On time we have to almost immediately go to physics, specifically the notions of space-time which are a bit longer than the stuff above so I will link instead http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/ but if you want to get really fun then some of the stuff that underpins chronons (your stats class would have taught you that time is a continuous variable, the idea of chronons asks what if it is not). A lot of things are doubtless coloured by the human perception of time though.


----------



## DaFixer (Dec 9, 2015)

No.


----------



## mgrev (Dec 9, 2015)

for those who did not understand if i meant yes or no in my previous post

no, i do not


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Where to possibly begin there, other than "biology, best to first try learning it before you dismiss it" anyway.
> I assume by "tangible evidence" you mean nobody has dug down, found a skeleton, dug down a bit more to rocks from an earlier age found a different skeleton that was slightly different.... and ? million years ago here is the ape, or if you prefer the lack of a missing link/chain. It would be nice to see such a thing but comparative genetic analysis of apes/primates/Simiiformes and humans, retroviruses (viruses that get attached to DNA and replicated alongside "proper" DNA) all that jazz means there is no doubt in that one, evolution itself has been demonstrably observed in a lot of things.
> 
> On the organs thing had you said something like the evolution of the eye we could have possibly had a somewhat interesting discussion, even if it is more of a thought exercise used to teach people evolution and some of the more interesting concepts like parallel evolution. Anyway it sounds like we will have to overcome the puny human mind issue with large numbers (100000 seconds is a bit more than a day, 10000000 is 115 days), then we get to consider that if the human reproductive cycle (one of the longest in nature) is some 20 years then the several billion years that life has been on earth has been enough for a few such life cycles, now humans were not around that entire time but given you can stick a pig heart in a human and have it work then it is clear other animals have similar functioning organs, and if not then that they function in much the same way, use much the same chemicals and so on would.
> ...



Since you decided to answer and make it a bit of a discussion, let me tell you that you have proven nothing in your lengthy post. Sure there are types of evolution and some were proven by evidence. I read more than you thought I do. But you cannot prove that evolution from species to another species has happened anytime in history. And I dare you or anyone else to prove that. You will only keep talking about billions of years ago or eons to come. But your idea is just speculation.
My two examples are fine by themselves unless someone is an evolution fanatic. Notice that I am not an old fashioned creationist.


----------



## Seriel (Dec 9, 2015)

Religion topics on a forum is bound to go out of control.
Anyways, my answer is no.
I'm *not* atheiest, i'm agnostic.


----------



## Haymose (Dec 9, 2015)

No. I grew up feeling like an outsider because all my friends were Catholics but I understand now that feeling was BS. I don't understand things (like religion) but I will not make assumptions, but I won't deny possibilities either. I just ignore it.


----------



## DragorianSword (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't believe there is a God and if there was one he would be way beyond what we are able to comprehend.
It's certainly not impossible the Big Bang, which started the universe of which we are a lucky result, was 'created' (and not just came into being).
I mostly think it doesn't really matter if there is a god or not though. If there is one, he doesn't give a sh*t about what we do.
So if I would have to label it: I'm agnostic, but leaning really close towards atheism.

Since we're not made by a god (at least certainly not directly) I don't think there is an afterlife, but I wouldn't mind if there was


----------



## Hiccup (Dec 9, 2015)

For anyone who wants to argue about the big bang. There will never be any _completely definite_ proof for or against it, unless someone invents a time machine.

EDIT: You may be able to get close to definite though.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> I read more than you thought I do. But you cannot prove that evolution from species to another species has happened anytime in history. And I dare you or anyone else to prove that. You will only keep talking about billions of years ago or eons to come. But your idea is just speculation.
> My two examples are fine by themselves unless someone is an evolution fanatic. Notice that I am not an old fashioned creationist.



I was not throwing accusations of creationism, or worse, at that point, still not now for that matter. That said I hold your examples are very poor ones and there are a variety of better ones out there to look at, not sure how I can justify that beyond the dismissing of them I already did though. I guess I could have gone further on the organs thing and general animal reproduction and how mostly it stays the same but occasionally other things pop out, or indeed fail to copy and the resulting creating might not live long enough to breed or breed well (or it might and then we have classical evolution).

Evolution from one species to another then. This one gets to be fun and a massive length of time is a far more useful concept but I will give it a go.

I have three approaches I would take for this one, assuming the retrovirus thing* from earlier does not fly for you, there may well be more (I am not much of a biologist)
1) General incompatibility within a genetic species -- a female chihuahua and a male great dane (both unarguably dogs) can not produce offspring, let alone the viable ones, and dogs are a relatively recent species/offshoot (40000 years at the high end by most estimates). Now this is not chromosomal variation (not an infallible means of defining species but a very good one) as much as a physics/biological supply issue and so does not count by some of the quite useful definitions out there.
2) In plants at least the blending of species (allopolyploidy, a subset of the general concept of polyploidy). When learning about this sort of thing people often wonder why plants sometimes have more chromosomes and genetic mass than other life forms. Blending plant and animal biology like this is not a great move but not an entirely invalid one either and there are . Grasses are a particularly good area of study here http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/125/3/1198.full as they do it a lot and as we eat them they are pretty well studied.
The aneuploidy version is probably the more dominant method in animals, and possibly some microorganisms though by different means there, and is the one that takes the time.
3) General chromosomal variation, the aneuploidy thing mentioned above. Chromosomes are a pretty good means of species delineation, the classic example from biology textbooks being the horse, donkey and mule example.

*there has been more than one retrovirus throughout history, however various species have got them after another might have branched off which was otherwise untroubled and thus they provide nice things to compare.

So yeah you will probably not have a nice piece of footage (or multiple pieces showing the pattern) from someone with a time machine, a camera and a DNA swab but the mechanisms are very demonstrable.


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 9, 2015)

BobDoleOwndU said:


> The other thing is souls. To have a soul seems very odd. If we are souls only using our bodies as vessels, then why does something like brain damage affect us? Technically we are our brain, which really dissuades me from thinking we have souls. People tell stories about ghosts. Ghosts would be evidence of a soul-like state, but are any of those stories true? I've never seen a ghost personally, so I'm inclined to say no unless I actually see one first-hand. Then the whole concept of death comes in. You can't imagine nothing. And if there's no afterlife, nothing is exactly what we get. It feels odd that life would just come to a sudden halt. Something's there, now there's nothing.
> 
> This was pretty much all of the things I thought of, when I did think about this stuff. Thinking about it would give me a headache and make me anxious from being unable to answer any these questions; so I chose to stop thinking about it and move on. If there's an afterlife, I'll worry about it when I'm dead. Until then, I'm going to enjoy my life as a human.



I tend to think of the difference between a brain and a soul as the difference between a computer and the software running on it.  Damage the hardware, you might make the program harder to access correctly or corrupt it, but the program isn't really physical, it exists as information and the brain both feeds it info about the physical world by our senses (input) then reads the output (thoughts).


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in a god and am a mainline Protestant Christian. I'm quite interested in my own faith tradition and seek to become a pastor in the Alliance of Baptists (we are quite liberal in our outlook and are nothing like the southern Baptists morons). Like wise I'm quite liberal and support equality of lbgt persons in religious institutions, I believe in evolution, and I do not believe Jesus is the only way to heaven. Likewise I guess despite this I can say worship (or don't worship) whatever the hell you want just do not use it as an excuse to be a dick towards others. Basically I'm like John Spong.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

I do not believe there is a single god or multiple gods. 
I do not believe in the supernatural, which includes things like psychics, miracles, or fate. 
I do not believe in an afterlife.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

Basically, I have to have a solid reason to believe in something. I'm always open to being wrong, am willing to change my mind should better logic and evidence present itself. All the evidence and logic that I have come across points to verifying that my current beliefs are most align with how reality works. 

"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

So this is still evolution of the same species. lol
My example are fine and you cannot refute that. They were not even meant to discuss Darwin. I sticked to the OP question about faith in the existence of a God.
Here is something that can entertain you a bit


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> So this is still evolution of the same species. lol
> My example are fine and you cannot refute that. They were not even meant to discuss Darwin. I sticked to the OP question about faith in the existence of a God.
> Here is something that can entertain you a bit



Look up "ring species".


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> Look up "ring species".



I am talking about change of kind. I didn't talk about birds evolving to birds with different peaks ... etc.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 9, 2015)

I find it hard not to believe in "God".


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> I am talking about change of kind. I didn't talk about birds evolving to birds with different peaks ... etc.


....change of kind is not a biological notion, it is a creationist notion. It was intentionally created by the religious to try give Noah's flood a scientific spin, as the Jewish/christian bible can be translated to categorizing the animals as "kinds". Which is a category of convenience, not a scientific term. It has no actual scientific merit, as it's an arbitrary categorization. This is easily illustrated by how easy it is to change the definition of what counts as a distinct "kind".

Ring species are direct evidence of the separation of one species into two species (more or less). There's also a lovely example of lizards out west, though I forget their names.


----------



## BobDoleOwndU (Dec 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> -snip-


Thanks for the article on space-time! It's a really interesting concept; time and space being a single entity. It almost uses time as a distance more than what it's usually conceptualized as, which would help explain some of the inconsistencies of time being its own entity.



Foxchild said:


> I tend to think of the difference between a brain and a soul as the difference between a computer and the software running on it.  Damage the hardware, you might make the program harder to access correctly or corrupt it, but the program isn't really physical, it exists as information and the brain both feeds it info about the physical world by our senses (input) then reads the output (thoughts).


That's an interesting way to look at it. Humans as a sort of bio-machine.


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> ....change of kind is not a biological notion, it is a creationist notion. It was intentionally created by the religious to try give Noah's flood a scientific spin, as the Jewish/christian bible call the animals "kinds". Which is a category of convenience, not a scientific term. It has no actual scientific merit, as it's an arbitrary categorization. This is easily illustrated by how easy it is to change the definition of what counts as a distinct "kind".
> 
> Ring species are direct evidence of the separation of one species into two species (more or less). There's also a lovely example of a lizard out west, though I forget it's name.



Sorry but I am talking about something purely scientific here. You didn't care about reading what I wrote or watching the video. Your answer is totally unrelated.


----------



## BurningDesire (Dec 9, 2015)

My mind tells me I want to believe. My heart says I am not meant to


----------



## amoulton (Dec 9, 2015)

I only believe in things for which there is observable evidence. You do you tho.


----------



## leonmagnus99 (Dec 9, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> I got you there.
> I also believe in Lucifer, he is very real, he just beat my ass hard on Devil Survivor.



XD , Devil Survivor made me hang in , i have the retail copy of it, it was one of the very first games i bought.

it is insanely difficult unless you grind i guess..

and as for the post,

i do believe in GOD and love and peace.

i wish peace for everyone, the current world is rotting ( Which is very sad ) it is all human failure,

the politician (them big guys) are the real evil of this world.

hopefully someday soon there will be a very peaceful era?! 

and well nowadays sometimes i wish i lived somewhere, where there are no humans ?! Maybe with Aliens?!

or Elves !? X"D okay thats about it.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> Sorry but I am talking about something purely scientific here. You didn't care about reading what I wrote or watching the video. Your answer is totally unrelated.



I'm sorry, I thought you were posting the video because you thought it had merit. I didn't know you meant it to be made fun of. My bad.


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

BurningDesire said:


> My mind tells me I want to believe. My heart says I am not meant to


 Is it a burning desire to believe? 
Anyway, as adults we are all free to believe what we want and we take full responsibility of our choices and beliefs. No one can impose on you what to believe in 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> I'm sorry, I thought you were posting the video because you thought it had merit. I didn't know you meant it to be made fun of. My bad.



Yeah. It seems that you did actually watch it. lol
Stop trolling and answer like a man instead of making fun of something that obliterates your thought


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> Is it a burning desire to believe?
> Anyway, as adults we are all free to believe what we want and we take full responsibility of our choices and beliefs. No one can impose on you what to believe in


The problem is a few dicks however do try to impose their beliefs on others.


----------



## BurningDesire (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> Is it a burning desire to believe?
> Anyway, as adults we are all free to believe what we want and we take full responsibility of our choices and beliefs. No one can impose on you what to believe in


I wouldn't say a burning desire. I believe in what I see. If you believe in someone who created the universe that's great (my parents do not know I am a atheist yet) but science is the true god. I want to believe because my biggest fear is death. Knowing that if you believe in god you can go somewhere after you die is comforting. That's why I want to believe but cant.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> Yeah. It seems that you did actually watch it. lol
> Stop trolling and answer like a man instead of making fun of something that obliterates your thought


I tried  then you avoided. If you don't want to actually have a conversation and just want to be heard, then I'll leave you alone. But if you do want to talk, let's move this to private chat so not as to junk up this nice thread =]


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> The problem is a few dicks however do try to impose their beliefs on others.



I totally agree with you here. Religious men shouting "Believe!!" and atheists shouting " Do Not!!"

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> I tried  then you avoided. If you don't want to actually have a conversation and just want to be heard, then I'll leave you alone.



I don't need to be heard. Not by you,at least. So, I am not discussing anything with you because you are the type who makes fun of things when they cannot answer properly. Bye


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> I totally agree with you here. Religious men shouting "Believe!!" and atheists shouting " Do Not!!"


Religon is something like sex.
Talking about it can be uncomfortable
It can be abusive at times
For some people its their life and the only thing on their mind

But most agree its best when your thoughts of it are kept to yourself


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 9, 2015)

Atheism is a hypocritical concept.

"I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".

That's not proof God doesn't exist. Prove to me there isn't an invisible unicorn orbiting earth. You can't prove a negative so good luck.


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 9, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> Atheism is a hypocritical concept.
> 
> "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".
> 
> That's not proof God doesn't exist. Prove to me there isn't an invisible unicorn orbiting earth. You can't prove a negatve so good luck.


But many traditional beliefs of certain religions can and have been proved impossible under normal conditions


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 9, 2015)

Seita said:


> I don't need to be heard. Not by you,at least. So, I am not discussing anything with you because you are the type who makes fun of things when they cannot answer properly. Bye


Given your response and avoidance of my rebuttal, I honestly wasn't sure if you were being a poe or if you honestly believe the things you're saying. I suppose it's better than being unable to distinguish science and faith. I'll PM any responses from now on, to avoid cluttering up this thread =]



Father Crilly said:


> Atheism is a hypocritical concept.
> 
> "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".
> 
> That's not proof God doesn't exist. Prove to me there isn't an invisible unicorn orbiting earth. You can't prove a negative so good luck.



Yes, that's exactly the point. Do you believe there's an invisible unicorn orbiting the earth? why not? You can't prove it's not there, so why don't you feel pain for that poor unicorn all alone in space?


----------



## bitjacker (Dec 9, 2015)

I don't. Used to, but after comparing the 1611 bible/ apocrypha stories with the modern edit, I have to wonder what was edited before that. Who deems what is inspired word? Too many died because they wouldn't believe a book for me to have respect. Go to wounded knee, buy some bead necklaces from the woman who sits at the mass grave, listen to the young man tell the story that has been passed down. compare the dates of the battles with what is on wikipedia.


----------



## Seita (Dec 9, 2015)

BurningDesire said:


> I wouldn't say a burning desire. I believe in what I see. If you believe in someone who created the universe that's great (my parents do not know I am a atheist yet) but science is the true god. I want to believe because my biggest fear is death. Knowing that if you believe in god you can go somewhere after you die is comforting. That's why I want to believe but cant.



I understand your point. I was just kidding about the burning desire thing since it's your username 
I do believe in science as a tools to live a better life and discover things never known of before. But that doesn't prevent me from believing in a god who doesn't shun me from science.




RevPokemon said:


> But most agree its best when your thoughts of it are kept to yourself



The OP enticed us into sharing our opinions. lol
I like how this thread is being kept civic until now.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 9, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> But many traditional beliefs of certain religions can and have been proved impossible under normal conditions



Keyword there: "Religion"

Religion is more than just someone's opinion on God. So any false beliefs made up by the particular religion doesn't affect God. I don't care for religion, this is Theism vs. Atheism.


----------



## Originality (Dec 9, 2015)

I believe in God. I believe because I have experienced it.
I believe in the afterlife, because not believing in it is too depressing.
I believe in the aspect of religion that guides people to acting better (e.g. Thou shalt not kill).
I don't believe in people - the world is full of idiots, assholes, and those who should know better.

These are my beliefs. I don't ask anybody to agree with me. I try to be the better man, and appreciate it when people return that level of respect. But I am also jaded so I don't expect it from anybody.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 9, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Religon is something like sex.
> Talking about it can be uncomfortable
> It can be abusive at times
> For some people its their life and the only thing on their mind
> ...



Normally I wonder ponder the basis for that (it does seem rooted in the US aversion to certain things sexual), however I will choose instead to imagine what going out would be like if instead much of what people were concerned with was proselytising.

On the other hand maybe it would be like


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

bitjacker said:


> I don't. Used to, but after comparing the 1611 bible/ apocrypha stories with the modern edit, I have to wonder what was edited before that. Who deems what is inspired word? Too many died because they wouldn't believe a book for me to have respect. Go to wounded knee, buy some bead necklaces from the woman who sits at the mass grave, listen to the young man tell the story that has been passed down. compare the dates of the battles with what is on wikipedia.


Yeah, that's where my belief of specifically following the red letters stems from. However, you should know that if edits are an issue, the NIV was translated directly from the earliest known scrolls, so it's technically the most accurate english translation. Also, I believe that they found an even earlier transcript that they're currently working on translating


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm a seventh day Adventist I believe that when people die they are dead and that God will resurrect them when the judgement comes.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 9, 2015)

People who make a fuzz out of gay marriage don't deserve to be married themselves.[/QUOTE]


XtremeHacker said:


> I'm a seventh day Adventist I believe that when people die they are dead and that God will resurrect them when the judgement comes.


As a Catholic i believe that also


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 9, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> Atheism is a hypocritical concept.
> 
> *"I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".*
> 
> That's not proof God doesn't exist. Prove to me there isn't an invisible unicorn orbiting earth. You can't prove a negative so good luck.





An atheist who really understands the concept doesn't assert that god(s) do not exist.

It isn't, "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist."

It is, "There is nothing to see here. Let's grab lunch."

But there are plenty of claimed atheists who are, "religious," about it.


----------



## Ruby Gloom (Dec 9, 2015)

I do believe in God. However, I also believe that if God really loved all his children, there wouldn't be this " Hell " thing.  The Bible really doesn't help say about how God loves you and won't send you to burn if you don't follow his rules.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 9, 2015)

Ruby Gloom said:


> I do believe in God. However, I also believe that if God really loved all his children, there wouldn't be this " Hell " thing.  The Bible really doesn't help say about how God loves you and won't send you to burn if you don't follow his rules.


How I always gathered it was Lucifer for some reason really wants you to see you burn because he's a twat, but God wants to protect you but only if you do certain things. In retrospect it is kind of confusing and contradictory lol


----------



## Ruby Gloom (Dec 9, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How I always gathered it was Lucifer for some reason really wants you to see you burn because he's a twat, but God wants to protect you but only if you do certain things. In retrospect it is kind of confusing and contradictory lol


I still don't study any religions. I feel my life will be limited, and all that. I just want to live my life and try everything before I die. I don't want to be told " You'll burn if you do that. " Why should I constrain myself to a boring life when there's so much more to do? No, I'm not saying I'll try murdering people, but, you know.


----------



## bitjacker (Dec 9, 2015)

if your bible says money is THE root of all evil, you have a version that is censored. a pre-king james version will tell you money is A root of all evil. to me this is a huge thing to edit. I could fill pages of text in about differences, but its all written. also all perspective. I think Jesus had some good ideas, but will i go to hell if i dare say krishna was on a mighty fine path? I ponder good ideas from all religions up until i am told it is the only thing i can consider as a truth. you really dont need a man in the clouds to be a good person. just dont screw people over.


----------



## Relys (Dec 9, 2015)

I made a choice a long time ago not to let my mind be ruled by fear, uncertainty and doubt. I have studied the universe and have come to terms with my place in it, small as it may be. I feel the only way one can truly find solace in this existence is to embrace the unknown and unexplained. I think that giving credit to (or blaming) God, Aliens, the Illuminati, etc. is just a lazy way to justify ones own selfish actions. Instead, I prefer to look at cause/effect relationships, use the scientific method to discover new information, and debate with others to find flaws in my own view so that I may fix them and become a better person.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Do you? I just wanted to know everyones opinions on this subject
> And why? Do you / do you not believe in a god! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!
> 
> EDIT: Also, do you believe in an afterlife? A Heaven or reincarnation? Please share!



I don't believe in a god. I think the first eye opening moment was reading about the tower of babel and realizing how much it sounded like Greek mythology.

For me, allowing myself to question things, it was easier to see all of the things that just didn't add up, and how things aren't quite what you're told they were. I think there's a reason the church actively discourages questioning the bible.

As far as an afterlife, I hope there's some sort of reincarnation or recycling, or better yet the curtain is pulled back.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> I don't believe in a god. I think the first eye opening moment was reading about the tower of babel and realizing how much it sounded like Greek mythology.
> 
> For me, allowing myself to question things, it was easier to see all of the things that just didn't add up, and how things aren't quite what you're told they were. I think there's a reason the church actively discourages questioning the bible.
> 
> As far as an afterlife, I hope there's some sort of reincarnation or recycling, or better yet the curtain is pulled back.


See, it's actually the opposite for me, reading about parallels in stories between religions makes me think it's more plausible


----------



## dpad_5678 (Dec 10, 2015)

For me it's difficult. I am both Jewish and Catholic. I lost my Uncle and My Pet Within Five days. (I'm 14 years old)

I woke up one morning and was taking a walk with my mom down to a shopping center, and got a text from my dad:

"I am Sorry To Tell You That Uncle Oliver Passed Away Last Night."

Five days later, I was getting ready for his funeral with my dad, sister, stepmom, and step syblings. I got a call from my mom that my guinea pig has passed away.



Makes me kinda sad, but I guess god does what he does for a reason 


RIP Uncle Ollie: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-lbts-oliver-parker-obit-20150914-story.html


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

dpad_5678 said:


> For me it's difficult. I am both Jewish and Catholic. I lost my Uncle and My Pet Within Five days. (I'm 14 years old)
> 
> I woke up one morning and was taking a walk with my mom down to a shopping center, and got a text from my dad:
> 
> ...


God doesn't do that stuff, he lets satan do it so we know what satan's way leads to.


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 10, 2015)

I dont believe in god.  Frankly, in my opinion I find the whole god thing absolutely absurd.  Science all the way.  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people who do believe in god, whether it be for guidance, a set of rules to follow or whatever.  But no, not for me.  You are born, you live, and you die.  And death is exactly the same as not being born.  There doesn't have to be a purpose to life at all, it just "is" and you pretty much do what you want with it and get out of it what you put in.

My justification for this view is quite simple.  No other species on this planet believes in god.  We are just animals that got clever through learning and evolution.  If we didn't have any of the intelligence we possess right now, religion wouldn't exist. We would just live in survival mode just like everything else does on this planet.  Fight or flight etc.

Also, if somehow it was possible to wipe everyones mind, and delete all history books etc, eventually science would more or less get back to where it was, but religion, whilst it might come about again, would be totally different in every way.  Different timescales, different stories, different everything.  That tells me personally, all I need to know.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> No other species on this planet believes in god.


As much as I hate to be "that guy", why do you say that?


----------



## Relys (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> God doesn't do that stuff, he lets satan do it so we know what satan's way leads to.



So God not only let Satan kill @dpad_5678's Uncle, but his Guinea Pig as well? What were they doing, making blood sacrifices together? Seriously, not only is this statement absolutely ridiculous but it is also incredibly insensitive to @dpad_5678's loss. Besides, who would want to worship a God who allows his opponent to kill people just to show how bad his opponent is? You know what that makes God? An accomplice to murder. Who's the real bad guy in that situation? :/


----------



## Sliter (Dec 10, 2015)

Well not exactly in God, but in " forces that rule the universe" , and I don't mean the human force that also mess with the life of a lot of peoples :/

When I was born my family where to Catholicism, so I was as well.. latter my mom went to spiritism, so I did but then I "gave up" about the christian God... I don't know much but I even was pessimist and depressive, when young I believed that God would help me out with this but things around just looked that where being worse (with this, I was growing and learning about how humans are stupid and never learning with the history, politics and stuffs ).
So well today I'm "agnostic" :/ I respect every faith someone can have, just not wanting that everybody need to think the same way :B
I also don't like the idea that " god can't be proved so he doesn't exist", a lot of atheist use this but they also can't prove the value of money, but agree, trust and don't question it, economics, gold/dollar reserve the country have, yadda yadda, on the end it's just a piece of paper that rule the world because someone told that it have value...

About afterlife ... well I'm not sure what to think....


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


> So God not only let Satan kill @dpad_5678's Uncle, but his Guinea Pig as well? What were they doing, making blood sacrifices together? Seriously, not only is this statement absolutely ridiculous but it is also incredibly insensitive to @dpad_5678's loss. Besides, who would want to worship a God who allows his opponent to kill people just to show how bad his opponent is? Who's the real bad guy in that situation? :/


If you don't believe then It's useless arguing with you this is just an opinion thread so let's just stop.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> I dont believe in god.  Frankly, in my opinion I find the whole god thing absolutely absurd.  Science all the way.  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people who do believe in god, whether it be for guidance, a set of rules to follow or whatever.  But no, not for me.  You are born, you live, and you die.  And death is exactly the same as not being born.  There doesn't have to be a purpose to life at all, it just "is" and you pretty much do what you want with it and get out of it what you put in.



I mostly agree, but science is only as good as what it can see, test, and prove. I don't think we'll ever see the big bang or anything from that split second in time (or not in time?). There are plenty of cases where science thought they had it figured out based on limited data. Basically, science will never get it all right, or have enough proof to say that there is no god. In fact, science does leave open the possibility of their being a god of sorts. Our universe could easily be a simple organism in a larger world, and it could have been created by a being. The real stretch is assuming that the being cares about 'the hairs on your head', or hasn't already walked away from the experiment.

Maybe the big bang is actually the result of dropping a gigantic Alka Seltzer in some water, and we're now an expanding bubble that will either collapse or pop.

I also agree with you, my beliefs are my own and I don't want to force them on anyone. Maybe religion is truly a personal experience.


----------



## Relys (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> If you don't believe then It's useless arguing with you this is just an opinion thread so let's just stop.



My argument is entirely based on the pre-condition that God exists.


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Dec 10, 2015)

HAHAHAHAHAHA, you having a giggle mate?

Also, 2000th post


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


> My argument is entirely based on the pre-condition that God exists.


pre-condition, not actually believing.  There is a difference.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Relys said:


> So God not only let Satan kill @dpad_5678's Uncle, but his Guinea Pig as well? What were they doing, making blood sacrifices together? Seriously, not only is this statement absolutely ridiculous but it is also incredibly insensitive to @dpad_5678's loss. Besides, who would want to worship a God who allows his opponent to kill people just to show how bad his opponent is? You know what that makes God? An accomplice to murder. Who's the real bad guy in that situation? :/


If he never let Satan do bad then his angels would never relize what Satan is, which is pure EVIL because.  And I have had some very sad thing happen in my life I wans't trying or intending to be insensitive.
I rest my case.


----------



## Ruby Gloom (Dec 10, 2015)

This thread was a mistake


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 10, 2015)

I just don't see the logic a lot of the time in how its possible for people to pick and choose what they believe in about god and what they dont.  For example:

Religious man gets ill.

Religious man goes to doctor

Doctor prescribes whatever medication is needed to allow religious man to get better again

Relious man thanks god.

What?

Seriously?

If the man really believed in god and what he was about, why did he go and see a doctor?  If he got ill, surely, thats all part of gods plan?  And if god wanted him better again, he would have made it so?  So why did this person go and see a doctor, and then have the audacity at the end of it to praise god for making him better again?

The fact that he did get better, that is without question, is based on science, and not on religion.  There are literally endless amounts of sitations where the same rule applies every day, all around the world.

Also, as a sidenote.  I don't understand the religious side of things like "god decides when its time / everything happens for a reason etc etc.

If this was true, why do religious people look both ways when they cross a road?

If its not their time, then surely they should be able to blindly cross the road and make it safely to their destination everytime, until its their time no?  So why does that person look both ways?


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> I just don't see the logic a lot of the time in how its possible for people to pick and choose what they believe in about god and what they dont.  For example:
> 
> Religious man gets ill.
> 
> ...


The doctor is one of God's helpers on earth so to speak.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> I just don't see the logic a lot of the time in how its possible for people to pick and choose what they believe in about god and what they dont..



Reminds me of this:


----------



## Ruby Gloom (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> Reminds me of this:


That's so horrible.


----------



## kristianity77 (Dec 10, 2015)

One more situation.  Albeit a morbid one 

If I, as a non religious person am locked in a room with a religious person and I hold a gun lets say.  Whose decides whether the religious person locked in with me lives or dies?  Is it me, or is it god?

If it's god that decides, then surely that means that life is pre determined.  As surely he knows beforehand whether I will pull the trigger or not.  Because if he doesnt know, then it was my decision and not his.

If thats the case, then it brings me back to my earlier analogies.  Why do religious people look where they are going when they cross the road, or why do they go to the doctors?  If everything is set in motion and we as people, only have the illusion of choice and in fact everything is already set, then why bother with being cautious when your date is set anyway?


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> The doctor is one of God's helpers on earth so to speak.



What if the doctor is Buddhist or Muslim?

And, why does god receive the credit for the good things, but isn't responsible for the bad?

As an example, if I let you poison my dog, wouldn't I be as responsible as you for the poisoning?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> God doesn't do that stuff, he lets satan do it so we know what satan's way leads to.


I didn't say he did. This kinda stuff just makes me a little sad.


----------



## Relys (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> pre-condition, not actually believing.  There is a difference.



In the context of your initial statement and my rebuttal God exists. Stop trying to change the subject. I am NOT trying to convince you to drop your overall belief in God. I am trying to convince you that blaming innocent deaths "because Satan", is an inherently flawed point of view.



XtremeHacker said:


> If he never let Satan do bad then his angels would never relize what Satan is, which is pure EVIL because.  And I have had some very sad thing happen in my life I wans't trying or intending to be insensitive.
> I rest my case.



Judging by your location you're a Canadian citizen right? Ok, so what if I told you that the Canadian government was going to allow a member of ISIS to murder your family. What if I told you that the governments reason was that if they never let ISIS do bad, that their citizens would never realize what ISIS is, which is pure EVIL.

Does anyone see how harmful this logic is?


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 10, 2015)

The question that comes in my mind right now is: What would make me or someone believe in something? What triggers a belief? I really am curious.


----------



## Ruby Gloom (Dec 10, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> The question that comes in my mind right now is: What would make me or someone believe in something? What triggers a belief? I really am curious.


I don't really believe God too much. I believe in our Lord, and saviour, Ruby Gloom! XD


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 10, 2015)

I believe Satan exists, but I tend to blame most of the bad stuff that happens on one of two things, either humans acting within their God-granted free will and all the repercussions, ripples, and butterfly effects that spring from those decisions, or the physical effects of "sin entering the world" through Adam and Eve... I believe that original sin introduced entropy into the world (universe) so that now everything dies and decays.  CGP Grey recently posted a youtube video about plagues and how there were none in the Americas until they were brought over from Europe and why, partly because deadly plagues are all basically mutated animal diseases humans were never "meant" to catch.  Got me thinking that mutation is a result of entropy (dna sequencing degradation) and thus, pre-Adam and Eve all bacteria and viruses were likely the "good" kind - after all a virus that kills its host is kinda self-defeating.

Also, what is a "bad" thing anyway?  If there is no God, there is no reason a human death is any more significant than an ant's, and death is just a part of nature, not something bad.  On the other hand, if God exists, and Heaven is real and better than here, death is sometimes actually a good thing.  Plus, all the bad stuff and hardships we go through in life that don't actually kill us... many times, once we're all the way through them, we realize they made us better, able to do things we never could have otherwise, even though it's tough when we're in the middle of it to see the possible positives.  Guess that's where faith (trusting that God knows what He's doing) comes in.

Concerning Hell, Jesus Himself said that the Lake of Fire was "created for the Devil and his angels", so I don't believe it was originally intended for human use.  Satan is condemned to Hell because he decided to be his own god instead of having God be his god.  Thus, if a human makes that same decision, God, in His infinite sense of justice, must also condemn that human to the same fate.  Might seem harsh, but He did love us enough to send His Son to die to give us an alternative.  I mean, if you literally sacrificed your child and people still refused to to take the way out that sacrifice provided you'd probably let 'em suffer the consequences of that decision too.


----------



## WaffleWafer (Dec 10, 2015)

I've been conflicted with this issue too much. My whole family tree basically is devoted to God and the religion that's tied to him. Mormon Family is hard if you do not believe in the existence of someone. I mean, religion were used as a power group before, almost even more powerful than the government themselves, usually just to have power, gold, influence, and exemptions from taxes... and somewhere down the road, a true devoted man was elected head of the church and then proceeded to teach what he thinks was right.

But I think religion is a good thing for people, because it helps them find peace in their inner mind.

TLDR: GOD is the creation of greedy people who makes churches to gain power, gold, and exemptions in the olden age up until today. Also, Churches/Religion are good for the people.


----------



## Viri (Dec 10, 2015)

I honestly don't know what to believe. There are too many unanswered questions in the universe for me to decide whether if I believe in god or not. 

I do believe aliens are real though.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

I've always been someone who believes in rationality, in logic and in evidence. 

That said, I grew up in a religious family. I learned about the positives that come from having a strong moral foundation, and as I grew up I learned about some of the negatives that come from the same thing. But above all, I maintained an overarching dependence on science and evidentiary reliance. 

Can I say with all certainty that when I die I'll be whisked away someplace to have my life played out in front of me and a little man point out everything I did wrong? 

Or when I die will I simply cease to exist, my entire sense of self dissipating into oblivion?

Existence itself- what we consider to be the fabric of reality... it's all finite, a blip that will eventually see the earth swallowed by the expanding sun, then the shards drifting away into nothingness. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that... life, whether an afterlife exists or not... is achingly short, and when it's over, it's over. It's up to us to create meaning in that tiny space we occupy of our lives.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

XtremeHacker said:


> God doesn't do that stuff, he lets satan do it so we know what satan's way leads to.


God doesen't let satan do it, he does what he does for a reason.


----------



## XtremeHacker (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


> In the context of your initial statement and my rebuttal God exists. Stop trying to change the subject. I am NOT trying to convince you to drop your overall belief in God. I am trying to convince you that blaming innocent deaths "because Satan", is an inherently flawed point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With God there isn't always logic and BTW I would pray that God would protect that person.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 10, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> Atheism is a hypocritical concept.
> 
> "I can't see it, therefore it doesn't exist".
> 
> That's not proof God doesn't exist. Prove to me there isn't an invisible unicorn orbiting earth. You can't prove a negative so good luck.


your ignorance is showing.  I will say that God does not exist with the same way that I will say there is not a million dollars in the trunk of your car.  I will continue to assume there is not a million dollars in the trunk of your car until you can provide evidence that there is.  If you showed me a bank statement with a withdrawal of a million dollars, that would provide evidence that there could be a million dollars in your trunk.  At such time, I would revise my statement to that there _could_ be a million dollars in your trunk.  Its still left to be proven that there _is_ but at least you've provided evidence that there reasonably could be.

To put it mathematically, a 0.000...1% chance of something existing makes it statistically irrelevant.  If the only thing supporting its existence is that it cannot by nature be disproven, then its got nothing.  Personally, I prefer to say, rather than "There is no god", that "I have no reason to believe in a god".  That my lack in a belief of a god is no different than my not believing in fairies or monsters or ghosts or any other such unfounded supernatural things.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

Why would you call someone ignorant over a matter of faith?

Believe. 
Don't believe. 
God. 
No God. 

In the end isn't what really matters not _what _someone believes, but _how they use that belief?_


----------



## Deboog (Dec 10, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> If there is no God, there is no reason a human death is any more significant than an ant's, and death is just a part of nature, not something bad.


Welcome to existential crises.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> Why would you call someone ignorant over a matter of faith?
> 
> Believe.
> Don't believe.
> ...


If you wan't to believe in something you should have a base of why you believe. I don't just believe the new Star Wars will be good because George Lucas said it was, my faith in Abrams movie work is based on facts and a base.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> If you wan't to believe in something you should have a base of why you believe. I don't just believe the new Star Wars will be good because George Lucas said it was, my faith in Abrams movie work is based on facts and a base.



Faith.

Faith is the antithesis of scientific thought by it's very definition. A man can have faith in a higher power and use that faith to help others, spending his life feeding the poor and hungry. A man can have faith that God will not help those poor, no belief at all, and decide to use that faith in empowering his own sense of necessity, feeding the poor and hungry.

Faith, belief- it can do great things, and it can do terrible things. Religion created almost all the hospitals you see today in America, but it also created Isis. Atheism formed the foundation of much of our science but it also created Communism. Good and bad- it is about how we as humans choose to use our own faith. 

Faith in God. Faith in Man. 

How will you use yours?


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> Faith.
> 
> Faith is the antithesis of scientific thought by it's very definition. A man can have faith in a higher power and use that faith to help others, spending his life feeding the poor and hungry. A man can have faith that God will not help those poor, no belief at all, and decide to use that faith in empowering his own sense of necessity, feeding the poor and hungry.
> 
> ...


We're talking about your beliefs not your faith


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

Those are one and the same, and you know it.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

OP, you should add a poll with the options Yes, No, and Unsure.

Yes, I do believe in God. I would like to clarify, there is a difference from being religious and belief in God. For instance, there are individuals who are secular (non-religious) that believe in God (deists), and there are atheists who are religious (Buddhists). One fallacy many atheists perform is criticizing religion and thinking that somehow discredits belief in God.

That being said, I also am Christian, so that would make me a religious theist.

My reasons for belief in God are as follows:
1. Objective morality
2. Origins of the universe
3. Origins of life

Reasons for belief in Christianity:
1. Resurrection of Jesus
2. Biblical prophesies
3. Anecdotal evidence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Muffins said:


> Those are one and the same, and you know it.


Belief is define as an acceptance as a statement or fact as true. Faith is defined as belief in something that cannot be proven. They have different words for a reason .


----------



## CosmoCortney (Dec 10, 2015)

Well, I believe in what I can see and is logical for me. My creator is the process of evolution and nature/universe. So I consider myself as atheist (So I don't believe in Satan, heaven or hell too). I also reject the philosophy of having/believing in god because I don't like having someone/something above all others. As many atheists I think that every life have has the same value (This is also one reason I'm vegetarian). Another of many reasons I reject religions is that most of them are critical or against non-heterosexuality, apply gender roles, tell you who to like or dislike (well, in general it's good to like everyone as much as yourself. But what if someone hates their own? Or when someone behaves like an asshole I don't think you need to like them).
I could write an endless list of reasons 
But one more thing is said: I accept the way everyone believes. When someone feels happy with their religion I also feel happy for that person. I also won't mind learning something new about a religions


----------



## elmoemo (Dec 10, 2015)

Not trying to argue by the way as we all believe what we want and I had the same way of thinking in that I believe in what I see but we can't see things like air but know it's there.

I don't know what to believe, we will possibly never know


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

elmoemo said:


> Not trying to argue by the way as we all believe what we want and I had the same way of thinking in that I believe in what I see but we can't see things like air but know it's there.
> 
> I don't know what to believe, we will possibly never know


Nicely worded!


Haloman800 said:


> OP, you should add a poll with the options Yes, No, and Unsure.
> 
> Yes, I do believe in God. I would like to clarify, there is a difference from being religious and belief in God. For instance, there are individuals who are secular (non-religious) that believe in God (deists), and there are atheists who are religious (Buddhists). One fallacy many atheists perform is criticizing religion and thinking that somehow discredits belief in God.
> 
> ...


OP updated! Thanks for the suggestion!


----------



## regnad (Dec 10, 2015)

Hey wow! With my no vote I doubled the total!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> Why would you call someone ignorant over a matter of faith?
> 
> Believe.
> Don't believe.
> ...


Why doesn't this have more likes? Lol


----------



## Dust2dust (Dec 10, 2015)

If all the people in the world stopped believing in incredible religions, and instead concentrated on living a good life, respectful of their fellow human beings, we would all live in a better world.  Read this site with an open mind and you should understand:
http://godisimaginary.com/


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 10, 2015)

Dust2dust said:


> If all the people in the world stopped believing in incredible religions, and instead concentrated on living a good life, respectful of their fellow human beings, we would all live in a better world.  Read this site with an open mind and you should understand:
> http://godisimaginary.com/


the atheism is strong here lol.


----------



## XDel (Dec 10, 2015)

When you meet Buddha on the road, kill him. Christ on the path, crucify him, that aside, whole heartedly I know there is a God...
...but alas, the very word God is a human construct within itself and we can not even fathom. None the less, yes, core teachings of Jesus, right on. Institutionalized religion about Jesus, not so great. Just as reactionary groups against Jesus are not so great, narrow, and mostly blind.

And, humanism is but another false god.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> The question that comes in my mind right now is: What would make me or someone believe in something? What triggers a belief? I really am curious.



Tradition, childhood experiences, and social pressure.

Personally, I can remember being asked if I wanted to go to this great place called heaven by simply accepting Jesus. I was 7 or 8 maybe. The story was clearly aimed at children who love free things.

Scandinavia is an interesting situation. The societies really don't put a lot of value in religion, and as a result very few people are actively involved. There's also little fear of a backlash for being a non-believer.



WaffleWafer said:


> Mormon Family is hard if you do not believe in the existence of someone.



I do not envy you. I married into a Mormon family and worked with a Mormon who wanted to follow his dream of being a game programmer rather than going on a mission. I saw a number of people who were shunned to some degree due to their choice to not follow the church's set path for them. I also worked with another Mormon who had gone on a mission, after that he had attended BYU and gotten a masters in computer science. It almost seems like he had an easier time after going on the mission. Ironically, he also eventually followed his dream of being a game programmer.


----------



## WaffleWafer (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> I do not envy you. I married into a Mormon family and worked with a Mormon who wanted to follow his dream of being a game programmer rather than going on a mission. I saw a number of people who were shunned to some degree due to their choice to not follow the church's set path for them. I also worked with another Mormon who had gone on a mission, after that he had attended BYU and gotten a masters in computer science. It almost seems like he had an easier time after going on the mission. Ironically, he also eventually followed his dream of being a game programmer.



The church is a wonderful place though, I see the teachings as life hacks where it would definitely make your life significantly better, if not easier. It's just that I simply don't believe in deities or gods. And missionaries setting an appointment is a downright bad experience for me, always asking me if I would go on a mission. If I say No, everyone looks at me like I'm such a huge disappointment (not to mention everyone in my whole family tree are so devoted over half of my cousins and aunts were missionaries at one point). Probably one of the reasons why I avoid every religion... especially this one.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

WaffleWafer said:


> The church is a wonderful place though.



Yep.. at least the people that truly want to emulate Jesus. I've seen a number of people that take the responsibility to help others very seriously.

The Mormon church seems to do a lot of work to help the homeless.


----------



## Flame (Dec 10, 2015)

I can prove they is no God.

just say.

"If they is a god, strike me down."


you see i proved they isnt.




also this thing like my Religion is right is the biggest pile of shit they is... you where born in a nation or place or family which happens to be that Religion.

You are brainwashed


----------



## Jayro (Dec 10, 2015)

*Nope.*

I grew out of imaginary friends being there for me as soon as I realized it didn't get me anywhere. Relying on real people barely fared better results.​


----------



## Lucifer666 (Dec 10, 2015)

sarkwalvein said:


> I also believe in Lucifer, he is very real, he just beat my ass hard on Devil Survivor.



Happy to serve!


----------



## amoulton (Dec 10, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> The problem is a few dicks however do try to impose their beliefs on others.



Yeah the worst are people who propagate their religion to impressionable children who don't yet have the mental capacity to discern truth from fiction


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

So for a bit more information about myself, my family's religion is Jehova Witnesses (not Witness because it's plural) and while I did go with them as a kid I'd ultimately fall asleep plus get bored of it real quick, so all in all, never liked it. Now as I'm older I don't go but still suppose there's a superior force than humans so I'm an agnostic by technical terms.

I looked into going to the church but I don't like staying too long and listening to some fella preaching (just waiting on a lobby to play a game online bores me the hell out so yes, I am comparing the two). Also, I've read that black American churches last for up to 4hrs and that's ridiculously long!

P.S. I believe in that being respectful towards others but am against the mentality of PC, SJW and crazy religious people who think only their own people are good enough. Just like the great MLK once said _I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. _sadly the human race has not evolved.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Religion is the single most harmful thing ever invented on this planet. Christianity, in particular, is the most wicked, vile, repulsive and evil religion ever invented. 

Christians are directly responsible for more rape, murder, misery and suffering than literally every single other invention or creation in the history of the human race. 

I am a militant atheist, actively working to abolish organized religion, starting with the most awful and horrible religion of them all. 

I consider every single Christian on the planet to be beneath the worst atheist in history. Christians are less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving than all other practitioners of all other faiths and spiritual practices.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 10, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> The question that comes in my mind right now is: What would make me or someone believe in something? What triggers a belief? I really am curious.



There are various things you can look at to try to answer this. People that have converted, left or taken up faiths later in life could be interesting, however things there tend to be a bit more anecdotal. If you are going to take the less science based routes then studies of where religions collide are great as the mingling and reworking of things sees all sorts of things shake loose. The spread of various Jesus focused religions in Europe and the various blending, appropriation and in some cases eradications of local beliefs are good stuff to read about, Scandinavia/nordic countries being more recent and well documented but there are other interesting examples like Ireland (the history of rag trees being my favourite) and the classic Saturnalia becoming Christmas and various spring festivals tending to become Easter. The economic systems that allow certain religions to flourish, exist and thrive are also necessary to consider as part of this, previously I mentioned the idea that the fall of polytheism might have been a more economic one, basically the same as why large corporations can take bigger hits that smaller ones. Also beyond that the incorporation thing some have argued might have happened in Christianity both early on (there is some discussion about John the Baptist and Jesus, though I am not inclined to argue that one) and later stuff like the Scandinavia/nordic countries already mentioned. Even more recently some of the things going on in various Asian/oriental countries is enough to raise an eyebrow.

There have however been many studies on various aspects of this, and it plays into a lot of other fields (security being a good one for me).

Anyway in psychology and sociology it is a massively complex problem (how the mind and groups work respectively) that you are ultimately trying to solve so it often makes sense to start at the edge cases and broken things.
For sociology then two good ones are tribal beliefs, even better if they have not had any/much contact with the outside world though those that have suffered missionary* and other groups are still valuable sources of data, and those that suffered in "reeducation" programs like those native Americans and native Australian aboriginals were subject to in comparatively recent times. It makes for some sad reading, however if the aim was to nerf tribes and levels of tribal beliefs then it did well there. The small tribal beliefs stuff, current and historical, gets interesting. It has been observed usually to start as natural forces and then get amalgamated into greater and greater concepts until you wind up with either a pantheon or a singular god, or some kind of death and rebirth metaphor (I will go with a Lion King quote here "When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connected in the great Circle of Life").
Psychology takes different approaches at times (though being a different science that is to be expected), we could talk about those with brain injuries that might gain or lose things which can be interesting but are not that useful for an introductory discussion and developmental psychology has a lot to say about this. The security thing I mentioned earlier has two related things in the lion behind the bush problem and the false pattern recognition problem, something you might be more familiar with if I said Skinner box as that concept crops up in games and the discussion thereof a lot in recent times. The lion behind the bush problem is that humans are superbly well adapted for living on a savannah some 10000 years ago, less good for massive city dwelling setups; the average person can on immediately count things up to three (see also why most writing systems, and certainly the successful ones, have letters/characters/runes/pictograms composed largely of less than three strokes), the concept of 10000 vs 1000000 is means very little to them intuitively, most people do not consider beyond about the horizon as a distance and the awareness shrinks rapidly before you even get to that, most people like themselves a lot, their immediate family and friends a slight bit less (or maybe more at times), their tribe or functional equivalent a great deal and beyond that it is a bit hazy).

*people like to look at the westboro types when they want to consider the nutzoid damaging set, however you really want to be looking at what various anti GMO and anti gay groups are doing in Africa, and they often claim a religious basis for their acts. http://www.alternet.org/story/15372...he_anti-gay_bills_sweeping_sub-saharan_africa has some more.

Developmental psychology then. Human rights setups will tend to favour those wishing to teach their kids what to believe and with a history like those reeducation things mentioned I can not blame them, though as mentioned I still find a lot of things done under the shield of such things to be horribly distasteful. Again more broken things are good to look at here so look for things where people grew up being taught to be racist, whether intentionally or by osmosis. In these sorts of discussions I prefer the racist thing to cult recruitment practices as I am not inclined to call all religions cults at all, however there are some serious overlaps at times. Or if we want to go to religions then see phrases like "the family that prays together, stays together" (though I might argue it is the opposite way around, mainly as the power of prayer is not something I like and when not careful it also leads to things like pray away the gay).

Religions as social and economic operations. 
I already mentioned the Jiyza tax that various Islam practising states levied on those that wanted to keep their religion and how it drove down belief rates there. Most here though are European and thus their baseline to compare things against is Christianity which says not a lot about economics beyond probably best not to be a church money changer and giving to those less fortunate is a good thing. You look at something like Islam and it has a pretty full economic system baked into it, a bit simplistic for my liking and not one I can get behind fully (though I can not expect much as 1500 years ago they did not have the maths and computing power that we have today) but if you have to pick one religion to base you system on then you could do far worse and I am not sure what the better options might be among the popular ones, and necessitates a different approach to things. The caste systems of various more eastern religions are also interesting, even better if you want to contrast it to feudal systems seen in parts of Europe. I say that though but churches invented some pretty good systems of economics ranging from the basic tithe (the accounting/recording of which provides lots of good information to this day) to the first traveller's cheques/quasi bank accounts for pilgrims. http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2011/08/we-are-knights-of-the-banking-table.html

Even without that though churches do somewhat well for meeting places and then as now success in work is still a good chunk of who you know and luck/meetings, with what you know often coming a distant third.

In psychology there is a concept called Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you have probably seen it before and you can see it again https://figures.boundless.com/29841/large/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.png
Like a lot of older psychology its usefulness is debated by some but it is not dismissed by any means and I find it useful here. On the bottom and thus the things that people are supposed to want to sort first of all includes food. Or if you prefer a truly hungry person will do a lot to sort that and if you are wandering around a hot desert like the middle east of the times a lot of religions cropped up then being hungry is a decent possibility, doubly so if you are poor. Being a hot desert and without much to preserve food then pork is a bad plan, however back to the needs pyramid a hungry person will do a lot... appeals to logic that eating suspect pork is not going to work as well as some kind of religious edict, one also enforced by society, that the sky fairy/fairies will not be happy with you eating it. Religion as law enforcement, especially when I do not have helicopters and planes to move my army and messages consist of carrier pigeon and hope or stick a dude on a horse and hope rather than speed of light anywhere in the world is not a bad thing either. Less cynically churches and religious organisations in general (right down to the tribal wiseman type setups) often did do a lot of what is now called public works (building roads, canals, draining marshes, running markets...) and a form of welfare (alms for the poor and all that, or back to Islam then it is baked right into it as a fundamental tenet), as well as the record keeping (records of births, deaths and marriages will tend to be church records of births, deaths and marriages after all). The hot desert no longer being a problem for pork is an interesting one and possibly a nice historical example of a legal concept at work -- law makers have a variety of goals, sometimes it is stemming a short term problem and laws are then enacted, altered and repealed (or not and trouble ensues) as such and other times they are fairly fundamental for the working of society and will be for as long as anybody can consider. While I am at it I do have to say I have to find what could almost be a strawman argument of "if I didn't have religion then I would be a bad dude" to be quite amusing, that or an indicator of some flavour of psycho or socio pathology.

To that end I would probably argue a combination of primitive psychology still being at play, upbringing, societal pressure/desire to join a group, all tempered by economics and a bit more historically then a type of law enforcement. Anyway this looks like it is turning into a wall of text so I will cut it off there.


----------



## Veho (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Christians are directly responsible for more rape, murder, misery and suffering than literally every single other invention or creation in the history of the human race.
> ...
> Christians are less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving than all other practitioners of all other faiths and spiritual practices.


I would like to see some numbers on that.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Veho said:


> I would like to see some numbers on that.



http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html

http://www.thetoptens.com/atrocities-committed-name-religion/

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/are-christians-more-violent-than-muslims/

http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
> 
> http://www.thetoptens.com/atrocities-committed-name-religion/


Going by the past you'd be correct to say that Christians would top that but now it's the extremist Muslims who're at it.

Crazy people and their insane beliefs.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Going by the past you'd be correct to say that Christians would top that but now it's the extremist Muslims who're at it.
> 
> Crazy people and their insane beliefs.



Muslims would need at least another thousand years to even approach a tenth of the murders committed by Christians, or in the name of the god of Abraham.


----------



## Attacker3 (Dec 10, 2015)

I believe there is a god somewhere, but we don't know who or what he or it is.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Muslims would need at least another thousand years to even approach a tenth of the murders committed by Christians, or in the name of the god of Abraham.


So you're saying that the countless deaths they've been doing along these years don't matter to you? This is like K/D on CoD for you?


----------



## Attacker3 (Dec 10, 2015)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> So you're saying that the countless deaths they've been doing along these years don't matter to you? This is like K/D on CoD for you?



No he's just saying that throughout history Christians have committed more acts of murder in the name of God than the Muslims. He's saying to not judge because Christians have done way more than Muslims in regards to murder in the name of God. Muslims are more peace-like than Christians.


----------



## Seita (Dec 10, 2015)

kristianity77 said:


> Religious man gets ill.
> 
> Religious man goes to doctor
> 
> ...



Being religious doesn't mean being passive and waiting for god to spoon-feed us.I think many people tend to think religion is absolute passivness and surrender like sheep waiting to be killed. That's not my belief,at least. And never have I heard a religious man ( of my religion) saying something as such.
In my opinion, belief and faith should lead to hard work and I thank God for I believe he created us with limitless capabilities and the intelligence to do much more than other beings can do.
Faith is action and belief. That's how I see it.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Attacker3 said:


> No he's just saying that throughout history Christians have committed more acts of murder in the name of God than the Muslims. He's saying to not judge because Christians have done way more than Muslims in regards to murder in the name of God. Muslims are more peace-like than Christians.



This. I have never been wronged by a Muslim. I have never suffered needlessly at the hands of a Jew. Only Christians have ever harmed me.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

Attacker3 said:


> No he's just saying that throughout history Christians have committed more acts of murder in the name of God than the Muslims. He's saying to not judge because Christians have done way more than Muslims in regards to murder in the name of God. Muslims are more peace-like than Christians.


If Muslims were really so peace-like then they wouldn't chant their god's name everytime they kill a person.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> If Muslims were really so peace-like then they wouldn't chant their god's name everytime they kill a person.



If Christians were really loving, forgiving individuals, they wouldn't hold a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other. Most of the murders in America are committed by Christians. This is easy to verify. If someone has a religion and is a prisoner who broke the law, the majority of prisoners in America are Christian. Apparently a close, personal relationship with Christ isn't enough to keep people from murdering and hurting others. But, it's cool. They can just ask to be forgiven. 

More people have been killed for not accepting Christ than all people killed by Muslim terrorists throughout the course of human history. It's not even a competition.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

This cannot end well.


----------



## insidexdeath (Dec 10, 2015)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> If Muslims were really so peace-like then they wouldn't chant their god's name everytime they kill a person.


I refused to be part of this thread until personal attacks started. While the people of ISIS could be Muslims or could be anything else trying to ruin the  image of other Muslims, but to be fair, you cannot blame Islam and Muslims based on what ISIS does. As a Muslim myself, nothing ISIS does actually represents the definition of Islam. I would suggest you actually try to read the Quran before judging. There are a bunch of English translated versions around the Internet.

PS. I refused to mention the amount of people Christians have killed back in history mainly because I do not believe religion in itself promotes violence, but how idiotic people do such acts in the name of religion even though it's not even true.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Religion is the single most harmful thing ever invented on this planet. Christianity, in particular, is the most wicked, vile, repulsive and evil religion ever invented.
> 
> Christians are directly responsible for more rape, murder, misery and suffering than literally every single other invention or creation in the history of the human race.
> 
> ...


It kinda sounds like you've become your own worst enemy, pal


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

insidexdeath said:


> I refused to be part of this thread until personal attacks started. While the people of ISIS could be Muslims or could be anything else trying to ruin the  image of other Muslims, but to be fair, you cannot blame Islam and Muslims based on what ISIS does. As a Muslim myself, nothing ISIS does actually represents the definition of Islam. I would suggest you actually try to read the Quran before judging. There are a bunch of English translated versions around the Internet.
> 
> PS. I refused to mention the amount of people Christians have killed back in history mainly because I do not believe religion in itself promotes violence, but how idiotic people do such acts in the name of religion even though it's not even true.




The concept that "religion" itself -whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or any other faith- is responsible for "all the atrocities" caused by man? That is a fundamental oversimplification of a vast swath of human history- a human history that was, is, and still is, violent at its core. In fact, the early adherents of Christianity itself, from Jesus to the apostles, were happenstance victims of the violent era in which they lived, in which death could be administered for something as innocuous as offending a king.

It's all about *power, control, influence and money*, and it always has been. The Roman Empire killed all the Christians they could find- until the power spectrum changed and it became the "Holy Roman" Empire. Islam covered a wide swath of the planet until the Ottoman Empire fell and two World Wars threw the planet into chaos. Muslims, Christians- even Buddhists are all individually guilty of atrocities and murder "in the name" of whatever faith it is that they have followed. What we can see if we look into it all is that politics, power and the lusting after of said power are always at the heart of things.

*Militancy of any kind doesn't need a religion*- hell, one look at Communism's short, bloody, murderous history is enough to demonstrate that.

A man who lusts for power can take a religion and twist its interpretation to fit his own lusts. That does not mean the religion itself is "bad". It's just the natural human way.

Faith and religion by themselves are simply concepts. It's how they are used that defines a person.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It kinda sounds like you've become your own worst enemy, pal



Atheism is no more a religion than 'bald' is a hair color. You can stack up every single person killed by an atheist, in the name of "atheism" throughout history and compare it to a single century of Christianity, and the Christians would have a kill count at least ten thousand times higher. There's no way around it. You can't argue with historical fact. 

Also, I'm not your pal, guy.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It kinda sounds like you've become your own worst enemy, pal



I agree.

A closed mind is the enemy of reason.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Atheism is no more a religion than 'bald' is a hair color. You can stack up every single person killed by an atheist, in the name of "atheism" throughout history and compare it to a single century of Christianity, and the Christians would have a kill count at least ten thousand times higher. There's no way around it. You can't argue with historical fact.
> 
> Also, I'm not your pal, guy.


Atheists are people without religious labels but possibly still troublemakers so even them aren't on the clear.


----------



## BurningDesire (Dec 10, 2015)

*Grabs popcorn*


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Religion is the single most harmful thing ever invented on this planet. Christianity, in particular, is the most wicked, vile, repulsive and evil religion ever invented.



I believe, like an appendix, religion allowed us to progress. It has since been corrupted.



Neo Draven said:


> I am a militant atheist, actively working to abolish organized religion, starting with the most awful and horrible religion of them all.
> 
> I consider every single Christian on the planet to be beneath the worst atheist in history. Christians are less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving than all other practitioners of all other faiths and spiritual practices.



From the sounds of it, you're anti-christian first and atheist second. Atheist is the belief in no supreme being, why do you need to attack one group for their belief in a god?

The ironic thing is I can replace 'Christian' with 'non-believer' or 'infidel', in your statements, and you would sound like an evangelical or a Muslim extremist.

Shouldn't the point of atheism be to show the world there is a different way? The last thing society needs is more hate.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

BurningDesire said:


> *Grabs popcorn*



Ooh, is it buttery? I want some too!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> Shouldn't the point of atheism be to show the world there is a different way? The last thing we need a is another hate monger.


Or any religion, for that matter


----------



## BurningDesire (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> Ooh, is it buttery? I want some too!


Nope. It is chocolate covered.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 10, 2015)

insidexdeath said:


> I refused to be part of this thread until personal attacks started. While the people of ISIS could be Muslims or could be anything else trying to ruin the  image of other Muslims, but to be fair, you cannot blame Islam and Muslims based on what ISIS does. As a Muslim myself, nothing ISIS does actually represents the definition of Islam. I would suggest you actually try to read the Quran before judging. There are a bunch of English translated versions around the Internet.
> 
> PS. I refused to mention the amount of people Christians have killed back in history mainly because I do not believe religion in itself promotes violence, but how idiotic people do such acts in the name of religion even though it's not even true.


Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I intend on reading it to see how authentic they are with their actions but for now it's on hold.

P.S. Islam being the peaceful religion that it supposedly is, should not force women to cover their heads and even their faces (as well as completely other parts of their body). It's a sexist move on which women have no control over since men are in charge of said actions. Unfortunately feminists have not decided to protest against this sexism of this religion but can't blame them. They'd rather be alive.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

BurningDesire said:


> Nope. It is chocolate covered.


----------



## Woody8275 (Dec 10, 2015)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I intend on reading it to see how authentic they are with their actions but for now it's on hold.
> 
> P.S. Islam being the peaceful religion that it supposedly is, should not force women to cover their heads and even their faces (as well as completely other parts of their body). It's a sexist move on which women have no control over since men are in charge of said actions. Unfortunately feminists have not decided to protest against this sexism of this religion but can't blame them. They'd rather be alive.


Nearly all Muslim women choose to cover their hair of their own free will and Islam does not force women to cover their faces as they can show their face if they want but some choose not to
PS: Although I dont really agree with the Saudis since their rules are too extreme in some cases


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

Ism01 said:


> Nearly all Muslim women choose to cover their hair of their own free will and Islam does not force women to cover their faces as they can show their face if they want but some choose not to


Yeah, I'd like to second this, it is highly suggested but the Qura'an technically does not require them to cover their head and actually states that if it endangers their life then they should not


----------



## gbaboy123 (Dec 10, 2015)

I do believe in God, i am a christian but sometimes things get rough and is hard to believe but when i pray it feels different and good, so my life may feel very empty sometimes but when i pray it feels like he is there for you. cheers


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Muslims would need at least another thousand years to even approach a tenth of the murders committed by Christians, or in the name of the god of Abraham.


Err isn't Islam one of the traditional three and present big three Abrahamic religions?


----------



## BurningDesire (Dec 10, 2015)

gbaboy123 said:


> I do believe in God, i am a christian but sometimes things get rough and is hard to believe but when i pray it feels different and good, so my life may feel very empty sometimes but when i pray it feels like he is there for you. cheers


I use to feel like that to. Since I started highschool it feels like he has deserted me though. Which is why I do not believe anymore


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Err isn't Islam one of the traditional three and present big three Abrahamic religions?



Yes, yes it is.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Dec 10, 2015)

BurningDesire said:


> I use to feel like that to. Since I started highschool it feels like he has deserted me though. Which is why I do not believe anymore


Yeah i know and it feels bad but i think what we have to do is to wait and believe in him, cheers


----------



## Veho (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html





> Though the numbers are not clear, what is obvious is that Islam is the greatest murder machine in history bar none, possibly exceeding 250 million dead. Possibly one-third to one-half or more of all those killed by war or slavery in history can be traced to Islam; and this is just a cursory examination.



You contradict yourself with your very first source. 

EDIT: And you didn't touch on the "less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving" part. I'm not going to ask for numbers here, but it would be nice if you would stop stating your unsubstantiated beliefs as absolute fact.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 10, 2015)

From my non-religious perspective, beyond the conversation of the effects of being raised in a religious culture, it would seem that religion merely allows people to act in a way they'd like to act. An individual's god tends to always see the world as they personally see it. If a good person wants to act in a kind way, they will use the religious tools given to them to justify it. If they are prejudice in some way, they will also use these religious tools to justify their way of thinking. If they consider themselves part of a like-minded group of religious folk, and the religious folk say something is justified by that shared religion, they will most likely adapt that as true. If that "truth" is questioned, they will fight as fiercely as possible to defend it because it is not the truth that matters to them; it is the group and sense of personal identity that is being defended.

This happens in non-religious settings as well ("people who play nintendo games are babies lololol") for the exact same reasons. Religion, however, can allow for such large morally bereft and deadly consequences, it is really difficult to support it, even though there are some really awesome people that use it to justify their goodness. Being non-religious can have the same trappings, however. We're still human, after all, and we all have gaps in our abilities to think rationally. Especially if we're not trained to think rationally and critically. But it is important to note that, outside of religion and spirituality, there seems to be more ability to use reason as a basis for understanding the world than when it comes to religion/spirituality and their reliance on personal belief as fact.

/rambling


----------



## Minox (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm not sure if I believe in the existence of a god or not. If there is one/(several?) then that would be just fine, but if not then that would also be just fine. I don't really feel like wasting too much time thinking about such hard-to-prove-ifs.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

If there is a God
Does he dream?
Does he think about 
The lint between his toes
As I do?
If there is a God
Does he watch YouTube
And eat Chocolate Buttered Popcorn
From a JPG that he found
If there is a God
Does he listen to our cries
And chuckle just a little
As one by one we die?
If there is a God
Such an awesome eternal force
I wonder...
Does he look
Even a little...
Like Bortz?


----------



## DaFixer (Dec 10, 2015)

I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 10, 2015)

Veho said:


> I would like to see some numbers on that.


I am sorry to say out of my mouth but I think this number is or will be outnumbered by radical Muslims.



Ism01 said:


> Nearly all Muslim women choose to cover their hair of their own free will and Islam does not force women to cover their faces as they can show their face if they want but some choose not to
> PS: Although I dont really agree with the Saudis since their rules are too extreme in some cases



Yep, Barring Saudi's many in my region don't prefer to wear 'hijab' even in public, it is just personal interpretation imo, and no one forces them too as well! Even no where in Islamic sources it is written to forcefully cover women's hair only to hide exaggeration of body parts especially the special ones you know . I myself not wear headscarf occasionally just caps when I feel like following religion more strictly.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, I'd like to second this, it is highly suggested but the Qura'an technically does not require them to cover their head and actually states that if it endangers their life then they should not



Little Mosque on the Prairie dealt with this a little bit. http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/

Little Mosque explains a lot of Muslim principles, it also deals with Catholicism, and it's all done in a pretty humorous way.



Muffins said:


> This cannot end well.



Read between the 'extremes'. There's a lot of decent discussion happening here.


----------



## Lord M (Dec 10, 2015)

I only believe in the Force... but im not a Jedi (yet).


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

Flame said:


> I can prove they is no God.
> 
> just say.
> 
> ...



You didn't give a time for that to happen. When you die, does that prove there is a god? What if you die of a heart attack at 32?

And, even if you give a specific time, the theory of relativity states that time may pass differently for you.

What if the god doesn't listen to non-believers, or needs an intermediary?

tl;dr: Simple logic is rarely the answer to a complex question.


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 10, 2015)

@NeoDraven

I read your posts and you made a lot of good points, but their are a few things I want to say. "Christians are less intelligent" - largely true, but consider religious people are largely less intelligent than non religious people are. Granted in this it could be a bit biased in that perhaps the most religious countries (Muslim or Christian) also deal with worse education and poverty while less religious countries are generally more developed and better places overall. Although most organized religion also has felt historically knowledge is a threat to their society and thus have tried to stop it. This correlates well with the scientifically impossible dogma which said religions push such as the literal virgin birth. The question I assume is whether or not one can be religious and intelligent? I feel the answer to that depends how one views such a religion and how it applies to his own life. For this i feel the need to speak of Bishop John Spong a retired Episcopal Church USA bishop who has been quite controversial in his speakings for example, consider his 12 points (look them up if you want they are kinda interesting) in how Christianity needs to abandon many of its true nonsense such as the Virgin birth (which is debatable since many scripts translate better as a young woman than a virgin). Personally, I guess that faith does not make one less intelligent, but the moronic faith beliefs that are in the religious beliefs (lets not forget non Abrahamic faiths are a bit odd in claims also). Ultimately the goal should be to move toward a more realistic faith as  Bishop Spong said



FAST6191 said:


> Err isn't Islam one of the traditional three and present big three Abrahamic religions?




Of course it is but lets not forget the many OTHER off shoots which are lesser known such as Bahai faith and the fact that most of them have evolved very much since their supposed founding such as Judaism which was largely polytheistic, Christianity which moved from the Paul and Disciple followers to a more united church which was greatly different, and then Islamic branches.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 10, 2015)

Well this thread had a good run before it got hijacked.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> I believe, like an appendix, religion allowed us to progress. It has since been corrupted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am anti-religion, first and foremost. I simply choose to go after the biggest, meanest, nastiest dog in the pack.

Righteous hate is not evil. There is no wrong in hating that which is wicked and harmful. Do you hate Nazis? I hate Christians. No difference.

Well, that's not true. Christians have killed a thousand times more people than the Nazis ever did. Even Nazis are more righteous than Christians.

If you think I'm joking or speaking hyperbole, I am not. I mean every word I say, and better, I can prove it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Veho said:


> You contradict yourself with your very first source.
> 
> EDIT: And you didn't touch on the "less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving" part. I'm not going to ask for numbers here, but it would be nice if you would stop stating your unsubstantiated beliefs as absolute fact.



Do you want me to cite studies PROVING Christians are less intelligent than atheists?

Very well. I expect you to accept the outcome.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

You're mad, and I LOVE it. Stay mad.

Here's more:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...e-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727


----------



## Veho (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Do you want me to cite studies PROVING Christians are less intelligent than atheists?


No, because that's not what your original post said. Don't try to weasel your way out of your own bullshit by moving goalposts. 




Neo Draven said:


> You're mad, and I LOVE it. Stay mad.


Projecting much?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Veho said:


> No, because that's not what your original post said. Don't try to weasel your way out of your own bullshit by moving goalposts.
> 
> 
> 
> Projecting much?



LOL. Son, you couldn't make me mad. You aren't a peer of mine. You aren't on my level. A lion doesn't care what the sheep thinks. 

You said, and I quote:

"And you didn't touch on the "less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving" part. I'm not going to ask for numbers here, but it would be nice if you would stop stating your unsubstantiated beliefs as absolute fact."

My original post is exactly what I just proved, kiddo. Christians ARE less intelligent than atheists, and I have proven it.


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> LOL. Son, you couldn't make me mad. You aren't a peer of mine. You aren't on my level. A lion doesn't care what the sheep thinks.
> 
> My original post is exactly what I just proved, kiddo. Christians ARE less intelligent than atheists, and I have proven it.
> 
> View attachment 31945


Well as I said in my post religious peole are Less intelligence. To further that I bet ii ff you would look at it nominl and lapsed Christians would be active and devoted Christians in intelligence and I bet that  is how it is for all religons


----------



## mustafag32g (Dec 10, 2015)

Do not imagine god as a human. He is no human so you can not throw all kinds of human chracteristics at him.

He is the most mercy the most high and has the power over all things. Any of you even study ? Clearly none of you have any insight into the wonderful and extraordinary complex biological mechanisms that happen constantly in our body! And most important of all everything in this world both in universe and in body happen in a beautiful order. The moon and planets orbit in a specific order! Everything is perfect!

Do not come and tell me that no is behind all of this :// Refusing this evidence in front of our eyes is just plain arrogance, excuse my language.

"If god exists then why does he not end poverty and war? Why did my dad die?" I hear these a lot, but why not acknowledge that we are placed on this world as a test, to see if we do good and obey god.

This is even known in Bible, but also the holy quran:

Most exalted is the One in whose hands is all kingship and He is capable of all things. The One who created death and life that He may test you regarding who will do better works. He is the Dignified, the Forgiving." 67:1-2 quran.

*And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient quran *
*2:155*

*We shall all taste death at a time. This is how it is, and "And indeed the Hereafter is better for you than the present" as said in the holy quran :-)*


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

mustafag32g said:


> Do not imagine god as a human. He is no human so you can not throw all kinds of human chracteristics at him.
> 
> He is the most mercy the most high and has the power over all things. Any of you even study ? Clearly none of you have any insight into the wonderful and extraordinary complex biological mechanisms that happen constantly! And most important of all everything in this world both in universe and in body happen in a beautiful order. The moon and planets orbit in a specific order! Everything is perfect!
> 
> ...



You can't place your god outside of mortal ken and then pretend we were created after that god's image. 

If your god doesn't even meet the human standard of 'good', then why do you worship that god? 

Complex claims require complex proof. Prodigious complexity, to borrow a phrase from Richard Dawkins, requires prodigious evidence. Just because something is complicated doesn't mean it is godly. 

Isaiah 45:7. Your god invented evil, according to the Bible. That's why humans suffer. Because your god wanted it this way. 

Finally, the only thing that suggests that the Bible is holy, or the Quran is holy, or the Talmud, or the Kaballah or the Torah or ANY religious text... is that same text, itself. By this rationale, you should believe in Lord Voldemort, simply because there's a book that says he is real.


----------



## Veho (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> You aren't a peer of mine. You aren't on my level.


Oh, I agree completely. 




Neo Draven said:


> My original post is exactly what I just proved, kiddo. Christians ARE less intelligent than atheists, and I have proven it.





> Christians are less intelligent, less compassionate, less decent and less loving _than all other practitioners of all other faiths and spiritual practices_.



Now put that goalpost back where you found it and try again.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Veho said:


> Oh, I agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You want me to prove that Christians are less compassionate? So, having the highest murder count out of any group in human history isn't good enough for you?

Okay, we'll try this another way. Let us first define and agree upon the concepts and constructs of 'good' and 'evil'. No debate can move forward if all parties do not agree on terms and definitions.

I define 'good' and 'evil' in their most basic natures. Both require sentience/consciousness/awareness. The inanimate cannot be good or evil, do good or evil, nor have good or evil done unto it. Those concepts only apply to organic, biological, living, conscious creatures.

From that basis, action, thought or deed is required to move the needle. All life begins in a state of true neutrality. Once something acts, its actions will impact other creatures. If the actions of a creature are selfless, that is 'good'. If the actions of a creature are 'selfish', that is evil.

Do we agree on definitions? I will continue as if we do, with the provision that I reserve the right to rebut any counter you offer to my definitions.

Compassion is the virtue of caring about others outside of onesself. But, the Christian religion is a very highly personal religion. Its entire basis is built around "a close, PERSONAL relationship with Christ". Not a communal relationship. Your walk with your god is a solo journey, even if you're on the same path as other people.

Christianity has built into it an Easy Mode button. Jesus. You don't have to live a life of compassion whatsoever. All you have to do is accept a Mystical Jewish Zombie who had a foot fetish and twelve uncommitted bromance as your Imaginary Psychic Friend.

I point to the thieves on the cross next to Jesus. They had lived lives of sin. No backstory was provided for them. Just that they were condemned to die for thievery. All they had to do to make it into Heaven was accept Christ as they died.

There is no compassion in being a selfish individual who is more concerned with falsely asking for forgiveness for their own intentional deeds, assured in their redemption and salvation.

I know, I know; faith without works is dead. Doesn't matter. Luke 12:10 shows the only unforgivable sin. According to Christian doctrine, you CAN go to Heaven, even if you are fully and wholly evil, as long as you repent before dying.

Christians who practice this philosophy have a degree of separation from their own evil and their own "sins" inflicted on others. Your Christ is taking all your licks for you, so you never actually have to be decent.

Christianity is the easy way out. A coward's reward for not living a life of service to your fellow man.

EDIT - For the record, at no time during this entire discussion have I been even slightly irritated, much less angry. This is my absolute favorite topic to debate. I don't care if I win or lose. I just love to argue religion and philosophy. Just so that is established.


----------



## Exavold (Dec 10, 2015)

I believe in a creator but not in Jesus.

I also believe that this creator is evil.

To be exact , i feel like a lot of the things we are told / we know about Jesus are made up, there is just no or not enough evidence.

I am pretty much atheist.

(Won't comment any further)


----------



## chavosaur (Dec 10, 2015)

In my opinion, I have always found religion to be an admission of fear of the unknown in most ways.

I don't really believe in God because the concept of him seems too utterly fantastic, dream-like, and impossible to say the least. We discredit fantasy and fairy tails as stories and works of fiction when stories of similar merit are the basis of belief and way of life for some people.

I refuse to tell anyone they're wrong because, well hell, I could very well be wrong. But considering the world I've grown up in, a place of harship, hard fact, mystery, science, and wondrous explanation, I can't bring myself to believe in what I consider a fairy tale.

I've always been of the mind that you should make the most of what you were given. Live by your own rules, your own sound mind, and be a leader, not a sheep. Carve your own destiny and refuse to walk on the set path that fantasy would have you be locked to.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

cdoty said:


> Read between the 'extremes'. There's a lot of decent discussion happening here.



Unfortunately, with a certain individual here who seems to be simply posting for the sake of trying to annoy others (who's name I shall refrain from mentioning), it's a bit like trying to have a conversation in a room with a fellow walking around singing the Teletubbies theme on a megaphone. You might be able to get in a word or two, but it's drowned out by so much _ludicrous bullshit_ that it's absolutely impossible to have a proper discussion.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> Unfortunately, with a certain individual here who seems to be simply posting for the sake of trying to annoy others (who I shall refrain from mentioning), it's a bit like trying to have a conversation in a room with a fellow walking around singing the Teletubbies theme on a megaphone. You might be able to get in a word or two, but it's drowned out by so much _ludicrous bullshit_ that it's absolutely impossible to have a proper discussion.



You NEED me to only be posting to annoy others, to rationalize a way to dismiss me, Muffins. That is an ad hominem. I understand, though. You can't confront my argument. All that's left is my character or my intentions. Your comment contributed nothing to this discussion. You simply wanted to issue a thinly veiled ad hominem. 

Please show me a single thing I said that was bullshit. You're the one talking shit. Back it up. Or, admit that you are just fannyharmed because the truth hurts.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

You think I named you, yet in reality you outed yourself with that. 

I deliberately withheld the name to see w_ho was posting soley for the sake of being an asshole to others.

I posted, and then simply waited.
_
I have no need to "dismiss" anyone. I have no need for "argument". My belief system is that faith in itself, whatever that belief system, is a conduit for action upon that faith, internalizing the need for a person to act upon their inner instincts. In a nutshell- I've never said any faith, including athiesm, is more or less valid than any other, because religion itself is simply a template upon which to project.

My personal belief? Labeling an entire religion, group, country, ethnicity or gender and assigning them a "this person is smarter" or "this person is not smarter" tag based upon that is *FUCKING STUPID* and anyone who says it is a _complete and utter moron.
_


----------



## insidexdeath (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> The concept that "religion" itself -whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or any other faith- is responsible for "all the atrocities" caused by man? That is a fundamental oversimplification of a vast swath of human history- a human history that was, is, and still is, violent at its core. In fact, the early adherents of Christianity itself, from Jesus to the apostles, were happenstance victims of the violent era in which they lived, in which death could be administered for something as innocuous as offending a king.
> 
> It's all about *power, control, influence and money*, and it always has been. The Roman Empire killed all the Christians they could find- until the power spectrum changed and it became the "Holy Roman" Empire. Islam covered a wide swath of the planet until the Ottoman Empire fell and two World Wars threw the planet into chaos. Muslims, Christians- even Buddhists are all individually guilty of atrocities and murder "in the name" of whatever faith it is that they have followed. What we can see if we look into it all is that politics, power and the lusting after of said power are always at the heart of things.
> 
> ...



+1 to that. This is exactly the point I am trying to reach, but was not able to express it properly. I will never blame religion, I will always blame the people themselves for their actions.



Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I intend on reading it to see how authentic they are with their actions but for now it's on hold.
> 
> P.S. Islam being the peaceful religion that it supposedly is, should not force women to cover their heads and even their faces (as well as completely other parts of their body). It's a sexist move on which women have no control over since men are in charge of said actions. Unfortunately feminists have not decided to protest against this sexism of this religion but can't blame them. They'd rather be alive.



You are doing it again, by just mentioning things you are probably hearing from other people or being fed by the media and mentioning it as a fact. In Islam, you have 5 pillars you must do regardless of your gender. Professing your faith, praying 5 times a day, fasting during the month of Ramadan, doing the pilgrim in Mecca, and giving to charity. Women who choose to cover themselves is entirely their choice. Yes it is preferred in Islam for a woman to cover herself from men, but that is not necessarily sexist.

Have you heard of the Libyan American Noor Tagouri whom she also covers her hair yet she manages to practice her everyday activities/work? Go check her vlogs and judge for yourself. Does she look like she's being forced to cover her hair?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> You think I named you, yet in reality you outed yourself with that.
> 
> I deliberately withheld the name to see w_ho was posting soley for the sake of being an asshole to others.
> 
> ...



You were obviously referring to me. You aren't going to catch me on an "AH HA!" moment when I call you out for being painfully transparent. Now you're just being disingenuous. Come on, meow.

A grown adult who fights to defend his belief in an imaginary friend would be considered unintelligent, gullible, naive, ignorant, oblivious, or a pleasant combination of all of them. I stand by my word, and the studies done on the subject back me up.

Try harder. Try again.


----------



## CheatFreak47 (Dec 10, 2015)

Written without reading any of the responses in the thread, just as a reply to the original post.

I find that typically people use god/gods as the explanation we use for things which we don't understand throughout history. Many old religions fall as time goes on as we learn more about the world around us and progress as a species.

I find that as people, we like to have answers, because answers give us peace of mind. In my mind though, I would rather believe there simply aren't satisfying answers to some questions then believe a falsehood because it provides comfort. Even if we, knowing what we do know about the world, physics, science, mathematics, can propose possible explanations for some of life's more intricate questions, like the very way everything came to be, in the face of that I ask: What is the point?

I'd rather concern myself with questions that actually make some real difference to me, like what I'm eating for dinner later, or what video game I should spend my time on next. I refuse to waste time worry about these things, I'd rather be playing video games.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

"You were obviously referring to me" he says. 

And where is your proof on that?

Just because you've got a guilty conscience now, that you were outed as someone who is simply trying to aggravate others in the topic and now denies it because you look incredibly foolish, does not absolve you of that.

You're a troll, and you've been by your own admission now trolling the topic the entire time.

Oh, you wanted an "Ah-ha" moment?


----------



## cdoty (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I am anti-religion, first and foremost. I simply choose to go after the biggest, meanest, nastiest dog in the pack.



If your mission is to convince people to change their ways, you might want to consider a different strategy. I can't recall an atheist ever saying they became atheist because someone bashed them because of their religious beliefs. This hasn't worked since the Inquisition, and I'm pretty sure you don't have the resources to conduct an anti-christian Inquisition.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> "You were obviously referring to me" he says.
> 
> And where is your proof on that?
> 
> ...




No guilty conscience. You are simply frantic to try to get other people to believe you were referring to anyone else BUT me. Context and precedent factor in. I was one of the only people you had previously addressed directly prior to making that comment. You aren't fooling anyone, and you can't backpedal when you left a paper trail for everyone to follow.

Where in ANY OF THIS did I "by my own admission" confess to trolling? Not one word I've posted here has been to troll anyone. You need to find a more current buzzword. "Troll" is so 2014. We're all about microaggressions and staying PC, bruh. I am brave and elegant. 

Only a coward doesn't stand by his word. You were just too scared and too passive-aggressive to confront me head-on, so you intentionally constructed that post to try to "trap someone". Except there was no "someone". Please, kid. Go play. The adults are talking.



cdoty said:


> If your mission is to convince people to change their ways, you might want to consider a different strategy. I can't recall an atheist ever saying they became atheist because someone bashed them because of their religious beliefs. This hasn't worked since the Inquisition, and I'm pretty sure you don't have the resources to conduct an anti-christian Inquisition.



Flies and vinegar. I understand your argument on this. But, I am not trying to convince anyone to convert faiths or abandon their beliefs or practices. This is an opinion thread, not a platform for my own proselytization. I am not preaching, I am opining and providing historical basis for my own personal militant opposition to organized religion. Major difference.

I don't care if people agree or disagree with me. At least, though, everyone here knows where I stand, so they have the ability to honestly disagree or agree with what I am saying. I am cool with that. As long as you know why I believe what I believe, my goal is accomplished.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 10, 2015)

Wow.. most people here blame God because of bad things on Earth ? Bible did say why God allowed it because of Satan test against God. God himself promised one day will cleansed the WICKED from this Earth. Just saying.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

I would say the "frantic" one is the person desperately typing out bunches of paragraphs trying to convince the others in the thread he's not trolling when *he was the only one *to immediately respond to the bait.

You're a troll, and like I said before- not a very good one, given how transparent you are.

I've already stated before that I have no dog in any fight between any religion or nonreligion. I simply think that *people who label others are fucking stupid as hell.*


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Wow.. most people here blame God because of bad things on Earth ? Bible did say why God allowed it because of Satan test against God. God himself promised one day will cleansed the WICKED from this Earth. Just saying.



That is not true at all.

Isaiah 45:7. Your god didn't introduce evil to the world through Lucifer. Your god invented evil and is the most evil thing in the universe. HAS to be, to match the definition of the god of Abraham as being "that which there can be nothing greater imagined".

Also, you must not have read Genesis. The Ark of the Covenant was a promise from your god to mankind that he would never flood the world again to "cleanse the wicked from the Earth".

Then again, that particular part of the Bible undoes your god entirely. A perfect being cannot make mistakes. A perfect entity cannot feel regret or remorse. That which is perfect cannot learn a lesson. But, in the Bible, it says your god "regretted making humans". This means your god cannot be a god. And we are still in the Book of Genesis. It only gets worse from here.




Muffins said:


> I would say the "frantic" one is the person desperately typing out bunches of paragraphs trying to convince the others in the thread he's not trolling when *he was the only one *to immediately respond to the bait.
> 
> You're a troll, and like I said before- not a very good one, given how transparent you are.
> 
> I've already stated before that I have no dog in any fight between any religion or nonreligion. I simply think that *people who label others are fucking stupid as hell.*



Man, you're so desperate to get an Atta Boy for your fierce White Knighting efforts, here. You WANT and NEED me to be a troll. If I am not trolling and my argument is sincere, then you have to accept that you can't even beat a troll in a religious debate. Sucks to be you. 

You just admitted that you were "baiting" people on this thread. Who's the troll now, buddeh? Tee hee. 

Do you need a tissue?


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

There he goes again.


----------



## mightymuffy (Dec 10, 2015)

God? Hmmm.....

I _don't_ believe in the Big Bang Theory for a second, or the evolution bollocks: 'as fish some of us got bored of being underwater so headed for land' - fukk off with that nonsense 
I'd certainly lean more towards there being a God, but frankly I'm thinking more like we're all part of some long forgotten test of some alien beings, the files of which probably fallen down the back of the kitchen drawer or something! 

Our own arrogance leads us to believe the things we can't understand to be automatically false in my opinion - the Universe for instance always being here sounds outlandish to us, but how could it be otherwise? Mind Blown! etc  - perhaps these questions are just too much for our comparatively[?] tiny little minds to fathom out....

One thing's for sure, if my mum is right, there is a God, therefore a heaven and a hell, then I'm in deep shit when I croak it, so better party harder while I can!


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

> Betcha can't eat just one.



I don't even know where you're getting your little victory dance from. I don't give a shit about your actual viewpoint, or whether or not you eventually come around to the fact that you've been trolling.

Here's the skinny, since you can't seem to get it through your head.

You collectively insulted every single religious person on the planet, billions and billions of them, including Darwin himself, and of course the entire collective ancient works of Islam, which brought us things like the fucking _concept of zero itself.

You think you're a very smart person, but you're not. 

I don't know how to put it any other way without getting the mods mad._


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 10, 2015)

mightymuffy said:


> 'as fish some of us got bored of being underwater so headed for land' - fukk off with that nonsense


Not quite how it works. Or anywhere remotely how it works. Or on the same planet of how that works. Or the same universe. Or the same conceivable reality.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

I've got my reasons to believe that there's no god
and if there is he is a fucking sadistic prick


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> I don't even know where you're getting your little victory dance from. I don't give a shit about your actual viewpoint, or whether or not you eventually come around to the fact that you've been trolling.
> 
> Here's the skinny, since you can't seem to get it through your head.
> 
> ...



You can keep saying I am a troll and that I am trolling all you like. It still doesn't change the fact that nothing I have said was trolling. 

Of course I insulted every religious person on the planet. I made no bones about that. But, a general statement of disapproval is STILL not a personal attack. See, a personal attack is from one person to another. A general group is not a person. Are we learning anything today? 

Don't worry. There won't be a quiz. I'm just trolling, according to you. A pity you cannot confront my arguments with the same vigor you do my character and intentions. You'll get there one day, champ.

#ibelieveinyou


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

In fact, _everything _you've said has been trolling.

Any mod worth their salt would have banned your sorry ass pages ago.


----------



## mustafag32g (Dec 10, 2015)

Go look up pharaohs body, despite the fact that he died thousands of years ago his body is still preserved very well and it was evne found in the sea!! Fish could easily have eaten the body!! It is mentioned in the quran:


We brought the tribe of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh and his troops pursued them out of tyranny and enmity. Then, when he was on the point of drowning, he [Pharaoh] said: "I believe that there is no god but Him in Whom the tribe of Israel believes. I am one of the Muslims." (Qur'an, 10:90)

"What, now! When previously you rebelled and were one of the corrupters? _Today we will preserve your body so you can be a Sign for people who come after you_. Surely many people are heedless of Our Signs.

Read about the body of pharaoh in google! You will be astonished! 

Now the question! How can an illeterate man Muhammad (pbuh) have all of this knowledge and it was even before his time, if it isn't the words of god himself!?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> In fact, _everything _you've said has been trolling.
> 
> Any mod worth their salt would have banned your sorry ass pages ago.



I have read the TOS. I have yet to personally attack anyone. The only less-than-courteous responses from me have been to respond to someone directly insulting me. Which would be YOU.

When I do break one of the rules, please mark my post for moderation. I will take my punishment with good grace.

You are getting all up in your feels. I wish you knew how much delight that brings me. I've remained calm and smiling this entire time. As I said before, I LOVE debating religion. 

Unfortunately, you have nothing to offer to this debate. The only contributions from you have been to whinge about the hateboner for me that you're suffering. 

I invite you to return to the topic of discussion, and come after my points, not my personality. You can do this.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

My favourite part of this whole thread is some people going all crazy over it


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

https://gbatemp.net/help/terms

"Disparaging remarks towards others about race, gender, origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, personal politics and religion will NOT be tolerated and will most likely be removed by staff. The poster will then be warned, suspended or banned (see the Warnings section below for more information on warnings)."


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> https://gbatemp.net/help/terms
> 
> "Disparaging remarks towards others about race, gender, origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, personal politics and religion will NOT be tolerated and will most likely be removed by staff. The poster will then be warned, suspended or banned (see the Warnings section below for more information on warnings)."


... GG mate GG


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> In fact, _everything _you've said has been trolling.
> 
> Any mod worth their salt would have banned your sorry ass pages ago.


Just leave him alone, report him and move on. If you don't fuel his flame he can't continue trolling. As you said, a mod will likely clean up his posts before long


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Just leave him alone, report him and move on. If you don't fuel his flame he can't continue trolling. As you said, a mod will likely clean up his posts before long



Well said, good sir.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Muffins said:


> https://gbatemp.net/help/terms
> 
> "Disparaging remarks towards others about race, gender, origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, personal politics and religion will NOT be tolerated and will most likely be removed by staff. The poster will then be warned, suspended or banned (see the Warnings section below for more information on warnings)."



Except that I STILL have not attacked anyone personally. The entire thread's purpose is to ask Tempers about their religious beliefs. I provided mine.

When I directly attack someone, THEN you can cry that the fuse is lit on your manpon.

"TOWARDS OTHERS" means that there was a specific target. Making a GENERAL STATEMENT about people participating in a certain philosophy is STILL not "towards others".

I know it must be frustrating for you to have failed so catastrophically. Don't worry. You're still PC, bruh. ♫Woo-Woo♫!

I messaged you offline. Respond if you would like to continue this discussion with me. I won't be dignifying anything else you say with a response. You may have the last word, publicly.


----------



## mightymuffy (Dec 10, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> Not quite how it works. Or anywhere remotely how it works. Or on the same planet of how that works. Or the same universe. Or the same conceivable reality.


Take it you're big on the evolution thing then..... You're right that's not quite how it 'works' at all: perhaps whoever 'thought' that up knew that, so hey, let's spread the process over millions of years and create a biblical (oo-er, dodgy wording right there, sorry peeps!  ) length, eloquent breakdown of said process to make it totally conceivable! Read like that, it can make sense I'm sure.... - 'Twas a second, mainly piss-taking jab at the the whole big bang theory anyway - again I shall break it down from Massive read into short-gist, suitable-for-messageboard-sentence  : 'First there was nothing. Then there was a big bang. And the universe happened'. 

Nope, don't believe it. But, y'know, jus' my opinion anyway! Just like your own view is yours.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

mightymuffy said:


> Take it you're big on the evolution thing then..... You're right that's not quite how it 'works' at all: perhaps whoever 'thought' that up knew that, so hey, let's spread the process over millions of years and create a biblical (oo-er, dodgy wording right there, sorry peeps!  ) length, eloquent breakdown of said process to make it totally conceivable! Read like that, it can make sense I'm sure.... - 'Twas a second, mainly piss-taking jab at the the whole big bang theory anyway - again I shall break it down from Massive read into short-gist, suitable-for-messageboard-sentence  : 'First there was nothing. Then there was a big bang. And the universe happened'.
> 
> Nope, don't believe it. But, y'know, jus' my opinion anyway! Just like your own view is yours.



Stephan Hawking has offered a plausible theory on that. The sticking point to a transcendent deity "outside of the Big Bang" is the concept of Singularity. 

If instead of viewing time/space as a straight line, if you made it curve back into itself, it would create an infinite loop with no beginning and no end. That doesn't QUITE eliminate the paradox of Singularity, but it's the best theory we've got so far. 

Definitely better than "a gawd made plants before there was a sun".


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

I believe in God. I'm a muslim and read Coran several times. I always found a lot of scientific proofs of His existence (even some that I read before they were discovered ^^). So well, I _can't_ believe that there's no God/afterlife.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> I believe in god. I'm a muslim and read coran several times. I always found a lot of scientific proves of his existence (even some that I read before they were discovered ^^). So well, I _can't_ believe that there's no god/afterlife.


what's your view on the evolution theory?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> I believe in God. I'm a muslim and read Coran several times. I always found a lot of scientific proofs of His existence (even some that I read before they were discovered ^^). So well, I _can't_ believe that there's no God/afterlife.



Would you be willing to share even one of those "scientific proofs" with any of us? You will be the first human in recorded history to be able to do so. 

Sincere, genuine question.


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

LittleFlame said:


> what's your view on the evolution theory?


May be possible, who knows? Even if it wasn't proved, nothing in any holy books is saying that God haven't created us by making us evolving.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 10, 2015)

mightymuffy said:


> Nope, don't believe it. But, y'know, jus' my opinion anyway! Just like your own view is yours.



Well, there's at least 5 different sciences that have said "if evolution is true, we should expect these hundreds or so things to be true" and "if evolution is not true, we should expect these hundreds or so things to be true", and they all point to evolution. Independently. Completely on their own with no data from the other fields. Seriously, it's more strongly supported by the evidence than nuclear theory or the theory of gravity. So there's that.

Well, the big bang is when time started. As our entire frame of reference is living in time that happens at a consistent rate, any concept outside of that frame is difficult to conceptualize and comprehend. Even the smartest of folks have to break that one down. And new data may show that something different happened. But it's important to remember that current evidence and models do indicate that is what happened.

On a related note: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Would you be willing to share even one of those "scientific proofs" with any of us? You will be the first human in recorded history to be able to do so.
> 
> Sincere, genuine question.


you know i wasn't going to go there because it's disrespectful, come on man


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> May be possible, who knows? Even if it wasn't proved, nothing in any holy books is saying that God haven't created us by making us evolving.



Not true. There are two conflicting accounts of Creation, just in the Book of Genesis. Also, a negative cannot be proven. Suggesting that since nothing in any holy book says something DIDN'T happen opens up an infinite world of potential interpretation.

For example, since the Bible doesn't say that laser blasters are holy weapons, we should all get laser blasters to fight infidels with. It's not prohibited in the Bible, so it must be cool. See what I mean? Only positive claims can be proven.



LittleFlame said:


> you know i wasn't going to go there because it's disrespectful, come on man



Asking someone to show me the same evidence they claim to have found is "disrespectful"? How does THAT work out? 

Correctly stating that any human who can prove a god used evolution to create mankind would be the first human in history to be able to do so is the truth. How is that "disrespectful"?


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Not true. There are two conflicting accounts of Creation, just in the Book of Genesis. Also, a negative cannot be proven. Suggesting that since nothing in any holy book says something DIDN'T happen opens up an infinite world of potential interpretation.
> 
> For example, since the Bible doesn't say that laser blasters are holy weapons, we should all get laser blasters to fight infidels with. It's not prohibited in the Bible, so it must be cool. See what I mean? Only positive claims can be proven.


damn dude, you're harsh, i like that


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Would you be willing to share even one of those "scientific proofs" with any of us? You will be the first human in recorded history to be able to do so.
> 
> Sincere, genuine question.


I don't have the lines/pages BUT (and you'll find them on youtube, forums, websites etc...) there were 3 proofs that marked me a lot:
-Description of how the fœtus is made in the human belly
-Ants made of glass (there is sillicat silicium in their bones)
-Sun "always searching for a stable spot"

There are also verses speaking about big bang theory, iron imported from asteroids etc....


----------



## Muffins (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> I believe in God. I'm a muslim and read Coran several times. I always found a lot of scientific proofs of His existence (even some that I read before they were discovered ^^). So well, I _can't_ believe that there's no God/afterlife.



It is fascinating how life developed on this planet, isn't it? In such a perfect, methodical manner. I believe in evolution but at the same time I am open to the idea of greater involvement as well.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

LittleFlame said:


> damn dude, you're harsh, i like that



Maybe I could soften my tone. There is no anger behind my words. Not intended to be harsh. Just brutal and blunt.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

before we go on with any of this i just want to say
all the religious books were written by people, humans
you know those terrible creatures who are known for lying to get their way?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> I don't have the lines/pages BUT (and you'll find them on youtube, forums, websites etc...) there were 3 proofs that marked me a lot:
> -Description of how the fœtus is made in the human belly
> -Ants made of glass (there is sillicat silicium in their bones)
> -Sun "always searching for a stable spot"
> ...



Humans have understood the process of gestation ever since chickens were domesticated. It makes sense that humans would understand how a human fetus develops, after thousands of years of animal husbandry. That is not a valid "proof" of a god. 

Silica is an abundant substance on this planet. As Carl Sagan said, we are ALL starstuff. Ants, people, Kanye, buffalo, plants; everything. Except Kanye. He was dredged from the taint crust of Satan. 

The sun has no awareness, sentience, consciousness, id or ego. The sun cannot choose to act. It cannot "search".


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Maybe I could soften my tone. There is no anger behind my words. Not intended to be harsh. Just brutal and blunt.


No worries mate, understood 


LittleFlame said:


> before we go on with any of this i just want to say
> all the religious books were written by people, humans
> you know those terrible creatures who are known for lying to get their way?


I know it. But, well it's my opinion, I find it really interresting to read a books written years ago (my family is muslim too so I already read 100/150 yo coran in the case you say that they may have been modified) where I can find things that are now scientifically proven.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> No worries mate, understood
> 
> I know it. But, well it's my opinion, I find it really interresting to read a books written years ago (my family is muslim too so I already read 100/150 yo coran in the case you say that they may have been modified) where I can find things that are now scientifically proven.



I will grant you that the Holy Quran is so much closer to the original version than the Bible ever has been or could be. Only being written in Arabic, there was no chance for the words to get distorted or localized. Your scripture didn't suffer the edits that the Bible did. We can blame the Second Council of Nicea and King James and Shakespeare for that.


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Humans have understood the process of gestation ever since chickens were domesticated. It makes sense that humans would understand how a human fetus develops, after thousands of years of animal husbandry. That is not a valid "proof" of a god.
> 
> Silica is an abundant substance on this planet. As Carl Sagan said, we are ALL starstuff. Ants, people, Kanye, buffalo, plants; everything. Except Kanye. He was dredged from the taint crust of Satan.
> 
> The sun has no awareness, sentience, consciousness, id or ego. The sun cannot choose to act. It cannot "search".


Well, that's why I "believe" in God ^^.
Honestly there are a lot more scientific proofs (I also had my "god doesn't exist" period and my father, a physician, and I talked about it in every ways we could for hours...) and if you want them, I can give them to you -when my father will come back lol- but it will still be my reasons and my opinions. Every single words can be interprated differently by differents people (just look at isis)


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> Well, that's why I "believe" in God ^^.
> Honestly there are a lot more scientific proofs (I also had my "god doesn't exist" period and my father, a physician, and I talked about it in every ways we could for hours...) and if you want them, I can give them to you -when my father will come back lol- but it will still be my reasons and my opinions. Every single words can be interprated differently by differents people (just look at isis)



I genuinely am interested in sharing your evidence. I've asked this of every single person who has ever made the claim that there is scientific proof to confirm the existence of a deity. I am always hopeful that one of you will be able to provide such. No winners, so far.


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I genuinely am interested in sharing your evidence. I've asked this of every single person who has ever made the claim that there is scientific proof to confirm the existence of a deity. I am always hopeful that one of you will be able to provide such. No winners, so far.


Challenge accepted. I will, when I'll be able to, I'll send you the evidences via PM ok?


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> Challenge accepted. I will, when I'll be able to, I'll send you the evidences via PM ok?


no no please share publically


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

LittleFlame said:


> no no please share publically


No problem, I will.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> Challenge accepted. I will, when I'll be able to, I'll send you the evidences via PM ok?



I'll take it any way I can get it, but your response begs the question: 

Why WOULDN'T you publicly share your salvation and redemption with us? If you could offer a proof that would bring more of your lost brothers to Allah, wouldn't you WANT to do that?


----------



## Amadren (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I'll take it any way I can get it, but your response begs the question:
> 
> Why WOULDN'T you publicly share your salvation and redemption with us? If you could offer a proof that would bring more of your lost brothers to Allah, wouldn't you WANT to do that?


Just because you asked and no one else before @LittleFlame, that's all ^^


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 10, 2015)

well this thread is hijacked


----------



## insidexdeath (Dec 10, 2015)

Quran has not been re-written at all as the oldest Quran still available now. You can google search that yourself to find that my claim is true. 

All Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a faith that was revealed many times before through other prophets, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus. You can probably notice this is true, by looking through verses in the bible, torah and finding significant similarities to the Quran.

@Neo Draven English translated version is available online, if you give it a read, you will know what he is talking about. So many changes in this modern world that have occured now have been mentioned in the Quran. I am afraid if I link you to it, some people will find it offensive.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 10, 2015)

My 2 cents. I was raised catholic and have believe in God for most of my life. However I am an atheist nowadays.

I don't believe any religions because every religion I've seen seems to be based on facts that cannot be proven or tested. You just gotta have faith and frankly I don't have faith anymore.
In christianity, they preach a god that loves everyone, a forgiving father... but then I started to get serious on religion and I learned that if you want heaven to be yours, you need to dedicate your life to the Lord.

I learned that my other friends had very slim chances because they don't go to the Church every Sunday or because they don't confess their sins, because they masturbate, because they have sex before marriage. I realized I didn't want to live my life like this, I want to be my own boss. Then I woke up, I realized people like believing their religion because they want it to be truth. They want to believe there's an afterlife, they fear death. Unlike many of my former religious friends believed, I am happier than ever living believing in myself, trying to be a good person in my own way.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

Thanks for sharing everyone! And i've been reading recent posts, and i want you all to remember this thread is not about defacing or disrespecting others beliefs, i'ts asking if you believe in God, Or Gods. If you'd like to share why you believe i encourage you to, but if you have something negative to say, please keep it to yourself or Private Messaging. Thanks! Let the thread carry on!


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 10, 2015)

If you are going to claim it is a divine book straight from the mouth of the ninja king the original words help.
However where words might not change you do have languages that change, Arabic being no exception ( http://www.myeasyarabic.com/site/what_is_spoken_arabic.htm ). Quaranic Arabic is a thing still and taught as such but I am still slightly wary as language does rather influence other things*.
You are free to link the Quran, translated or otherwise. The only "valid" offence would probably come if you tried excerpts instead, such a thing being frowned upon as context is pretty key. Otherwise you end up with things like "thou shall not fuck another man in the arse"... ", without doing them the courtesy of a reach around".

*speaking of which magic and mysticism do vary interestingly. Or see also why we have the _word _ of some god rather than more internal stuff you tend to see in older or tribal religions.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


> In the context of your initial statement and my rebuttal God exists. Stop trying to change the subject. I am NOT trying to convince you to drop your overall belief in God. I am trying to convince you that blaming innocent deaths "because Satan", is an inherently flawed point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Evil and God existing aren't mutually exclusive. Attacking religious figures such as Satan does nothing to disprove God's existence.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> Challenge accepted. I will, when I'll be able to, I'll send you the evidences via PM ok?


PM me too please, as I am rather curious about these proofs.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> If you are going to claim it is a divine book straight from the mouth of the ninja king the original words help.
> However where words might not change you do have languages that change, Arabic being no exception ( http://www.myeasyarabic.com/site/what_is_spoken_arabic.htm ). Quaranic Arabic is a thing still and taught as such but I am still slightly wary as language does rather influence other things*.
> You are free to link the Quran, translated or otherwise. The only "valid" offence would probably come if you tried excerpts instead, such a thing being frowned upon as context is pretty key. Otherwise you end up with things like "thou shall fuck another man in the arse"... ", without doing them the courtesy of a reach around".
> 
> *speaking of which magic and mysticism do vary interestingly. Or see also why we have the _word _ of some god rather than more internal stuff you tend to see in older or tribal religions.


Since you brought it up, the Qur'an has been changed/corrupted, http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Corruption_of_Previous_Scriptures

Not saying other books haven't been, but the Qur'an definitely has.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 10, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> That my lack in a belief of a god is no different than my not believing in fairies or monsters or ghosts or any other such unfounded supernatural things.



I firmly believe in ghosts. When you experience it, you believe it. That slightly adds to my belief that there may be a god.
I'll admit it, I have no idea if God exists, I even have doubts some times. But ghosts - they're real.

As for fairies and monsters - meh.


----------



## Relys (Dec 10, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Attacking religious figures such as Satan does nothing to disprove God's existence.





Relys said:


> ...*God exists*...*blaming innocent deaths "because Satan", is an inherently flawed point of view.*





Haloman800 said:


> Evil and God existing aren't mutually exclusive.



Wow, you have a very convincing point there.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


> Wow, you have a very convincing point there.


Satan and/or evil's existence have no bearing on whether God exists or not. Saying "you have a very convincing point there" is not an argument. :^)


----------



## pwsincd (Dec 10, 2015)

Amadren said:


> I believe in God. I'm a muslim and read Coran several times. I always found a lot of scientific proofs of His existence (even some that I read before they were discovered ^^). So well, I _can't_ believe that there's no God/afterlife.



im not really sure wether i do or dont beleive in an almighty of sorts .. im a logical person and beleive what i can see. I like the scientific theories more than some dude a little bored one day designing a planet etc.. after all wtf was he doing the week before ? . But i like the thought of an overseeing god like figure and also like the thought of an afterlife , but lets be honest its fantasy at best..  I have read lots of the Bible , i get the stories , hard to beleive but i get it , i dont feel the need to re read it over and over , which is what i dont quite get with Coran readers , they seem to read it shit loads . over and over .. is it hard to remember ..   .. 

I think we just happen to be on a planet at the right distance from the sun to sustain life in all its forms , and evolution has played a massive part in most of it , but in same sentance i dont think my ancestors were fish like critters in a dank swamp...   If god is up there with his pals , i reckon he lost the bet.


----------



## Relys (Dec 10, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Satan and/or evil's existence have no bearing on whether God exists or not. Saying "you have a very convincing point there" is not an argument. :^)





Relys said:


> My argument is entirely based on the pre-condition that God exists.





Relys said:


> ...*God exists*...*blaming innocent deaths "because Satan", is an inherently flawed point of view.*


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

Relys said:


>



Not an argument.

Here's one for you;

1. Without God, objective morality couldn't exist
2. Objective morality exists
3. Therefore, God exists

If you disagree, please tell me when rape and child molestation is morally acceptable.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Thanks for sharing everyone! And i've been reading recent posts, and i want you all to remember this thread is not about defacing or disrespecting others beliefs, i'ts asking if you believe in God, Or Gods. If you'd like to share why you believe i encourage you to, but if you have something negative to say, please keep it to yourself or Private Messaging. Thanks! Let the thread carry on!



The heart of this debate is really the motivations behind a belief structure, I believe. Not everything that inspires someone to be religious or irreligious is positive. With all of this Islamophobia running rampant in America, at least, I just find it hypocritical when people profess a belief structure but do not abide by it. 

"Do you believe in god?" is one of the most intensely personal questions I can think of, and is not one that can be, nor should be, answered with a simple Yes or No.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> The heart of this debate is really the motivations behind a belief structure, I believe. Not everything that inspires someone to be religious or irreligious is positive. With all of this Islamophobia running rampant in America, at least, I just find it hypocritical when people profess a belief structure but do not abide by it.
> 
> "Do you believe in god?" is one of the most intensely personal questions I can think of, and is not one that can be, nor should be, answered with a simple Yes or No.


Which is why i asked you to explain why or why not. I did not, in fact, ask people to fight, as i don't like seeing people fight on the temp.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 10, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Not an argument.
> 
> Here's one for you;
> 
> ...



You have set ironclad terms for this argument, without affirming agreement. I reject your initial premise. From there, everything else falls flat.

Morality does NOT require a deity. Just because you attribute specific human virtues to the deity of a Bronze Age religion doesn't mean it's true. That is simply an unsubstantiated claim that you now have the burden to prove.

I do not believe you can prove that statement. If you cannot, then #2 and #3 are completely moot.

Morality is a social construct, created by and beholden to the society that designs its own moral code. What is good for the goose is certainly not good for the gander, if you compare social structures and their perceptions of what is morally righteous against others throughout history. No gods required.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 10, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Not an argument.
> 
> Here's one for you;
> 
> ...



Morality is the invention of Liberals. Lions don't think about morality when they maul each other.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 10, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Not an argument.
> 
> Here's one for you;
> 
> ...


Your first two statements are unfounded, thus the conclusion drawn by the third is based on unfounded statements.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 10, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> You have set ironclad terms for this argument, without affirming agreement. I reject your initial premise. From there, everything else falls flat.
> 
> Morality does NOT require a deity. Just because you attribute specific human virtues to the deity of a Bronze Age religion doesn't mean it's true. That is simply an unsubstantiated claim that you now have the burden to prove.
> 
> ...


I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's OK to molest a child.



grossaffe said:


> Your first two statements are unfounded, thus the conclusion drawn by the third is based on unfounded statements.


Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.



Father Crilly said:


> Morality is the invention of Liberals. Lions don't think about morality when they maul each other.


Evil requires knowledge of good. Lions have no concept of good, therefore they cannot do evil.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Evil requires knowledge of good. Lions have no concept of good, therefore they cannot do evil.



"Good" and "Evil" are human concepts.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> "Good" and "Evil" are human concepts.


Human concepts that explain objective reality.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Human concepts that explain objective reality.


+1


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's OK to molest a child.


That is not how logical proofs work.



> Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.


You must establish why objective morality can only come from god and not from any other (possibly super natural) mechanism.  Regardless, I reject the notion that morality is objective.  In fact, even if we were to establish there was a supernatural god, it would still left to prove that this deity provides objective morality.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm still waiting for you to tell me when it's OK to molest a child.
> 
> 
> Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.
> ...



You are the one who brought child molestation into this. You aren't going to hammer a point home through shock value. If you'd like, I can show you how your god was cool with Lot's daughters quite literally date-raping Daddy. But that was fine. Your god was cool with that. 

I could also point you to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and show you some pretty horrific things. You'd know this if you'd read the Bible. 

You are trying to use CHILD MOLESTATION to prove your god is real? I thought 'Jesus Touched Me' had a whole different meaning. 

Isaiah 45:7. Your god wanted evil to exist. Let's stack that on top of your god also being defined as 'that which nothing greater can be conceived'. That means your god is more evil than the most evil and repugnant of human actions. 

And man is made in that god's image, right? Right?

Evil does not require knowledge. Neither does good. Both are relative social constructs. Both are mutable, shifting definitions of right and wrong. A human invention that you are trying to anthropomorphize onto lions.


----------



## KanterZ (Dec 11, 2015)

Jesus isn't even god. In christianity, he's just the "son of god" but not "god" himself. 
I was a Catholic but given that I made some thoughts and stuffs, I became an atheist.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> You are the one who brought child molestation into this. You aren't going to hammer a point home through shock value. If you'd like, I can show you how your god was cool with Lot's daughters quite literally date-raping Daddy. But that was fine. Your god was cool with that.
> 
> I could also point you to Leviticus and Deuteronomy and show you some pretty horrific things. You'd know this if you'd read the Bible.
> 
> ...



Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.

I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.
> 
> I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?



You will not get an answer from me, because you are STILL trying to cling to your shock factor and use guilt and indignation rather than logic and reason. You still have to respond to the fact that your entire three-point argument was rejected at the outside because no one here at all agrees with you. 

You presented a flawed argument, and you are now camped out on 'If you don't agree with me, you support children being sexually abused'. 

No. LOL. Just, no. Learn to debate. Return to addressing the first point of your three statements. You will not redirect this and try to hit everyone here with a Slippery Slope on top of everything else. We give no cookies to mice, here.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?



It feels awkward to watch people discuss child molestation when I am named after a fictional priest.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Attacking religion doesn't disprove theism. Stay on topic, please.


While some of his earlier posts were aggressive, that one was showing the poor morals shown by this supposedly objectively moral figure, which is quite on topic.



> I'm still waiting for an answer, is child molestation ever acceptable?


That, however, is a non-sequitur.


----------



## Jacklack3 (Dec 11, 2015)

OH SHIT BETTER GET IN THE SHELTER BEFORE THE WAR BEGINS!


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

> You still have to respond to the fact that your entire three-point argument was rejected at the outside because no one here at all agrees with you.


"The majority of people reject your argument, therefore it's false" Argument ad populum.



> You presented a flawed argument,


Not an argument.



Neo Draven said:


> You will not get an answer from me


Then the discussion between you and me is over.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> While some of his earlier posts were aggressive, that one was showing the poor morals shown by this supposedly objectively moral figure, which is quite on topic.


The Biblical description of God could be false, that doesn't disprove God's existence. Once again you are attacking religion and thinking it disproves God.



> That, however, is a non-sequitur.


No, it's quite on topic. Refusing to answer doesn't disprove my argument. Stating my argument is false doesn't make it so.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

I was not saying your argument was false because of the number of wiser minds than yours gently explaining why it fell apart at the first bullet point. It would remain false, no matter if 100% of the world agreed with you. 

I was saying that to try solely to get you to pay attention and go back to #1, and address the fact that every single logical individual would reject that statement. You have provided absolutely no basis for it, and it is logically incapable of standing on its own, and several people besides myself have educated you on this.

Yet you are STILL defiantly trotting out the most horrific human act you can think of, to try to distract everyone from your failed argument, and an argument it certainly was.


----------



## nintendarium (Dec 11, 2015)

can you feel a single atom of your body?
obviously no.
so how can a god feel you as a single in an entire universe?
there are too much "layers" between god and us, from layer to layer an abstraction is made (like from binary code to c++ code and so on)  so if ever a god be out there its limit is that he cannot "feel" us, "decompiling" has no "variable" names.
we can only try to short the distance "compiling" on our own using more "high level" languages...
I dont want even take in consideration the gods created by humans like the ones in religions, they are clearly human mind creations that people are free to believe in as a act of faith.
but more than god humans are willing to believe their consciousness can get eternal in some way.
once science give us this possibility religion will be left.
we are "images of God" as monotheistic books told us, eventually we will be out of "beta" and come to version 1.00 , or better version 1.20 with bugs fix... 
science fiction?
not quite:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150122-the-secret-to-immortality
but we will be not so lucky ...
so question is not if you believe in god but if god believes in you ...


----------



## Relys (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Not an argument.
> 
> Here's one for you;
> 
> ...



The flaw is in your second statement. "no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed, nor have any _a priori_ proofs been offered to the effect that morality is anything other than subjective" (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality). Also, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a better reason to have faith in objective morality than any religion in my opinion: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Immanuel Kant)."

Those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world, including those which have no religious foundation or influence. They are considered illegal (because the law states) and unethical (because they cause undue harm to another individual). 

Is God really the only thing stopping you from doing those things? 

If yes, what kind of person does that make you?
If no, then there must be another reason causing you not to not do those things.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Yet you are STILL defiantly trotting out the most horrific human act you can think of


Who decided it was horrific? What gives them the authority?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

nintendarium said:


> can you feel a single atom of your body?
> obviously no.
> so how can a god feel you as a single in an entire universe?
> there are too much "layers" between god and us, from layer to layer an abstraction is made (like from binary code to c++ code and so on)  so if ever a god be out there its limit is that he cannot "feel" us, "decompiling" has no "variable" names.
> ...





Prove one word of what you just said.


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 11, 2015)

let's say it again: I believe this thread was a big mistake.

I really don't think something like religion is something most people can discuss civilly. I know this is a thread asking for an opinion but it's turned into so much arguing.


----------



## nintendarium (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Prove one word of what you just said.


i cannot name any of my current atoms.
I cannot even know the exact position of one of my neutrons or electrons


----------



## Flame (Dec 11, 2015)

Why are we still arguing?

I proved they is not a God.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Who decided it was horrific? What gives them the authority?



That's the thing. A moral code has never required authority. Morality is also intensely personal. One person's Bushido is different from another's Code of Honor. You are referring to standards of morality. So, let's figure out what the word 'standard' means. You are suggesting that good and evil are objective, stand-alone, universal concepts. History has proven that even from state-to-state, or tribe-to-tribe, cultural variances resulted in different codes of morality. 

There is no standard. If there is no standard, there is no universality. 

In Ancient Rome, child molestation wasn't just okay, it was celebrated. There is copious proof of this. Your Google works. 

Doesn't that suggest that the concepts of good and evil are NOT universal?


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Relys said:


> "no objective source of morality has ever been confirmed..."


If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.



> Also, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a better reason to have faith in objective morality than any religion in my opinion: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law (Immanuel Kant)."


Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?



> Those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world, including those which have no religious foundation or influence.


Argument ad populum.



> Is God really the only thing stopping you from doing those things?


If that's a rhetorical question, then it is a strawman.

Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> That's the thing. A moral code has never required authority. Morality is also intensely personal


So, according to you, another individual's personal belief that child molestation is morally acceptable is just as valid as your subjective belief that it is wrong?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-ancient-rome-was-a-perverts-paradise.php


Good thing Christianity stopped that, eh?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.
> 
> 
> Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?
> ...



http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-reasons-ancient-rome-was-a-perverts-paradise.php



Haloman800 said:


> Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Atheism is not a religion. It is not a socially-shared practice of beliefs. There is no atheist code. Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. We aren't bound to your rules. Doesn't mean we don't have our own moral codes. They're YOUR rules that say that a woman should remain silent, and that it's okay to beat your wife. YOUR rules dictate that it's okay to rape a woman as long as you pay her bride price and marry her. YOUR philosophy says it's okay to purchase slaves if you buy them from neighboring nations.

Child molestation isn't even the chief concern when it comes to the horrific and awful things your Bible says are okay. Incest wasn't enough for you?

Christianity stopped child molestation? LMFAO. Tell that to the millions of victims of the Catholic Church.

Guess what religion the majority of sex offenders in the United States of America are. I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

If you guessed CHRISTIAN, you're a winner.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> However where words might not change you do have languages that change...



Not only does language change, but concepts change. The bible uses a 1000 years to represent a very long period of time. In today's terms, 1000 years is better understood.

This can also be seen in stuff like Nostradamus' predictions, which are written in terms familiar at the time, and not in modern times. There are no rockets, they're flaming birds, or no tanks, they're fire breathing horses.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

> Atheism is NOT A RELIGION. We aren't bound to your rules. Doesn't mean we don't have our own moral codes.


And what makes your moral codes more valid than atheists who think it's okay to murder 100 million people?

You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> And what makes your moral codes more valid than atheists who think it's okay to murder 100 million people?
> 
> You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.



I have no more association with murderous atheists than I do with an oak tree or a jellyfish. Unlike organized religions, atheism is STILL not a religion, which is a commonly-held collection of practices and beliefs.

Here's a quick lesson for you. What does the prefix 'a-' signify?

The answer is negation. The lack of something. If you are a theist, you believe in a deity. If you are an atheist, you lack belief in a deity.

Trying to say that atheists can be grouped together like Christians is like saying that that passive non-resistance is a fighting style, or that clear is a color. Sigh.

Murder and child molestation are not universally wrong. That's what you refuse to accept. You are describing modern-day standards of morality, not proving that good and evil are universal. I have SHOWN you how history proves that child molestation has been perfectly kosher, and the Bible demonstrates millions of murders. 

In modern-day society, sexual abuse and murder are defined as wrong, but that still doesn't mean that those concepts are universally held. You don't understand the very argument you're continually and chronically failing to present.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> The Biblical description of God could be false, that doesn't disprove God's existence. Once again you are attacking religion and thinking it disproves God.


No, I am not attacking religion nor am I attempting to disprove god.  Attempting to disprove the super natural is a fruitless endeavour.  I _am_ however, attacking your logic that you seem to think proves a god.


> No, it's quite on topic. Refusing to answer doesn't disprove my argument. Stating my argument is false doesn't make it so.


That argument is logically unsound.  The answer to the question has no bearing on whether or not morality is objective.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> You know murder is wrong. You know child molestation is wrong. But you can't admit it because it proves my point; that morality is objective and independent of human opinion.



To a human, those things are wrong. To a non-human, it's called nature.

Also, why are you fixated on child molestation? Is it OK to molest adults or something?


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> I firmly believe in ghosts. When you experience it, you believe it. That slightly adds to my belief that there may be a god.
> I'll admit it, I have no idea if God exists, I even have doubts some times. But ghosts - they're real.



The existence of ghosts doesn't necessarily prove there is a god in any way. If there are ghosts, it probably means death isn't what we think it is.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> To a human, those things are wrong. To a non-human, it's called nature.
> 
> Also, why are you fixated on child molestation? Is it OK to molest adults or something?



Shock factor. That's the ONLY reason that keeps getting trotted out. It's a weak diversion tactic. Affirming the Consequent with a sprinkle of Slippery Slope. It's a Logical Fallacy Sammich.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 11, 2015)

About the discussion regarding morality:



> Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

If it can be derived from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, it means it depends on the human group you're analysing therefore it's not universal.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> The existence of ghosts doesn't necessarily prove there is a god in any way. If there are ghosts, it probably means death isn't what we think it is.



It doesn't prove it, but if a ghost (a spiritual being) can exist, then it might support the possible existence of God.


----------



## m_babble (Dec 11, 2015)

Nah.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> It doesn't prove it, but if a ghost (a spiritual being) can exist, then it might support the possible existence of God.



That's not entirely true. If a spiritual being could be proven to exist, it wouldn't open up any more possibility, probability or potentiality for other spiritual beings or unproven concepts to also exist. Only that spiritual being. 

That's kind of like saying that if we could find even one Dragon Ball here on Earth, that it would support the possible existence of Shen Ron. All that would do is prove that we found a Dragon Ball. In no way is this intended to be said in a harsh tone.


----------



## Relys (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> If morality is subjective, tell me when molesting children is morally acceptable.


It's unethical and illegal. It harms another individual. When I see another individual harmed I feel empathy towards that person as if I were them. Do you?


Haloman800 said:


> Except when a criminal asks you where their next victim is hiding. Do you lie to them, and violate the CI, or do you tell the truth, and aid in the murder of an innocent?


All views of objective morality have this same problem. "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:16) and "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13). I never said that Kant's imperative was correct, just that I thought it was a better alternative to religion in the inherently flawed concept of objective morality.



Haloman800 said:


> Argument ad populum.


That's incorrect. If I had just said "those acts you mention are outlawed by every major governmental entity in the world" then it would be an ad populum. However, I stated that this includes governments which have no religious foundation or influence. How do you explain them coming to the same conclusion without objective morality?



Haloman800 said:


> If that's a rhetorical question, then it is a strawman.


Which is exactly what your entire argument about rape is. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



Haloman800 said:


> Tell me, what moral rules are atheists held accountable to? What's keeping atheists acting "morally"? What's the source of their morality? If their morality is subjective, then the acts of (atheists) Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, who collectively murdered over 100,000,000 individuals in the 20th century alone could be subjectively considered 'good'.


Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. This does not mean that all atheists are psychopaths incapable of emotional response. Most of the population are capable of feeling empathy as a triggered chemical and psychological response. This phenomenon transcends religion.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Without God, there is no objective morality, since where would it exist? By definition, for it to be objective, it is independent of human opinion and consciousness.



Is it also fair to say that without god humans would not have no knowledge of objective morality? If it is not, then 'independent of human opinion and consciousness.' is false.
And, without objective morality can a human actually do something wrong? If they cannot, they are the same as a lion. At that point, god is the source of good and evil.

I think Genesis tells this exact story. What is the purpose of the tree of knowledge? If Adam or Eve had eaten the apple without satan's encouragement, would they still have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden? If the answer is yes, the tree is the source of evil, therefore god brought evil into the world. If the answer is no, god lied and the apple isn't the original sin. In the case is there an original sin? They were not told to avoid satan or his advice.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> That's not entirely true. If a spiritual being could be proven to exist, it wouldn't open up any more possibility, probability or potentiality for other spiritual beings or unproven concepts to also exist. Only that spiritual being.
> 
> That's kind of like saying that if we could find even one Dragon Ball here on Earth, that it would support the possible existence of Shen Ron. All that would do is prove that we found a Dragon Ball. In no way is this intended to be said in a harsh tone.



OK, it wouldn't really support the existence of God. But let's just say that ghosts are scientifically proven to exist. If someone then asked would an eternal spiritual being like God be possible, I'd say "maybe".

As I said, I firmly believe in ghosts. I have reasons to believe. I have had experiences and so have friends and family of mine. My belief in ghosts has opened my mind up to the supernatural world a bit more. It's just my opinion, it's not evidence.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> I _am_ however, attacking your logic that you seem to think proves a god.


What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.



> The answer to the question has no bearing on whether or not morality is objective.


If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.


RodrigoDavy said:


> About the discussion regarding morality:
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
> If it can be derived from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, it means it depends on the human group you're analysing therefore it's not universal.


Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cdoty said:


> Is it also fair to say that *without* god humans would *not* have *no* knowledge of objective morality?


?


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.
> 
> Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.



Let's get one thing straight. We are animals.

Animals rape each other and murder each other (for various reasons).

Humans live together and so had to come up with laws to protect lives so that we could all survive. Laws led to morals. When murder became illegal, it became immoral.

*Morals are the creation of human society and culture.*


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.
> 
> 
> If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.
> ...



So, if there is no universal standard, then good and evil ARE social constructs, created and controlled by the society that sets the definition for right and wrong. I am glad you agree. 

Molestering children has not always been wrong. That's what you refuse to address. You have had evidence presented to you to substantiate that claim. You can no longer keep busting out CHILD MOLESTATION to try to shock people into agreeing with you. 

You're literally trying to trap people in a simple A/B logical quandary where if they do not agree with you, they are in direct support of pedophilia. What a weak, weak attempt to play on people's emotions and evoke a protective, righteously indignant response. 

Several people now have told you why you cannot use this argument, and why it is so weak, and such a non sequitur. Yet you are still clutching it in your Kung Fu Grip. 

Do you even logic, bruh?


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.
> 
> 
> If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.
> ...



any.. no... it's all the same..

Does objective morality really exist? Is it a construct we've invented?

Is stealing a loaf of bread always wrong?
What about killing someone? What if they've asked to die?
What about robbery? Does it matter if they're a rich king or dictator starving their people?
Would it be OK for a woman to have sex with her husband before he is taken off life support? That would be rape, since the husband couldn't consent.
What if you've auctioned off your virginity, does the winner have the right to take it regardless? If not, why not? If I buy a car, I have all rights to the car, as long as I've paid for it. Are you guaranteed the right to take the car back after you've sold it?

If it's universal, shouldn't it apply in all cases?


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.


No I did not.  I had a separate argument that even the existence of a god does not prove moral objectivity because there would then have to be proof that this deity is objectively moral.  I would argue that this deity would merely provide a different moral reference point.  Again, I am not attempting to prove there is no deity because it is a fruitless endeavor.



> If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.


It sounds like you are asking for a context in which it would be morale within your own system of morals, which is not what subjective morality is about.  Subjective morality is about how there are different moral systems for different people or cultures.  A psychopath, being unable to put themself in someone else's shoes, could potentially have no moral qualms with molestation.  To them, people are just objects to be used for their gains.  They don't act that way thinking "I'm so evil", other than perhaps being taught by their society that such actions are considered to be evil, not because they recognize it as such themselves.



> Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.


If you want to claim an objective morality, then prove the objective morality.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> any.. no... it's all the same..
> 
> Does objective morality really exist? Is it a construct we've invented?
> 
> Is stealing a loaf of bread always wrong?


Yup. The ends never justify the means.


> What about killing someone? What if they've asked to die?


Generic "killing" isn't sinful. Only killing innocents (ie murder). If they ask to die, it's not murder, and therefore not immoral.


> What about robbery? Does it matter if they're a rich king or dictator starving their people?


Nope. Theft is immoral. As a side note, I'll also add, if a "king" or "dictator" is siphoning money from the populous using taxation, that is also theft, and is also immoral.


> Would it be OK for a woman to have sex with her husband before he is taken off life support? That would be rape, since the husband couldn't consent.


Yes, it would be rape, and rape is immoral.


> What if you've auctioned off your virginity, does the winner have the right to take it regardless? If not, why not? If I buy a car, I have all rights to the car, as long as I've paid for it. Are you guaranteed the right to take the car back after you've sold it?


If the person voluntarily agreed, it's not rape.



> If it's universal, shouldn't it apply in all cases?


Yes, and it does apply in all cases, regardless of human opinion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> If you want to claim an objective morality, then prove the objective morality.


I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.



"IS" isn't "WAS". 

I have proven that it wasn't always wrong. If it was not always wrong, then the concepts of good and evil are not universal. I feel like there's an echo in here.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Molestering children has not always been wrong.


When has it been "OK" to molest children? You seem to confuse human opinion from universal fact. If the Nazi's had won WW2 and convinced everyone what they did was just, that still wouldn't make it good. The fact that pre-Christian Romans molested children doesn't make it OK, even though they thought it was.

So, once again, tell me when it's morally acceptable in your opinion to molest a child.

I recommend you watch the following video to get an understanding of what objective morality is: 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> "IS" isn't "WAS".
> 
> I have proven that it wasn't always wrong. If it was not always wrong, then the concepts of good and evil are not universal. I feel like there's an echo in here.


Your argument: "At one point in time, it was acceptable to believe the earth was flat, therefore the earth being round isn't objectively true!!!"


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> When has it been "OK" to molest children? You seem to confuse human opinion from universal fact. If the Nazi's had won WW2 and convinced everyone what they did was just, that still wouldn't make it good. The fact that pre-Christian Romans molested children doesn't make it OK, even though they thought it was.
> 
> So, once again, tell me when it's morally acceptable in your opinion to molest a child.
> 
> I recommend you watch the following video to get an understanding of what objective morality is:




You are still desperate to slap someone with the label of supporting child molestation, because you know your argument is too weak to stand. Who has this argument actually worked on, kiddo? Serious question. When has this particular line of illogic ever actually won you an argument? 

We are not discussing whether or not it is currently acceptable to molest kids. We are discussing the fact that since moral values and virtues HAVE evolved over time, there cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT be a universal standard. 

Do you really need me to define the word 'universal' for you?


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> You are still desperate to slap someone with the label of supporting child molestation, because you know your argument is too weak to stand. Who has this argument actually worked on, kiddo? Serious question. When has this particular line of illogic ever actually won you an argument?
> 
> We are not discussing whether or not it is currently acceptable to molest kids. We are discussing the fact that since moral values and virtues HAVE evolved over time, there cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT be a universal standard.
> 
> Do you really need me to define the word 'universal' for you?


So, since the science of the earth being round has evolved from the idea of it being flat, then the earth really isn't round?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> So, since the science of the earth being round has evolved from the idea of it being flat, then the earth really isn't round?



Belief has no direct correlation in reality or science. Please, try harder.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Belief has no direct correlation in reality or science. Please, try harder.


I'm glad you agree the Romans belief in molesting children has no direct correlation in the objective reality that molesting children is wrong.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm glad you agree the Romans belief in molesting children has no direct correlation in the objective reality that molesting children is wrong.



You have proven no objective morality whatsoever. That's what we've been trying to tell you. That's what you are refusing to accept because you know that offered a flawed argument and don't have the integrity to admit it or take the L. 

Since you still don't understand what 'universal' means, do you know what the universe is? 

Now, do you know what the suffix '-al' means? When added to 'universe', it means EVERYTHING. Universal includes EVERYTHING. One specific moral code for the entire universe and all it contains. Throughout all of time and space, one set standard of right and wrong, good and evil. 

I have proven that morality is not universal. You can stop trying to accuse people who see your failed attempt at logic for what it is as being supportive of abusing children. You are a sociopathic individual if you really want to "win" a debate that way. You're preying on people. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I have proven that morality is not universal.


I must have missed it, when is it acceptable to molest children?

Here's a Dawkins quote for you: The topic is "In a world without God there is...;"


Spoiler


----------



## Bat420maN (Dec 11, 2015)

I believe that the story of god is based off a story about the sun. I believe the bible was written as a guide to raise your children, wrote by some ass clown. I was forced into church until my teen years, once I was able to see things for myself I knew the church was a joke. It's all a scam to make money. I believe there is something out there that created us all but, I don't believe for one second that it was this so called "GOD". I simply believe that being a good person will bring you good in return. I mostly see religion as the biggest thing working against the human race right now. It's nothing but segregation all over again. If you are gay get to the back of the bus, you eat pork? get to the back. It goes on and on with these religions. In order for us to become what we should be I believe all religion needs to be removed from society. I think once we get the rest of the world to look past catholic, christian, mormon, whatever the hell you are, we will find the world is a much better place when all of us unite instead of small groups focused on themselves. I play for team people, I left team fairy tale about 22 years ago.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

It was acceptable to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you. 

I fully agree; good and evil do not exist. That's what an imaginary construct is. Careful; you're getting dangerously close to actually learning something today.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Yup. The ends never justify the means.



What if you paid for all of the ingredients and the time? But, they refused to give it to you? Then you should be allowed to take what is yours, right?



Haloman800 said:


> Generic "killing" isn't sinful. Only killing innocents (ie murder). If they ask to die, it's not murder, and therefore not immoral.



Innocents has a pretty broad meaning. If I kill one of your family, am I an innocent? Can you morally kill me?



Haloman800 said:


> Nope. Theft is immoral. As a side note, I'll also add, if a "king" or "dictator" is siphoning money from the populous using taxation, that is also theft, and is also immoral.



Does his/her immoral action change anything?



Haloman800 said:


> If the person voluntarily agreed, it's not rape.



They could agree to the auction and refuse to have sex.



Haloman800 said:


> I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.



The only problem is the definition of child changes. Wouldn't Mary be considered a child in today's courts? If it's universal, why does age matter? And, wasn't Mary told she was pregnant? Wouldn't that imply she didn't consent?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 11, 2015)

"When has it been "OK" to molest children?"
There could be an awful lot of context and invite discussions of how different areas set about things, or if you prefer have a search for age of consent around the world. Various countries seem quite OK with things that would get you locked up elsewhere, or if viewed from the second country's perspective another place would condone sexual activity with underage people. Also such things are hardly limited to "pre-Christian Romans", have a read of some of the youngest and oldest birth lists.

Anyway this objective morality stuff is hilarious. I had heard the underlying quasi logic before but somehow had missed seeing it be given a name. I guess I will point to co-operation and senses of fairness being present in all sorts of creatures, obviously monkeys/primates have fairly well developed senses of all this but fish, birds, insects (see drunk bees), even some kinds of snakes (see snake mating ball) and more have this. If it is a survival trait in animals then some kind of similar thing encoded in humans is hardly out there as a logical leap, or to put it another way there is a morality of sorted shared by most humans (those that may lack this tending to have such a trait noted if discovered) at a biological level or a level beyond that of a subjective construct, if I may borrow a term.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

It is obvious you do not understand what Dawkins was saying. 

If there is no good or evil as the personification of right and wrong, then the universe doesn't care about you. Which is true. The clouds in the sky float over you in a state of utter indifference. No rock on this planet gives a damn about anything. Don't seek sympathy from a lump of coal, for you will find none. No pity from a pitiless moon. 

What do all of these things have in common? They are all non-sentient, inanimate objects. Hence, good and evil do not apply to them. 

Hence, good and evil are not universal.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> It was acceptable to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you.


And it was acceptable to believe the earth is flat, doesn't make it any less round 



> I fully agree; good and evil do not exist.


Still waiting for your explanation of when molesting children is OK.



cdoty said:


> What if you paid for all of the ingredients and the time? But, they refused to give it to you? Then you should be allowed to take what is yours, right?


Yup. If you had an agreement, and you paid them, it absolutely belongs to you.





> Innocents has a pretty broad meaning. If I kill one of your family, am I an innocent?


If you initiated force, no, you're in the wrong.



> Can you morally kill me?


In self defense, if my life was threatened, yes.




> Does his/her immoral action change anything?


Yes. Resisting robbery and self defense is justified.



> They could agree to the auction and refuse to have sex.


Then they would be constituting fraud, and would have to repay the person.





> The only problem is the definition of child changes.


A child is typically defined as someone pre pubescant



> Wouldn't Mary be considered a child in today's courts? If it's universal, why does age matter?


Nope, or else she couldn't have conceived.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

It was okay to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you. You can keep ignoring the facts, or you can have some integrity and admit you are wrong. You're starting to bore me.

Once again, BELIEF and SCIENCE are not necessarily in harmony with each other.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

The Yes and No are very tight lol.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> "When has it been "OK" to molest children?"
> Various countries seem quite OK with things that would get you locked up elsewhere, or if viewed from the second country's perspective another place would condone sexual activity with underage people


And some people still believe the earth is flat, so that _proves_ the earth really isn't round, right? Because denial of a fact somehow invalidates it.. how?

Molesting children is objectively wrong, regardless of whether you think it is or not.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> A child is typically defined as someone pre pubescant
> 
> 
> Nope, or else she couldn't have conceived.



LMFAO. Yeah, you're done, here. You basically are saying a girl is a woman once she starts menstruating. So, knocking up a nine-year-old is okay as long as she is post-pubescent?

You're getting truly desperate, and it shows.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> It was okay to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you. You can keep ignoring the facts, or you can have some integrity and admit you are wrong. You're starting to bore me.


I never denied Romans molested children, try to avoid straw manning me if possible.

The fact Romans molested children doesn't mean molesting children is OK, this isn't a difficult concept.



> Once again, BELIEF and SCIENCE are not necessarily in harmony with each other.


Nice off topic red herring. 2 fallacies in one post, good job 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> So, knocking up a nine-year-old is okay as long as she is post-pubescent?


Says the guy who says molesting children is sometimes OK


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> And some people still believe the earth is flat, so that _proves_ the earth really isn't round, right? Because denial of a fact somehow invalidates it.. how?
> 
> Molesting children is objectively wrong, regardless of whether you think it is or not.



I was WAITING FOR THAT LAST PART! You finally decided to come out and make it very clear that you were only using child molestation as a tactic to try to get people to violently condemn it and in doing so, to agree with the rest of the pork in your barrel. I literally just laughed out loud. 

You are getting angry and you're slipping even worse, now. Take my advice. Bow out with what grace you have left. You are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I was WAITING FOR THAT LAST PART! You finally decided to come out and make it very clear that you were only using child molestation as a tactic to try to get people to violently condemn it and in doing so, to agree with the rest of the pork in your barrel. I literally just laughed out loud.
> 
> You are getting angry and you're slipping even worse, now. Take my advice. Bow out with what grace you have left. You are embarrassing yourself.


Not an argument


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

You sad little guy, it's clearly obvious that no decent person could ever support children being harmed. You chose to prey on the concept of a true innocent being savagely harmed by a predator to shock people into agreeing with your flawed argument. 

You keep disregarding the fact that the your wanna-be GOTCHA line is about if child molestation was EVER okay. History proves that it was considered okay in Ancient Rome. No one participating in this discussion would ever support children being harmed. You are only adding that 'punishment' for not agreeing with the rest of your shitty argument because if you don't, there is no leverage, and you know logic doesn't support you. 

You are a sick individual to be preying on kids like this. Seriously. It is repulsive that you could even use that in an argument, just because you're losing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

You are counting on people's natural inclination to protect the defenseless, and trying to use that momentum to force them to accept the rest of your argument that there is one true universal 'good' which has always been good, as the universal 'evil' has always been evil. 

You're trying to say that child molestation was wrong, even if the Ancient Romans were cool with it. By comparing Ancient Roman morality to modern-day morality across the civilized world, we see that morality as it applies to society has evolved. This proves that morality is not universal, and neither are the definitions of good or evil. 

For something to be universal, it must apply to everything, in every place, at every time. Static, unchanging, unevolving. If it is not a part of EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE, EVERYWHEN, it is not universal. 

This statement is true without the suggestion that anyone who disagrees with me supports kids being hurt, you sick, sick individual. This is how you debate.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> History proves that it was considered okay in Ancient Rome.


And history proves it was considered OK to think the earth was flat, therefore the earth isn't round?



> No one participating in this discussion would ever support children being harmed.


So you agree it's always wrong to molest children, good job! Now tell me, what's your basis for this belief? Where does it exist outside human consciousness?


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 11, 2015)

I'd like to say just something about this.

you say it's never OK, and that's a perfectly valid opinion to hold. however you're comparing others opinions a long time ago to your personal standards, and that's just not going to work because those same people were following different standards and opinions (like, I don't know, their own?)

comparing standards of ages ago to standards of today doesn't work.

notice how I never stated my own opinion on the matter. none of this makes it seem like I think it's OK. at all. but that doesn't affect the opinions of a long time ago, who might have thought it was OK.

anyway I think this argument is fucking hilarious and I'm surprised it's still going. but seriously this thread is still a mistake.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

Will you guys please stop this pointless argument throwing to each others?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> And history proves it was considered OK to think the earth was flat, therefore the earth isn't round?
> 
> 
> So you agree it's always wrong to molest children, good job! Now tell me, what's your basis for this belief? Where does it exist outside human consciousness?



THINKING is belief. Do you understand? I can't dumb that down any more for you. Belief STILL doesn't necessarily align with reality. Belief STILL doesn't necessarily align with science. Science trumps belief. 

I never said it was always wrong to molest children, because it wasn't. It was cool in Ancient Rome and in many other civilizations. You are simply trying to make this a personal thing. I am speaking objectively and neutrally, because my own moral code is irrelevant to the argument. 

You keep trying to draw it in, though, so you can try to trap me into agreeing with you, or being accused of supporting kids being harmed. 

All you're doing is, "If you don't say Merry Christmas, YOU HATE AMERICA!"

Get that shit out of here, kid.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I never said it was always wrong to molest children, because it wasn't. It was cool in Ancient Rome and in many other civilizations.


There may be a genuine lack of clarity here; I 100% agree that some cultures accept child molestation as legitimate, I'm not arguing against that, what I'm saying is, molesting children is still morally wrong, _even if_ they think it's right. Does that make sense?


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> THINKING is belief. Do you understand? I can't dumb that down any more for you. Belief STILL doesn't necessarily align with reality. Belief STILL doesn't necessarily align with science. Science trumps belief.
> 
> I never said it was always wrong to molest children, because it wasn't. It was cool in Ancient Rome and in many other civilizations. You are simply trying to make this a personal thing. I am speaking objectively and neutrally, because my own moral code is irrelevant to the argument.
> 
> ...





Haloman800 said:


> There may be a genuine lack of clarity here; I 100% agree that some cultures accept child molestation as legitimate, I'm not arguing against that, what I'm saying is, molesting children is still morally wrong, _even if_ they think it's right. Does that make sense?





VinsCool said:


> Will you guys please stop this pointless argument throwing to each others?


----------



## omegasoul6 (Dec 11, 2015)

I'm an Agnostic Atheist, there's no way of knowing if there is a god, so until proven otherwise I don't believe in any deities.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> There may be a genuine lack of clarity here; I 100% agree that some cultures accept child molestation as legitimate, I'm not arguing against that, what I'm saying is, molesting children is still morally wrong, _even if_ they think it's right. Does that make sense?



That's what I just said. 

*facepalm

You cannot really be this obtuse. You saying that molesting children is morally wrong even if people in history were okay with it is JUST YOUR OPINION. Not a universal moral code. History PROVES it is not a universal moral code. 

You're simply saying that you personally condemn child molestation, no matter what country it is, no matter what time period it is. Great. You're like most of the human population alive today. Want a cookie? 

This STILL is nothing more than making it a statement of personal opinion, and that is not a proof of universal fact. For morality to exist outside of time, that would mean that there is one set standard of right and wrong, even if humans never existed. This simply isn't true. Good and evil only exist if humans do, and the definitions of the same evolve with each particular society. There IS no universal moral wickedness to any "sin". Not even the worst sin you can imagine.


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Since you brought it up, the Qur'an has been changed/corrupted, http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Corruption_of_Previous_Scriptures
> 
> Not saying other books haven't been, but the Qur'an de



I'm not so certain wikiislam is a source if studying Islam and or any religion, it is written by an anti Islamic activist :Ali Sina hence I recommend you go to other sources like Islam Wikipedia page. We cannot say as being a Muslim Quran is corrupted but I can say the original message it tried to convey has been by militant Islamism or terrorism. Even to me some of many ahadith (saying and teachings of prophets) might even be corrupted, not certainly but just a little. As overtime during the first Islamic community hadith had to be memorized and the compilation was done years after the death of Holy Prophet(pbuh) hence it might have been possible some creative minds probably would have played around with them or forgotten them. Especially those which support 'Barbaric Jihad'. 

Isn't this thread becoming prove to me existence of your God? Please everyone calm down and don't bash each others religion and or beliefs. Fine if some one is an atheist it is his own will and fine if someone is Christian. God bestowed us free will for a reason.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> And it was acceptable to believe the earth is flat, doesn't make it any less round
> 
> Still waiting for your explanation of when molesting children is OK.



Of course, I can't come up with one, but is that simply because I live in a civilization that views it as bad?

Were the Spartans immoral for having sex with the young boys they mentored? Would that be true if they thought it was strengthening the boy, and helping him survive (ie didn't know any better)?

What about the Greeks? What if they believed it helped the boy adjust to society?

Many groups of people don't have the same taboo on sex with a child. If it's universal, shouldn't it be taboo for all groups?

There are probably plenty of times the human race would have died out if there wasn't sex with a younger child.



Haloman800 said:


> A child is typically defined as someone pre pubescant
> 
> Nope, or else she couldn't have conceived.



That would put the age at a little over five years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Again, if it's universal, there should be no need to change the definition of a child.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

I can't believe he's actually trying to tie humans being wrong about a flat Earth (scientific ignorance) to Ancient Rome's concept of moral right and wrong (social morality). 

Morality is not a science. The two cannot even be compared.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.


No you haven't.  You've put forward statement that you have not proven.


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> Of course, I can't come up with one, but is that simply because I live in a civilization that views it as bad?
> 
> Were the Spartans immoral for having sex with the young boys they mentored? Would that be true if they thought it was strengthening the boy, and helping him survive (ie didn't know any better)?
> 
> ...



It depends on times and ages, I would never agree to molest a child even if she reaches age of puberty! Those who think it is right are morons! Yes I am saying to people of every community and every religion, stop abusing young girls! It was a thing of past!


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

MionissNio said:


> It depends on times and ages, I would never agree to molest a child even if she reaches age of puberty! Those who think it is right are morons! Yes I am saying to people of every community and every religion stop abusing young girls! It was a thing of past!



If it was a thing of the past, then morality has evolved, and the definitions of good and evil have changed over time. 

Which means that they are not universal. 

A girl past puberty, according to our esteemed debater here, isn't a girl anymore.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> That's what I just said.
> 
> *facepalm
> 
> ...


You are equating opinion with fact. If what you are saying is correct, then the earth isn't round, because *gasp* since some people still believe it's flat. Is that what you're saying?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> No you haven't.  You've put forward statement that you have not proven.


Are you saying you need me to explain to you why molesting children is wrong?


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 11, 2015)

How did this thread get into molestation talk?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> You are equating opinion with fact. If what you are saying is correct, then the earth isn't round, because *gasp* since some people still believe it's flat. Is that what you're saying?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


 
In no way am I equating opinion with fact. The exact opposite is true. I have now said that belief and science are not necessarily congruent three times, as a counter to your statement that people used to think the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true. 

I am obviously confusing you. You need to get off of YouTube and stop trying to argue points you see in videos on your own. You aren't equipped for this. 

You are STILL TRYING TO CALL ME A SUPPORTER OF CHILD MOLESTATION. Do it one more time and I will be forced to report you. I will not have you sit here and make such a terrible accusation about me, little boy. I have been very clear that I personally am against children being harmed in any way. You will not continue to try to make such a repugnant statement about me, or anyone else here. 

You're pathetic to even try to resort to such a tactic, just because you are being trounced by six people in a debate. 

Grow up.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Are you saying you need me to explain to you why molesting children is wrong?


No, I'm saying you haven't proven the objectivity.



RustInPeace said:


> How did this thread get into molestation talk?


Because Haloman is obsessed with this argument thinking it's proves the existence of god.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 11, 2015)

RustInPeace said:


> How did this thread get into molestation talk?


The thread turned into a debate about morality because some would argue that objective morality does not exist without a god, even though demonstrating the existence of a god who dictates morality would only demonstrate the existence of subjective morality. However, if one defines _morality _as that which is conducive to well-being, it becomes objectively true whether or not something is moral.

Some people also haven't realized that Haloman800 is a disingenuous troll who will never concede anything, even when backed into a metaphorical corner. I don't recommend getting sucked into a conversation with him.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> No, I'm saying you haven't proven the objectivity.


I don't need to demonstrate the objectivity that 2+2=4, it's self evident. Same goes for harming children.



Neo Draven said:


> Do it one more time and I will be forced to report you.


If your feelings are being hurt, feel free to stop replying . I'm sorry to inform you that mods don't give infractions because people having opinions that differ from yours.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I don't need to demonstrate the objectivity that 2+2=4, it's self evident. Same goes for harming children.
> 
> 
> If your feelings are being hurt, feel free to stop replying . I'm sorry to inform you that mods don't give infractions because people having opinions that differ from yours.



They do when you are accusing people of supporting child rape, you sick little man. You aren't hurting my feelings, chum. You're only embarrassing yourself.


The only reason 2+2=4 is because you agree with the 10 Axioms of Mathematics. Without belief in those, all of mathematics falls apart. You have to first accept and agree with the definition of oneness being different and distinct from twoness, and that addition means an increase, and that equals equals equals. Do you understand? Even mathematics requires agreement on terms and definitions. 

Without accepting the axiom that addition is its own function, 2+2 would not = 4. Do you understand?


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Lacius said:


> The thread turned into a debate about morality because some would argue that objective morality does not exist without a god


Good definition. You may be wrong on most of what you claim, but you at least have correct definitions.



> Some people also haven't realized that Haloman800 is a disingenuous troll who will never concede anything, even when backed into a metaphorical corner. I don't recommend getting sucked into a conversation with him.


Because it's easier to call someone a troll than to refute their arguments, amirite?


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Will you guys please stop this pointless argument throwing to each others?


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> They do when you are accusing people of supporting child rape, you sick little man. You aren't hurting my feelings, chum. You're only embarrassing yourself.


I don't doubt you're against it, my question is, what is your basis for claiming it is immoral?


----------



## omegasoul6 (Dec 11, 2015)

Reported, moved on, take your stupid molestation argument elsewhere.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I don't need to demonstrate the objectivity that 2+2=4, it's self evident. Same goes for harming children.


This is what is called circular logic.  Maybe take a class on philosophy to see how it actually works if you are so interested in discussing philosophy.  Until then, I'm done with this discussion as you are clearly incapable of having it at this moment.  If your argument was as infallible as you thought it was, then there would be no atheists.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

> This is what is called circular logic.


Claiming it's circular doesn't make it so.


grossaffe said:


> If your argument was as infallible as you thought it was, then there would be no atheists.


If you could argue with atheists, there wouldn't be atheists .


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Claiming it's circular doesn't make it so.
> 
> If you could argue with atheists, there wouldn't be atheists .



Atheists only require one thing. Proof. The one thing you don't have.

Well, one of the many things you don't have. A solid argument, capacity for higher levels of reasoning, integrity, a firm grasp on the logical process, understanding of the scientific method, what the word 'universal' means...


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Atheists only require one thing. Proof. The one thing you don't have.
> 
> Well, one of the many things you don't have. A solid argument, capacity for higher levels of reasoning, integrity, a firm grasp on the logical process, understanding of the scientific method, what the word 'universal' means...


Nice ad hominems.

Also, fun fact, did you know the man who invented the scientific method was Christian? .


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Nice ad hominems.
> 
> Also, fun fact, did you know the man who invented the scientific method was Christian? .



Please do not confuse a direct assessment of your skills at debating as a personal attack. The thing is, you've proven everything I've said. Just because it's true doesn't make it an insult.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 11, 2015)

Incans, Mayans and other amerindians sacrificed children to their gods. The Christian/Jewish God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to him. If god created morality than god sure likes to make humans act against it.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Still waiting for your explanation of when molesting children is OK.



It's not OK in our society, but it took about 4000 years for children to be viewed as anything other than property:
https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205961134.pdf (Scroll down to Sexual Values, Attitudes, and Exploitation)

This sounds more like an evolved morality. Women have also been treated as property, and are still viewed as property in parts of the world. That would also rule out rape.

I think it's safe to exclude molestation and rape as objective morality, as ancient humans didn't seem to possess them.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> Just because it's true doesn't make it an insult.


"lol you're fat, it's true so it's not an insult".

Okay, we've drifted far off topic enough. I have nothing more to say to you.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> "lol you're fat, it's true so it's not an insult".
> 
> Okay, we've drifted far off topic enough. I have nothing more to say to you.



Good boy. You're learning. 

We haven't drifted in the slightest. You're still offering a broken argument and trying to attack people's character, and you're still getting slapped down by your superiors. Where have you been for the last half hour?


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> It's not OK in our society, but it took about 4000 years for children to be viewed as anything other than property:
> https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205961134.pdf (Scroll down to Sexual Values, Attitudes, and Exploitation)
> 
> This sounds more like an evolved morality. Women have also been treated as property, and are still viewed as property in parts of the world. That would also rule out rape.
> ...


A person or societies opinion of something does not change its factual basis. The earth was round even when everyone believed it was flat.

In the same way, molesting children is wrong, even though many societies in the past (and still today) think it is moral.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> A person or societies opinion of something does not change its factual basis. The earth was round even when everyone believed it was flat.
> 
> In the same way, molesting children is wrong, even though many societies in the past (and still today) think it is moral.



BELIEF. AND. SCIENCE. ARE. NOT. RELATED. 

SCIENCE. AND. MORALITY. ARE. NOT. RELATED.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Incans, Mayans and other amerindians sacrificed children to their gods. The Christian/Jewish God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to him. If god created morality than god sure likes to make humans act against it.


God's existence is independent of the Bible's validity. You can believe in God without following any religion (deists). And you can be religious while being an atheist (Buddhists).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> BELIEF. AND. SCIENCE. ARE. NOT. RELATED.
> 
> SCIENCE. AND. MORALITY. ARE. NOT. RELATED.


Prove your claims.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> A person or societies opinion of something does not change its factual basis. The earth was round even when everyone believed it was flat.



True, except if it was a universal moral, it would have been common even in early humans. Cain clearly knew it was wrong to kill his brother. Early societies show no remorse for rape of women or molestation of children. There were penalties for murder, theft, etc.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> God's existence is independent of the Bible's validity. You can believe in God without following any religion (deists). And you can be religious while being an atheist (Buddhists).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Belief requires sentience. Science does not. 

Morality requires sentience. Science does not. 

Belief and morality are both products of a conscious awareness. Science is not.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> True, except if it was a universal morality, it would have been common even in early humans.


2+2=4, that's universal, YET it's still possible for someone to believe otherwise. Opinions don't invalidate facts. I can't believe I even have to point this out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Neo Draven said:


> Belief requires sentience. Science does not.
> 
> Morality requires sentience. Science does not.
> 
> Belief and morality are both products of a conscious awareness. Science is not.


Belief means an acceptance of the facts. You believe in science, because it's true. You also claim to believe in morality, so you must also think it is true. My question is what is the source of your moral beliefs?


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> 2+2=4, that's universal, YET it's still possible for someone to believe otherwise. Opinions don't invalidate facts. I can't believe I even have to point this out.



But it isn't fact. Children and women were clearly not considered the same as men. Same happened with the slaves, they were viewed as less than human.

Rape and molestation is only immoral if you consider the person human.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> Rape and molestation is only immoral if you consider the person human.


And we know women/children are human, therefore their abuse was immoral _regardless_ of what the perpetrators considered human.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> 2+2=4, that's universal, YET it's still possible for someone to believe otherwise. Opinions don't invalidate facts. I can't believe I even have to point this out.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I do not "believe in science because it's true". I believe in science because it is verifiable fact. What you consider to be "true" and what I consider to be "true" are diametric opposites. You believe in a deity that is supposed to be both infinite and perfect. Both are mutually exclusive concepts, creating a paradox, and no logical, scientific mind could accept such a ludicrous and absurd philosophy.

I do not "believe in morality". I understand that humans craft their own social codes to conform to their unique cultures, and I have my own personal code which I follow, but I do not expect anyone else to follow my path. Recognition and "believing in something" are two wholly different things. I do not in any way believe morality is universal or anything but subjective. It is a symptom and by-product of intelligent human life, and will die when the last man dies.

Empathy is the source of my moral beliefs.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> I believe in science


But I thought science and belief were polar opposites?


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Belief means an acceptance of the facts.



Didn't you JUST SAY that ancient humans "believed" the world was flat? 

So, that means they accepted the fact the Earth was flat, right? 

Man, this is too easy. Go to bed, brudda. You're getting even sloppier as you go.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

@Sicklyboy we need you here


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> @Sicklyboy we need you here


If you do not want to participate in this discussion, why do you keep coming back just to tell the participants to stop talking?


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> If you do not want to participate in this discussion, why do you keep coming back just to tell the participants to stop talking?


Because it's totally offtopic and this is nothing but pages filling with you and haloman fighting at something that isn't related to OP


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

Neo Draven said:


> If you do not want to participate in this discussion, why do you keep coming back just to tell the participants to stop talking?


Why don't we have a more formal debate about morality/Gods existence, over Skype? 



VinsCool said:


> Because it's totally offtopic and this is nothing but pages filling with you and haloman fighting at something that isn't related to OP


The arguments I'm proposing are related to the OP. I do think it's funny that Neo is scolding you for mentioning mods, yet he himself keeps threatening to "report" me (for hurting his feelings, apparently).


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> Because it's totally offtopic and this is nothing but pages filling with you and haloman fighting at something that isn't related to OP


It is completely on-topic. Morality and the concepts of good and evil are at the heart of the basis for belief in a deity. His argument is that without the existence of a god, irrespective of whether a man believes in a god or not, that good and evil could not exist, without a basis of reference. 

He believes the god of Abraham is the model upon which our concepts of good and evil are based, and that is why he wants to win this point so badly. So badly he would call everyone here who disagrees with him a supporter of child molestation. 

I don't particularly like or agree with this cat, but we ARE on topic.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Why don't we have a more formal debate about morality/Gods existence, over Skype?
> 
> 
> The arguments I'm proposing are related to the OP. I do think it's funny that Neo is scolding you for mentioning mods, yet he himself keeps threatening to "report" me (for hurting his feelings, apparently).


If you want to feel better, I reported both of you.


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 11, 2015)

The Bible is a very weird book.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> And we know women/children are human, therefore their abuse was immoral _regardless_ of what the perpetrators considered human.


 
The bible does not agree with you. It's acceptable to sacrifice children. Daughter's can be given as sex gifts, etc.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> The bible does not agree with you. It's acceptable to sacrifice children. Daughter's can be given as sex gifts, etc.


This topic is about God's existence, which is what I'm arguing. The Bible is a different topic.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> The bible does not agree with you. It's acceptable to sacrifice children. Daughter's can be given as sex gifts, etc.



Nothing like a good, rousing game of Burny Burny Cut Cut.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 11, 2015)

I wonder if God exists if he is having a good laugh at this discussion as I am


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I wonder if God exists if he is having a good laugh at this discussion as I am


He definitely is having a good laught.


----------



## CraddaPoosta (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I wonder if God exists if he is having a good laugh at this discussion as I am


The platypus exists. If there's a god, she has a sense of humor.


----------



## barronwaffles (Dec 11, 2015)

From my understanding of the 'Big 3' I've come to conclude that - Jews love a free shower, Christians enjoy burning lawn ornaments and Muslims make absolutely terrible pilots.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 11, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> He definitely is having a good laught.


God definitely has a sense of humor, he made people like Neo .

//outtie


----------



## Sicklyboy (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> This topic is about God's existence, which is what I'm arguing. The Bible is a different topic.



If you actually read the OP he's asking whether you believe in god, not whether he/it exists.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> This topic is about God's existence, which is what I'm arguing. The Bible is a different topic.



God is only known through the bible, Quran, etc. How do you separate the two? If you don't connect the two, which god are you speaking of? Where is the record of this god?


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 11, 2015)

Sicklyboy said:


> If you actually read the OP he's asking whether you believe in god, not whether he/it exists.


He also asks if you believe in the afterlife. Personally, I don't. I believe we just stop existing after we die. Anyone wants to share their opinions? Anyone?


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> He also asks if you believe in the afterlife. Personally, I don't. I believe we just stop existing after we die. Anyone wants to share their opinions? Anyone?


Wasn't that 18 pages ago?


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> He also asks if you believe in the afterlife. Personally, I don't. I believe we just stop existing after we die. Anyone wants to share their opinions? Anyone?


I have no reason to believe in an afterlife.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 11, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> I have no reason to believe in an afterlife.


Good, now I have one bro to not exist with me after we die!


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Good, now I have one bro to not exist with me after we die!


We can experience sweet nothingness together but not because there's nothing to experience including the passage of time.  Woo.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 11, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Good, now I have one bro to not exist with me after we die!


We're 3, I don't believe in afterlife either.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 11, 2015)

I'm unaware of any reason to think an afterlife exists.


----------



## weatMod (Dec 11, 2015)

cdoty said:


> God is only known through the bible, Quran, etc. How do you separate the two? If you don't connect the two, which god are you speaking of? Where is the record of this god?


easily semetic texts are pure bullshit , the insane rantings of ancient inbred baby murdering pedophile desert wandering nomadic sand peoples
who practiced incest and and animal sacrifice and made some chicken scratchings on some dead leaves thousands of years ago, there is nothing divine about any of it , just the insane rantings of a bunch of  backward inbred sand people
none of it was written by "god" and nobody can prove it was or wasn't
and furthermore not a single shred of any of  it   can be proven,there is absolutely zero archaeological or historical evidence that anything in those texts ever happened, in fact quite the opposite, there is plenty of evidence that a lot of it was plagiarized ,like noah being plagiarized from gilgemesh for one example
organized religions are just cults and scams to get your money and  keep you controlled and enslaved ,they have nothing at all to do  with "god"
of whos existence can never be proven one way or the other
on the other hand organized religions can easily be disproved though  ,all of them but most  especially the 3 monotheistic ones


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 11, 2015)

I don't believe in a god, because I think if he exists he's irrelevant. There's no indication of supernatural influence, good or bad, there's no agreement at all on what he would be after centuries of written word that is known to have been manipulated and misinterpreted. Good and bad things happen and the only proofs we have of why come from science.
If I were to believe in a deity, what would I do? I guess I'd go Christian, they won the popularity vote, but then which sect would I pick? Even if I was to go catholic, what would I believe in? Different priests say different things about matters. Everyone these days says to believe in my own interpretation, but who am I to interpret a religion when the official heads who study it all their life keep changing theirs? If a god were to care about what I thought, why wouldn't he be clear about it? I'd feel as stupid as I think that believers are when they don't even try following their own religion and don't even bother to pray or go to church. I can believe in what I want without religion, thank you very much. Then there's the fact that whoever he is he doesn't seem to care all that much about what his believers do in his name.
It's clear to me that if there is a god, he doesn't care what I do or don't do, so I don't see any point in following a bunch of rituals or whatever that make no sense.

Now, there are positive things in the broader term spirituality: learning to accept life and other people's actions helps your mind and body, and religion can help some people with that.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 11, 2015)

Nightwish said:


> If I were to believe in a deity, what would I do?



Interesting idea. I think I'd go with Sikhism. It appears to be a no-nonsense religion, not putting itself above other religions and considering all people equal. It also seems to do away with the pageantry of a lot of religions.

http://www.sikhs.org/summary.htm


----------



## VashTS (Dec 11, 2015)

id rather put my beliefs in something that i can't understand/see/feel but can be proven by science. its equally fulfilling to know that things are nothing, but nothing is everything as it is to believe in a higher power, like a god. 

on the flip side, i think deities have their purpose and if it helps you get through life, great. anything that makes you whole is fine with me. 

i hope there is something after life but im doubtful there is. i mainly hope that a persons energy can still manifest and consciousness continues after the body is dead. would be cool to know we are forever once that spark starts.


----------



## jDSX (Dec 11, 2015)

All I am going to say is this: Believe in what you want to believe in.


----------



## kehkou (Dec 11, 2015)

To understand why I do not believe in religion and mythologies, you have to understand what exactly religion is and why it was created in the first place all those millennia ago.

No one knows why exactly why the Universe is as it is. Perhaps a 'god' decreed the laws of nature, but never does he interfere with or deviate the laws. For example, No one knows what caused the expansion in the first place (imbalance doesn't result from balance). Every development after that, however, can be explained with out invoking supernatural explanation.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2015)

KanterZ said:


> Jesus isn't even god. In christianity, he's just the "son of god" but not "god" himself.
> I was a Catholic but given that I made some thoughts and stuffs, I became an atheist.


I know that this was a while back, but again this is something confusing in the Bible that you don't really get if you only read the Old Testament (speaking from experience). How it works as explained vaguely by the New Testament and more famously by St. Patrick is this: God and Jesus are the same, when Jesus speaks it is God speaking through a human mouth. However, God can manifest in different forms, the Father (which is more of the "human concept" of God, and is usually seen as more of a metaphor that Jesus uses to make God relatable to humans), the Son (who is God born in human flesh, Jesus), and the Holy Spirit/Ghost (which is what resides in the hearts of the religious)


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I know that this was a while back, but again this is something confusing in the Bible that you don't really get if you only read the Old Testament (speaking from experience). How it works as explained vaguely by the New Testament and more famously by St. Patrick is this: God and Jesus are the same, when Jesus speaks it is God speaking through a human mouth. However, God can manifest in different forms, the Father (which is more of the "human concept" of God, and is usually seen as more of a metaphor that Jesus uses to make God relatable to humans), the Son (who is God born in human flesh, Jesus), and the Holy Spirit/Ghost (which is what resides in the hearts of the religious)



I don't think St. Patrick said that. He did, however, use a Shamrock to describe the Trinity.

Also, I think Christians are only interested in the four Jesus Gospels.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> I don't think St. Patrick said that. He did, however, use a Shamrock to describe the Trinity.
> 
> Also, I think Christians are only interested in the four Jesus Gospels.


Yes, that's how the Holy Trinity works


----------



## Jacklack3 (Dec 11, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> "The majority of people reject your argument, therefore it's false" Argument ad populum.
> 
> 
> Not an argument.
> ...


Guys we got a Phoenix Wright over here.

Anyways yes i do believe in god and i pray to him if something goes wrong.
I'm not THAT into god, i kinda think his backstorys boring... But i do believe he is there choosing our fates.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 11, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes, that's how the Holy Trinity works



The Trinity makes up God.
The Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in one God.

I'm Irish, I'm pretty sure I know what St. Patrick said.


----------



## Jacklack3 (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> The Trinity makes up God.
> The Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in one God.
> 
> I'm Irish, I'm pretty sure I know what St. Patrick said.


Does he have a bucket of gold and beer at the end of a rainbow? *gets punched in face*


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> The Trinity makes up God.
> The Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all in one God.
> 
> I'm Irish, I'm pretty sure I know what St. Patrick said.


Yes, the trinity consists of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, which we believe are all one in the same God.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> Also, I think Christians are only interested in the four Jesus Gospels.




Actually, not all Christians. Jehovah's Witness doesn't believed in Trinity. Hey, don't badmouth about Jehovah's Witness. Respect them. By the way, I am telling you what I know about them not believing in Trinity, ok ?


----------



## Jwiz33 (Dec 12, 2015)

Yes.
I don't have much to really say other than yes, lol.


----------



## YamiZee (Dec 12, 2015)

Nope. Never saw any reason to.


----------



## smf (Dec 12, 2015)

All religions are made up by humans. You could argue that they said that god spoke to them, but we can all pull that one. The new testament was pulled together from a bunch of stories written hundreds of years after the actual events and they excluded things that were contradictory. You can sit there thinking "well that is Christians for you, my religion is different". However all religions are just as patchy.

People generally believe the religion that their parents brain wash them into believing, so which religion you believe comes down to random chance of where you were born.

There are a few psychological benefits to believing in a religion though, which is one of the reasons they were so successful. The other being forced to believe under pain of death.

I don't believe a god is necessary for the world to exist, but we don't know how our universe came into being. However the universe is everything, so if somebody created what we know about then all you do by involving god is make the problem harder. You need to figure out what is outside our universe and how that came to exist, which religion has no answers for.

It wasn't so long ago that Galileo was found guilty of heresy because he said the earth went round the sun, when all the good Catholics knew that earth was the centre of the universe.

It's all utter nonsense that is quite often used to justify murder and commit other crimes against people who don't believe, but you can't believe in all the religions as they contradict each other. Therefore mostly people settle for the one that prevents them being killed.

Fate is all just coincidence, but our brains are always looking for patterns.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 12, 2015)

smf said:


> All religions are made up by humans. You could argue that they said that god spoke to them, but we can all pull that one.



There's no smoke without fire.



smf said:


> People generally believe the religion that their parents brain wash them into believing, so which religion you believe comes down to random chance of where you were born.



I completely disagree. I was agnostic as a child, then when I grew older, I became a Catholic. Then I declared myself not Catholic because I discovered that Catholicism contradicts everything the Bible says. I am a Christian (kinda) now. Neither my parents nor anyone else has influenced my beliefs.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 12, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hey, don't badmouth about Jehovah's Witness. Respect them.



Earlier I made a comment where I said I am not inclined to call all religions cults, though some come close. That mob, for my money, was not as much close as completely crossed the line way back when. I have had a few of the shunned cross my path before (and did a few things to help them get sorted now they joined the world again, they even got a few others out) and otherwise have done a bit of research on the matter in general and as part of that. Individual members I do not have a problem with (there are groups out there I have problems with each and every participant and loose associate) but the watchtower as a group... respect is so very far from an option there for me.
Others reading there are plenty of things from ex members online, I quite liked https://www.youtube.com/user/CSTheApostate/videos as a starter on this one.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 12, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Earlier I made a comment where I said I am not inclined to call all religions cults, though some come close. That mob, for my money, was not as much close as completely crossed the line way back when. I have had a few of the shunned cross my path before (and did a few things to help them get sorted now they joined the world again, they even got a few others out) and otherwise have done a bit of research on the matter in general and as part of that. Individual members I do not have a problem with (there are groups out there I have problems with each and every participant and loose associate) but the watchtower as a group... respect is so very far from an option there for me.
> Others reading there are plenty of things from ex members online, I quite liked https://www.youtube.com/user/CSTheApostate/videos as a starter on this one.




Well, I am not listening to ex members. They made their own choice and their point of view thats all.


----------



## smf (Dec 12, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Belief means an acceptance of the facts. You believe in science, because it's true. You also claim to believe in morality, so you must also think it is true. My question is what is the source of your moral beliefs?



Morality isn't universal, it also isn't owned by religion as a lot of immoral acts are performed by people who are firmly religious. Morality comes from your brain releasing chemicals based on pattern matches.



Father Crilly said:


> There's no smoke without fire.



There provably is.

https://www.stagedepot.co.uk/scenic...sku=ENL-4102&gclid=CIvkiPmW1ckCFesBwwod5PsPcw

It is most likely that every single person who says that god spoke to them is lying or deluded. People make stuff up about being abducted by aliens, having god speak to them is not such a stretch. They might believe it themselves or not, it doesn't make a difference. It doesn't take much chemical imbalance in your brain for your internal dialogue to feel like it's someone else talking to you, we call that schizophrenia these days.



Father Crilly said:


> I completely disagree. I was agnostic as a child, then when I grew older, I became a Catholic. Then I declared myself not Catholic because I discovered that Catholicism contradicts everything the Bible says. I am a Christian (kinda) now. Neither my parents nor anyone else has influenced my beliefs.



You can't completely disagree as I said generally, I know there are people who will change their mind but that is the minority. Some people decide to believe in horoscopes as well. Although mostly they worship celebrities, in the old days the only celebrities were religious or monarchs because images were expensive to create. Now anyone with a smartphone can have their own followers.

Religions were just read only Wikipedia/Instagram.

The only difference between a religion and a cult is how long it's been going and how many people believe in it. We judge it not on whether it's true, but how many people believe it. It's possible that god is annoyed because we all dismissed some crazy sounding drug cult that happens to be the truth.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 12, 2015)

The fact that my "soul" or conscience or whatever exists is hard to believe. I feel like I have been put inside of a video game. I'm like: "How did I get here?".

I don't know. It's just strange. My conscience knows I'm inside this body. How the hell did my conscience come into existence? Animals don't have this shit. Why do I?

At one time, you didn't exist. Then you are born. They you say, "Hey, I'm awake!". It's hard to explain what I'm talking about.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> There's no smoke without fire.


I'll take my father as an example. Everyday he turned off the light from the garage at night and when he woke up each morning the light was always on. He thought it was a spiritual being pulling a prank on him, but it turned out it was just my sister that turned on the light of the garage because she worked so early it was dark.

What I mean is that people always want an answer for something, and when they can't explain they tend to imagine it's something from another world or of some nature they can't understand. Of course my father is just an example, but I guarantee there are many people like him in this aspect. The thing is there's smoke but people tend to mistake stars for campfires


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 12, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I'll take my father as an example. Everyday he turned off the light from the garage at night and when he woke up each morning the light was always on. He thought it was a spiritual being pulling a prank on him, but it turned out it was just my sister that turned on the light of the garage because she worked so early it was dark.
> 
> What I mean is that people always want an answer for something, and when they can't explain they tend to imagine it's something from another world or of some nature they can't understand. Of course my father is just an example, but I guarantee there are many people like him in this aspect. The thing is there's smoke but people tend to mistake stars for campfires



What about the witness accounts of Jesus? That's what I meant with my statement. Smoke = witness accounts and belief. Fire = Jesus.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 12, 2015)

smf said:


> It wasn't so long ago that Galileo was found guilty of heresy because he said the earth went round the sun, when all the good Catholics knew that earth was the centre of the universe.


You know, I actually heard something interesting about that (it was a book on tape that my Dad had playing in his car on our way to vacation).  It talked about the actual circumstances surrounding his exile and his correspondences with the Pope (I think it was the Pope; this was awhile ago), and the issue wasn't that he was telling people the earth moved around the Sun.  If I recall correctly, a lot of it had to do with Galileo’s science being suspect/incomplete (which it was; part of his support was that the tides were just the water sloshing around the Earth like if you were to rotate a glass of water, which was just flat out wrong), Galileo going behind the Pope's back making him look bad, and just being an abrasive personality.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Father Crilly said:


> There's no smoke without fire.


1. There's an analogy to prove whatever position you take in any matter
2. There is absolutely smoke without fire



Father Crilly said:


> I don't know. It's just strange. My conscience knows I'm inside this body. How the hell did my conscience come into existence? Animals don't have this shit. Why do I?


Animals don't have what shit?



> At one time, you didn't exist. Then you are born. They you say, "Hey, I'm awake!". It's hard to explain what I'm talking about.


I don't know about you, but I didn't have an "I'm awake" moment.  By brain did slowly develop, however, into being capable of higher levels of thinking and self-awareness.


----------



## SonicRegret (Dec 12, 2015)

no.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 12, 2015)

SonicRegret said:


> no.


Ok! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## aaronz77 (Dec 12, 2015)

I don't believe in any God. I feel it's healthier for people to believe in God and organized religion. They live longer statistically. I think it can be argued either way for or against God. Personally, I think when we die... that's it. Nothing special, no participation trophy and no eternal hell for robbing a liquor store or banging your friends wife. If someone does believe in God that's fine by me, it's not hurting anyone and it's none of my business.


----------



## SonicRegret (Dec 12, 2015)

it's just because I feel that it doesn't really effect my life in a positive or negative way, you know, being an ex christian for 7 years now. Because I can tell you now that my family is composed of really devoted Christians, and I personally see no point to it. Sometimes I think it over because every now and then I realize that im the ONE and ONLY person in my family has been baptized, which is a whole other thing on it's own to think about.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> What about the witness accounts of Jesus? That's what I meant with my statement. Smoke = witness accounts and belief. Fire = Jesus.


Your question is if Jesus existed or not? From what I read, it's almost universally accepted by historians that Jesus did exist. It's however very difficult to determine whether he was the son of God and miracle maker, or simply a hoax like the jews from the time believed.

What I can say is that there are people that claim to have magical powers or able to make miracles even today, some of them have many followers too. Jesus wasn't the first and certainly not the last.

It might as well be true, but we live in a world where people truly believed in three-headed dragons, woman that turned people into stone, witches and etcetera... There's no way of telling, that's why for my part I require more convincing evidence


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 12, 2015)

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 12, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> http://www.everystudent.com/wires/Godreal.html


This article argue that DNA acts like a computer program and that since it doesn't exist a software that wasn't designed by a programmer, the DNA must have been written by someone, that someone being God.
This is actually an interesting idea and I had to think for 20 minutes to get to a conclusion myself.

I think although the idea is good, it works on the assumption that the DNA has to have a writer. This is a natural assumption because a Programming Language or a Natural Language are very restrict about its vocabulary, semantics and syntax. You can't expect random letters to make a full comprehensible message or random commands to make a useful functioning software. This is not true for the DNA however, DNA is known to be prone to mutation and, in fact, there are bad and good mutation. In a message or a computer program, mutation is undesirable as it corrupts the meaning of the message or the function of the program.

The reason "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language" is because it needs to be designed by someone. A message is only useful if it has meaning and a software is only useful if it has utility. I don't believe this is the case for the DNA though, a DNA doesn't need to have a meaning or an utility.

It doesn't mean it wasn't written by a superior intelligent being, but I argue that it could just as well be random chemicals that got combined in a way that worked and through mutation and replication managed to get more and more complex with time, coupled with Darwin's law of Evolution would make the most effective DNA combinations to be the ones that survived.

Thanks for this article, bro. It really got me thinking!


----------



## Subtle Demise (Dec 12, 2015)

I wish I could still believe. In the depths of an extreme panic attack, I sometimes find myself trying to talk to God hoping for an answer or some kind of sign to tell me I'll be ok when I die.
I mean Jesus Christ, I'm almost 30 years old and the thought of death still gives me horrible panic attacks.
It doesn't scare me like it used to, but I think if I hadn't been raised to be Christian, I could have dealt with it betterb
But damn, becoming atheist was such a huge weight off my shoulders lol.


----------



## Jacklack3 (Dec 12, 2015)

Welcome to where your friendships break!


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 12, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> This article argue that DNA acts like a computer program and that since it doesn't exist a software that wasn't designed by a programmer, the DNA must have been written by someone, that someone being God.
> This is actually an interesting idea and I had to think for 20 minutes to get to a conclusion myself.
> 
> I think although the idea is good, it works on the assumption that the DNA has to have a writer. This is a natural assumption because a Programming Language or a Natural Language are very restrict about its vocabulary, semantics and syntax. You can't expect random letters to make a full comprehensible message or random commands to make a useful functioning software. This is not true for the DNA however, DNA is known to be prone to mutation and, in fact, there are bad and good mutation. In a message or a computer program, mutation is undesirable as it corrupts the meaning of the message or the function of the program.
> ...


No prob, it got me thinking too, and i figured i'd share it!


----------



## amoulton (Dec 12, 2015)

aaronz77 said:


> I don't believe in any God. I feel it's healthier for people to believe in God and organized religion. They live longer statistically. I think it can be argued either way for or against God. Personally, I think when we die... that's it. Nothing special, no participation trophy and no eternal hell for robbing a liquor store or banging your friends wife. If someone does believe in God that's fine by me, it's not hurting anyone and it's none of my business.


would love a link on these statistics


----------



## Gamefreakjf11 (Dec 12, 2015)

No, I've never been presented with any factual evidence proving his/her existence so therefore I don't by default.


----------



## smf (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> I don't know. It's just strange. My conscience knows I'm inside this body. How the hell did my conscience come into existence? Animals don't have this shit. Why do I?



Animals do have "this shit". Someone even managed to teach some monkeys the concept of money, one of the unexpected things was one of the females turned to prostitution. We assume that animals aren't the same because it means we can treat them badly, similar to how people of certain religions feel it's ok to treat people of other religions badly.



Father Crilly said:


> At one time, you didn't exist. Then you are born. They you say, "Hey, I'm awake!". It's hard to explain what I'm talking about.



It is hard to explain, which is why people take the easy way out and blame god for everything.



Father Crilly said:


> What about the witness accounts of Jesus? That's what I meant with my statement. Smoke = witness accounts and belief. Fire = Jesus.



Someone called Jesus probably existed roughly around the time they said he did, although they supposedly got the dates all wrong. None of the stories were written in English, they were translated by people with an agenda. The bible was pulled together after everyone had died and therefore we can't even be sure if the people it writes about would agree with what was written.



grossaffe said:


> and the issue wasn't that he was telling people the earth moved around the Sun.  If I recall correctly, a lot of it had to do with Galileo’s science being suspect/incomplete (which it was; part of his support was that the tides were just the water sloshing around the Earth like if you were to rotate a glass of water, which was just flat out wrong), Galileo going behind the Pope's back making him look bad, and just being an abrasive personality.



That is retcon after the science proved the catholics wrong. Galileo was right about the sun being the centre of the galaxy and the earth revolved around it, but they purely convincted him of heresy because that contradicted scripture. Being abrasive and making the pope look bad isn't illegal. He may not have been tried for heresy if he had kept quiet and pretended to believe the lies told by the catholics. Which is essentially why some religions appear to have such support. Like not everyone in North Korea believes Kim Jong's lies, but their lives depend on the outward appearance of that.



RodrigoDavy said:


> It doesn't mean it wasn't written by a superior intelligent being, but I argue that it could just as well be random chemicals that got combined in a way that worked and through mutation and replication managed to get more and more complex with time, coupled with Darwin's law of Evolution would make the most effective DNA combinations to be the ones that survived.



It definitely is just random and the creatures that were viable were able to reproduce, the ones that weren't viable didn't. However religions were made up before we understood DNA therefore they weren't able to get their story ahead of time, so now they have to make up intelligent design. However if we were designed then it's pretty obvious that we weren't intelligently designed.

Our bodies react in ways that make sure our DNA is reproduced, rather than make us happy because creatures who don't reproduce their DNA will disappear.


----------



## Father Crilly (Dec 12, 2015)

smf said:


> Our bodies react in ways that make sure our DNA is reproduced, rather than make us happy because creatures who don't reproduce their DNA will disappear.



That's the thing. There's no point to life existing.

I feel as if there is something intelligent keeping life in existence. A perfect food chain and the whole birth and death cycle.

A dog doesn't care about its descendants after it's dead. It wouldn't care if they all died or not. Evolution is keeping animals alive. Why?

My answer is God. Or some smart AI called "nature" who is in charge of keeping everything alive.


----------



## aaronz77 (Dec 12, 2015)

amoulton said:


> would love a link on these statistics



I'm sorry, I think I was recalling a false sensationalized news story now that I actually look for the source. Damn local news. Only thing I can come up with are some "faith in religion = happier people" studies that are from sketchy sources. Even if it were 100% fact though wouldn't you think it'd be purely psychological?


----------



## smf (Dec 12, 2015)

Father Crilly said:


> That's the thing. There's no point to life existing.



You are right, there is no point. Why does there have to be a point for something to exist?



Father Crilly said:


> I feel as if there is something intelligent keeping life in existence. A perfect food chain and the whole birth and death cycle.



What makes you think that life needs an external influence to keep it going? Humans are perfectly capable of creating and destroying life on their own. The food chain isn't perfect, it evolves too.



Father Crilly said:


> A dog doesn't care about its descendants after it's dead. It wouldn't care if they all died or not. Evolution is keeping animals alive. Why?



You're assuming they don't, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests they do.

Animals aren't kept alive, they exist because their parents reproduced. Their parents want to reproduce because it's a genetic predisposition to reproduce, which they inherited from their parents. If your DNA mutates so you don't want to reproduce then very quickly that DNA will die out.



Father Crilly said:


> My answer is God. Or some smart AI called "nature" who is in charge of keeping everything alive



Evolution + DNA is essentially smart AI. However like all AI it doesn't do it because it's made a choice that it understands, it's intelligence is artificial. Our brains just make it seem magical, so we invent a god to explain it all.


----------



## Nightwish (Dec 12, 2015)

aaronz77 said:


> Even if it were 100% fact though wouldn't you think it'd be purely psychological?


That's still useful for society.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 12, 2015)

smf said:


> Someone called Jesus probably existed roughly around the time they said he did, although they supposedly got the dates all wrong. None of the stories were written in English, they were translated by people with an agenda. The bible was pulled together after everyone had died and therefore we can't even be sure if the people it writes about would agree with what was written.


Someone called Jesus?  Unlikely.  Someone called Jeshua? Yeah, he probably existed.



> That is retcon after the science proved the catholics wrong. Galileo was right about the sun being the centre of the galaxy and the earth revolved around it, but they purely convincted him of heresy because that contradicted scripture. Being abrasive and making the pope look bad isn't illegal. He may not have been tried for heresy if he had kept quiet and pretended to believe the lies told by the catholics. Which is essentially why some religions appear to have such support. Like not everyone in North Korea believes Kim Jong's lies, but their lives depend on the outward appearance of that.


Well for starters, I think you're getting yourself mixed up here, because Galileo wasn't speaking of the Galaxy, and the Sun is most certainly not the center of it 
As for making the Pope look bad not being illegal, well actually in the theocratic state of the times, it _was_.  Now whether it should be is a different story.  That being said, It's hard to retcon letters of correspondence.  Having gone and looked up the actual history instead of trying to go from memory from something I once heard, a the issue came down to a book he published: _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems._  The new Pope, Pope Urban VIII, had taken the Papacy replacing a predecessor who had silenced Galileo.  Urban, however, was open to Galileo's ideas.  He did have a condition for Galileo, though, which was to discuss the Copernican model as a hypothetical and not a fact.  For the time, this was quite an olive branch being extended to him.

Anyways, getting back to his book, he had written it as a dialogue (duh) between three characters.  An academic arguing the Copernican model, a neutral intellectual, and a religious figure arguing the Ptolemaic model (named 'Simplicio', likely a double entendre implying the character to be simple-minded).  That religious character was not written to be someone seen as intelligent or reasonable, so when he took words spoken by Pope Urban and put them into that character's mouth, he was asking for trouble.

Also, look at an overview of day 4 in the book.  That's where the tides are discussed and Simplicio is the one contending the Moon controls the tides while his Academic character argues otherwise.  OOPS!  Guess you should've listened to Kepler on that one, Galileo.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 13, 2015)

smf said:


> You are right, there is no point. Why does there have to be a point for something to exist?


Once I had a discussion with a friend about something I did. He was really mad not because of what I did itself, but because it made no sense. He kept complaining about how it made no sense what I did, then I said angrily "It doesn't have to make sense!"

I like to revisit this moment sometimes because it reminds me "not everything needs to be explained or have a point" and also "people sometimes makes mistakes and there's no reasonable explanation, they just do". Taking this ideology to life I guess it's not so important why we are alive, we should just feel happy that we are and make most of the time we have here.


----------



## smf (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Someone called Jesus?  Unlikely.  Someone called Jeshua? Yeah, he probably existed.



I'm not prepared to write posts in Hebrew, especially when there is no real consensus on how it should be spelt. It



grossaffe said:


> That religious character was not written to be someone seen as intelligent or reasonable, so when he took words spoken by Pope Urban and put them into that character's mouth, he was asking for trouble.



While he may have been asking for trouble, he was tried for heresy because he contradicted scripture by saying that the earth goes around the sun rather than everything going round the earth. Are you saying Pope Urban was intelligent and reasonable? To me Galileo appears to be right on the mark, the way the Pope reacted pretty much proves it.
Pope Urban VIII demanded that his words were included in the book, which was a rather unintelligent thing to do. You get picked as Pope if you are prepared to peddle the same old lines, not because you are intelligent and reasonable.

Even in 1990 Cardinal Ratzinger justified Galileos treatment as logical, he went to become *Pope Benedict XVI*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Historiography

The current Pope at least appears to not be in it for the money, which previous Popes were.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

I believe in a God, but within very specific boundaries. I find it hard to believe that the universe just appeared out of nothing - regardless of how the universe came to be, something initially triggered the reaction. I was brought up in a Catholic family, so as far as nomenclature is concerned, I believe in the Christian God, but I don't think that's relevant in any shape or form - God is God, however you choose to call it. In addition to being religious, I'm also a big believer in science - I think the two go hand-in-hand, not against eachother. Religion shouldn't be used as a crutch that explains the world around you, that's not its purpose, that's the purpose of science. As a very wise man said once, science answers the questions of _"what?"_ and _"how?"_, what it doesn't answer is the question of _"why?"_ - it's not equipped to answer that question, that's a question for religion and philosophy, so all three have a place in our lives without conflict. I don't treat the Bible as gospel _(pun intended)_ and I don't think it should be treated that way. It's a simple set of guidelines and stories compiled over many years to have a specific moral message, it's not a source of historical or scientific evidence _(although many of its fragments have historical significance and some degree of accuracy)_ of anything, it's meant to teach life lessons. It shouldn't be taken in wholesale, it's supposed to make you think about certain things, certain dilemmas we all face in life and help you distinguish right from wrong. All in all, I try to find a Golden Mean here - I'm somewhere in the center, taking in all the wonders science and technology brings us, but still being mindful of the lessons religion teaches us - being kind to one another being the chief one.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Dec 13, 2015)

I don't believe, I'm actually an atheist about the dogmatic/revealed religions, and agnostic about the general idea of (an) "higher being(s)".
As an example, I once read about the possibility that, due to certain limits in physical constants, our universe could be a huge simulation, in that case our "Gods" would be the beings who are running the simulation 


smf said:


> Animals do have "this shit". Someone even managed to teach some monkeys the concept of money, one of the unexpected things was one of the females turned to prostitution. We assume that animals aren't the same because it means we can treat them badly, similar to how people of certain religions feel it's ok to treat people of other religions badly.


I agree with everything you said, but I'm missing the point here. Even if it's true (a friend of mine is a biologist and neuroscientist with a PhD and he once told me about studies which found a "proto-morality" in primates and some other species) what's the link with the way they should get treated? As you said, morality is relative, objective facts can (and do) only influence our own personal morality by means of empathy, personal values and things like that. Then, if we get to agree on what should be "moral" and what shouldn't, with time we define the morality of our society.


----------



## haxan (Dec 13, 2015)

I do believe in god (allah)
but I get doubts when they say that you should kill all gays and that they will burn in hell(mentioned in the bible too so maybe i'm not alone)
my best friend is gay and he's not like what they(the extremists) portray gays as (lustful monsters or whatever), he's kind and loves to help the poor and needy.
so will god burn him in hell even if he had done all those good things just because he's gay? isn't Allah supposed to love all his creations? same goes with Jesus.
This really bothers me


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

If you're never in doubt, you're not truly religious. You should always engage your mental faculties and always remember that a book written hundreds of years ago may have lost some of its significance and needs to be periodically revised, like any other law. Doubt means that you think about the religion, not just digest it wholesale like an ape - it differentiates you from sheep who follow scripture to the t without a single thought. You're not a robot, you're human, and humans think.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 13, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> This article argue that DNA acts like a computer program and that since it doesn't exist a software that wasn't designed by a programmer, the DNA must have been written by someone, that someone being God.
> This is actually an interesting idea and I had to think for 20 minutes to get to a conclusion myself.



I code like that, you'll find pieces of old code left over in my software. Isn't a male just a derived sunflower?

Actually, I don't, I'm pretty good (bad?) about having to clean out unused code.




haxan said:


> but I get doubts when they say that you should kill all gays and that they will burn in hell(mentioned in the bible too so maybe i'm not alone)
> my best friend is gay and he's not like what they(the extremists) portray gays as (lustful monsters or whatever), he's kind and loves to help the poor and needy.
> so will god burn him in hell even if he had done all those good things just because he's gay? isn't Allah supposed to love all his creations? same goes with Jesus.
> This really bothers me



I'm not sure about the Quran, but the bible clearly states that no one should judge another person:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

The last part of that is almost perfect. Many people talk about the sanctity of marriage while they're out having affairs, marrying for tax purposes, etc.

Jesus even said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."



smf said:


> Animals do have "this shit". Someone even managed to teach some monkeys the concept of money, one of the unexpected things was one of the females turned to prostitution. We assume that animals aren't the same because it means we can treat them badly, similar to how people of certain religions feel it's ok to treat people of other religions badly.



I'm not sure I follow. How does money and prostitution indicate they do have 'this shit'? It would seem to suggest, to me, they don't routinely worry about the after life, and focus on more primal desires.

I think it's been proven that outside of dolphins, animals do not have the ability to think abstractly. This abstract thinking allows us to ponder stuff like an after life, the universe, gods, etc.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 13, 2015)

cdoty said:


> I'm not sure I follow. How does money and prostitution indicate they do have 'this shit'? It would seem to suggest, to me, they don't routinely worry about the after life, and focus on more primal desires.
> 
> I think it's been proven that outside of dolphins, animals do not have the ability to think abstractly. This abstract thinking allows us to ponder stuff like an after life, the universe, gods, etc.


Animals can think abstractly.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-animals-can-think-abstractly/

What most people fail to realize is that animals usually aren't able to communicate their abstract thoughts. It doesn't mean these thoughts aren't there though.

Also the birth and maintaining of a religion is something that requires written or oral tradition, which animals aren't able to do because they can't speak or write obviously. It's not that they don't worry about the afterlife, they just can't do anything about it


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

haxan said:


> I do believe in god (allah)
> but I get doubts when they say that you should kill all gays and that they will burn in hell(mentioned in the bible too so maybe i'm not alone)
> my best friend is gay and he's not like what they(the extremists) portray gays as (lustful monsters or whatever), he's kind and loves to help the poor and needy.
> so will god burn him in hell even if he had done all those good things just because he's gay? isn't Allah supposed to love all his creations? same goes with Jesus.
> This really bothers me


Same here. Look up "Matthew Vines seminar", I think you'll find it interesting


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

smf said:


> While he may have been asking for trouble, he was tried for heresy because he contradicted scripture by saying that the earth goes around the sun rather than everything going round the earth. Are you saying Pope Urban was intelligent and reasonable? To me Galileo appears to be right on the mark, the way the Pope reacted pretty much proves it.
> Pope Urban VIII demanded that his words were included in the book, which was a rather unintelligent thing to do. You get picked as Pope if you are prepared to peddle the same old lines, not because you are intelligent and reasonable.


In a time when Copernicus' De Revolutionibus was banned and the previous Pope had barred Galileo from talking about the Copernican model, Pope Urban came in and sought out Galileo so he could come to understand the issue.  He had Galileo over several times to hold discussions on the topic.  He gave Galileo the go-ahead to write on the Copernican model after years of being silenced.  He asked that Galileo keep it hypothetical, though, and instead Galileo used the opportunity to push the Copernican model while insulting those following the Ptolemaic model.  It's entirely plausible that if he had some tact with his approach instead of biting the hand that fed him, he could have gotten his ideas out to the public with the Pope's support (not public agreement, but perhaps an ally to get his enemies in the College Of Cardinals off his back).

If Pope Urban was so against the heresy that is the Copernican model, he would have just continued the previous Pope's gagging of Galileo.


----------



## xeronut (Dec 13, 2015)

I do not personally believe in a higher power, but I won't berate those that do.  I used to be the "angry atheist" type, taking pleasure in disproving your faith of choice.  These days I won't even argue with people about god because it's never about the flaws in their system of logic - it's a psych evaluation as to why I think the way I do.  Anyone that's ever buried a child or held hands with someone as they die of cancer has to at least question the notion of an omnibenevolent supreme being.  After having done both - and living with the aftermath - I believe that if there exists a god/gods of some sort they are as flawed as we are, nothing more.  My friends and family have allowed various addictions to destroy them, and my brother currently is being eaten alive by his.  Is suffering a Grand Design, a Fate?  Are some of us Destined to be wasted existences?  Or has our collective ego grown to the point where we cannot accept an eventuality that places what truly remains of us after we die in the same place as everything else we claim to have transcended?  I also feel that no matter how "user-friendly" a belief system may be, none of it is truly believable because none of them encourage you to ask all the questions.  Spirituality should be universal - no hierarchy, no secrets, no mysteries, no paywall.  If you're a deity and built your following on any of those things, you did it wrong and deserve all the war and disbelief and chaos that ensues.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Animals can think abstractly.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-animals-can-think-abstractly/
> 
> ...


So because a couple of apes matched pictures of animals together (recognition of animals being something they do every day to survive - snake = bad, bug = good, if I point at two things, researcher will give banana,  real abstract thinking there)? Sorry, but I find both the thesis and the experiment questionable on many levels.

We're talking about primates here, the closest thing there is to a human within the animal kingdom and a species that's been proven to be highly susceptible to training and learning. Sure, they can perform basic tasks - that doesn't grant them the ability of abstract thinking. On what grounds has it been deduced that they can and how did that lead to them having a concept of the afterlife? Complete nonsense that omits several steps between the observation and the conclusion.

Call me speceist, but most animals don't think about anything beyond the present. My girlfriend's cat's cognitive abilities are apparently insufficient for him to recognize his own reflection, to give an example, and it's a comparatively smart cat. Higher concepts like the afterlife or religion cannot be grasp by young children, let alone animals - the thought never crosses their minds, and why would it? Seeing that even the dullest kid is smarter than the smartest monkey out there, the whole hypothesis doesn't hold water to me.

As for your communication point, animals may not be able to speak or write (mostly because they're just not clever enough to do so, beyond the obvious physical limitations), but they sure can communucate - via body language or grunts. Again, back to the cat - he doesn't have to tell me that it's pissed off - all he has to do is hiss - I get the idea.

Despite having these capabilities, not a single species other than humans has ever exhibited any creative or spiritual activity beyond things they were coerced to do by humans (painting elephants and all that jazz). Since nothing to the contrary was ever observed, I have no reason to believe otherwise - animals don't bother with concepts like spirituality because they're likely alien to them and the very idea that they might sounds ridiculous to me.

I keep hearing about "smart animals", but that doesn't mean they posess any form of higher intelligence - they're just smart in comparison to other animals. The best animals can do in terms of their smarts is create basic social structures - that's it. Anything beyond that seems like an exaggeration to me.


----------



## 59672 (Dec 13, 2015)

I believe religion to be an excuse over lack of scientific explanation, which obviously becomes less and less relevant the further we develop the field. So no, I don't believe in god. Humans used to believe god(s) was(were) responsible for everything, now we know much better. Not everything in life is so simple and explained but in time we will know even more. Nowadays the only use I personally see is as a way to push agendas onto people, lest they ruin their chances in their afterlife.
Fear of death is a natural fear, so I can see people wanting to believe in a way of living after and redemption, how I see it is when you die, the world ends with you. Not literally but for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

59672 said:


> I believe religion to be an excuse over lack of scientific explanation, which obviously becomes less and less relevant the further we develop the field. So no, I don't believe in god. Humans used to believe god(s) was(were) responsible for everything, now we know much better. Not everything in life is so simple and explained but in time we will know even more. Nowadays the only use I personally see is as a way to push agendas onto people, lest they ruin their chances in their afterlife.
> Fear of death is a natural fear, so I can see people wanting to believe in a way of living after and redemption, how I see it is when you die, the world ends with you. Not literally but for all intents and purposes.


See, your line of thinking is the problem we face these days. Religion doesn't exist to explain the world - that's a job for science. It used to be as you said, but that's the root of religion, not its current function. We don't say that a thunder just struck a tree because it was God's will - we know how weather works. Religion is a source of meaning and guidiance, anyone who uses it in lieu of science is an idiot. It's a source of strength in tough times, it uplifts people's spirits and gives them a reason to stick together. It's not all about the fear of mortality, although that's a part of it too, it's about attempting to find sense and meaning. Faith can have termendous unifying potential, it has a lot of power - lack of faith has no power at all. Anywho, my point is that religion and science don't have to stand in opposition - they play different roles in life and again, answer different questions.


----------



## Mr. Prince (Dec 13, 2015)

I believe in god, yes. That god is mostly the one in Islam (Although we believe that Christians and Jews also believe in the same god). The thing I don't believe in is most of the interpretations of the Qur'an and the mostly fabricated hadeeths (Basically re-tellings of what the prophet said). I don't believe that I should hate people for believing in something different. I just need to disagree with what they believe in. I have many non-muslim friends and we're practically bros. I pray 5 times a day and listen to music. I fast ramadan and go to parties (Not at the same time lol).

The way I see it is: Even if God was just a big lie I wouldn't really lose anything. At least I won't feel like I I'm losing anything. If God is real, then I go to heaven lol.




Foxi4 said:


> See, your line of thinking is the problem we face these days. Religion doesn't exist to explain the world - that's a job for science. It used to be as you said, but that's the root of religion, not its current function. We don't say that a thunder just struck a tree because it was God's will - we know how weather works. Religion is a source of meaning and guidiance, anyone who uses it in lieu of science is an idiot. It's a source of strength in tough times, it uplifts people's spirits and gives them a reason to stick together. It's not all about the fear of mortality, although that's a part of it too, it's about attempting to find sense and meaning. Faith can have termendous unifying potential, it has a lot of power - lack of faith has no power at all. Anywho, my point is that religion and science don't have to stand in opposition - they play different roles in life and again, answer different questions.



I agree on that religion and science don't have to oppose each other.


----------



## Lord M (Dec 13, 2015)

Try to ask: You believe in God of War? lol


----------



## smf (Dec 13, 2015)

haxan said:


> I do believe in god (allah)
> but I get doubts when they say that you should kill all gays and that they will burn in hell(mentioned in the bible too so maybe i'm not alone)
> my best friend is gay and he's not like what they(the extremists) portray gays as (lustful monsters or whatever), he's kind and loves to help the poor and needy.
> so will god burn him in hell even if he had done all those good things just because he's gay? isn't Allah supposed to love all his creations? same goes with Jesus.
> This really bothers me



The reason they wrote that being gay is bad is that they were worried that if too many people pursued same sex relationships then they wouldn't reproduce and the religion would die out. If they weren't so transfixed on bumping up their numbers, which most controversial concepts of a religion are essentially to do with, then they wouldn't care if two men or two women got together.

It's the same for stoning women who have sex outside of marriage, they or their children were more likely to die because they didn't have a man to protect them. Women are purposefully left uneducated so that they can be treated like baby factories to boost religions followers.



Foxi4 said:


> So because a couple of apes matched pictures of animals together (recognition of animals being something they do every day to survive - snake = bad, bug = good, if I point at two things, researcher will give banana,  real abstract thinking there)? Sorry, but I find both the thesis and the experiment questionable on many levels.



There are more complex experiments, they have taught animals the concept of money. Which led to them creating prostitution. That is pretty abstract thinking.



Foxi4 said:


> On what grounds has it been deduced that they can and how did that lead to them having a concept of the afterlife? Complete nonsense that omits several steps between the observation and the conclusion.



On what grounds has it been deduced that they don't? We can't know because we can't communicate with them. We have no idea to what extent they can communicate with each other. If people hadn't learnt to communicate as well as they have then we would have no concept of the afterlife, we would essentially be uneducated.



Foxi4 said:


> Call me speceist, but most animals don't think about anything beyond the present. My girlfriend's cat's cognitive abilities are apparently insufficient for him to recognize his own reflection, to give an example, and it's a comparatively smart cat.



Alot of Animals provably think beyond the present, a lot of humans provably cannot.



Foxi4 said:


> Again, back to the cat - he doesn't have to tell me that it's pissed off - all he has to do is hiss - I get the idea.



Sure, but getting the idea of their mood is a very simple communication. It would take a much more complex system of communication before you could discuss politics etc.



Foxi4 said:


> Despite having these capabilities, not a single species other than humans has ever exhibited any creative or spiritual activity beyond things they were coerced to do by humans (painting elephants and all that jazz). Since nothing to the contrary was ever observed, I have no reason to believe otherwise - animals don't bother with concepts like spirituality because they're likely alien to them and the very idea that they might sounds ridiculous to me.



Did you exhibit any creative or spiritual activity beyond things you were coerced to do by humans?



Foxi4 said:


> I keep hearing about "smart animals", but that doesn't mean they posess any form of higher intelligence - they're just smart in comparison to other animals. The best animals can do in terms of their smarts is create basic social structures - that's it. Anything beyond that seems like an exaggeration to me.



That is all a lot of humans can do too.



Foxi4 said:


> See, your line of thinking is the problem we face these days. Religion doesn't exist to explain the world - that's a job for science. It used to be as you said, but that's the root of religion, not its current function. We don't say that a thunder just struck a tree because it was God's will - we know how weather works. Religion is a source of meaning and guidiance, anyone who uses it in lieu of science is an idiot.



All religions were started because they didn't know how weather worked and used god being angry to explain why natural disasters happened.
Once you start peeling away and understanding why things really happen then god doesn't need to exist.



Mr. Prince said:


> I believe in god, yes. That god is mostly the one in Islam (Although we believe that Christians and Jews also believe in the same god). The thing I don't believe in is most of the interpretations of the Qur'an and the mostly fabricated hadeeths (Basically re-tellings of what the prophet said). I don't believe that I should hate people for believing in something different. I just need to disagree with what they believe in. I have many non-muslim friends and we're practically bros. I pray 5 times a day and listen to music. I fast ramadan and go to parties (Not at the same time lol).



This is the cause of the problem that muslims face today. ISIS say you aren't a real muslim, you say you are. ISIS says that real muslims should kill, you get upset that everyone thinks you want to kill them. You finally get so upset that you start wanting to kill people. I know muslims that are very liberal who are now really angry because of the bombing in Syria. When all we want to do is stop ISIL killing other muslims. ISIL are very good at manipulating anyone who identifies as muslim.



Mr. Prince said:


> The way I see it is: Even if God was just a big lie I wouldn't really lose anything. At least I won't feel like I I'm losing anything. If God is real, then I go to heaven lol.each other.



You might not be losing anything, but all your actions affect other people. Which is pretty selfish.

I'd quite like to see organised atheism, people often chose religion because they see a benefit from the social side of that religion rather than anything to do with it's theological side. People are willing to delude themselves if they perceive a payoff (look at anyone who is addicted to drugs).



xeronut said:


> I do not personally believe in a higher power, but I won't berate those that do.  I used to be the "angry atheist" type, taking pleasure in disproving your faith of choice.  These days I won't even argue with people about god because it's never about the flaws in their system of logic - it's a psych evaluation as to why I think the way I do.  Anyone that's ever buried a child or held hands with someone as they die of cancer has to at least question the notion of an omnibenevolent supreme being.  After having done both - and living with the aftermath - I believe that if there exists a god/gods of some sort they are as flawed as we are, nothing more.  My friends and family have allowed various addictions to destroy them, and my brother currently is being eaten alive by his.  Is suffering a Grand Design, a Fate?  Are some of us Destined to be wasted existences?  Or has our collective ego grown to the point where we cannot accept an eventuality that places what truly remains of us after we die in the same place as everything else we claim to have transcended?  I also feel that no matter how "user-friendly" a belief system may be, none of it is truly believable because none of them encourage you to ask all the questions.  Spirituality should be universal - no hierarchy, no secrets, no mysteries, no paywall.  If you're a deity and built your following on any of those things, you did it wrong and deserve all the war and disbelief and chaos that ensues.





grossaffe said:


> He asked that Galileo keep it hypothetical, though, and instead Galileo used the opportunity to push the Copernican model while insulting those following the Ptolemaic model.



It's difficult to avoid insulting someone who is so vehemently promoting something that is ludicrous in the way the Catholics were. 



grossaffe said:


> It's entirely plausible that if he had some tact with his approach instead of biting the hand that fed him, he could have gotten his ideas out to the public with the Pope's support (not public agreement, but perhaps an ally to get his enemies in the College Of Cardinals off his back).



Sure like the Christians that want intelligent design taught in schools because Evolution is "so obviously" flawed, you shouldn't be forced to teach something obviously wrong just to maintain the peace. Galileo did the right thing by fighting back against the corrupt and idiotic church that were stifling progress purely to maintain their entrenched position. If that contradicts someones religion that was built on taking power and control of the masses then so be it.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 13, 2015)

This thread is going to be endless page!


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about primates here, the closest thing there is to a human within the animal kingdom and a species that's been proven to be highly susceptible to training and learning. Sure, they can perform basic tasks - that doesn't grant them the ability of abstract thinking. On what grounds has it been deduced that they can and how did that lead to them having a concept of the afterlife? Complete nonsense that omits several steps between the observation and the conclusion.


Way to take things out of context. The person I was replying to said "I think it's been proven that outside of dolphins, animals do not have the ability to think abstractly. This abstract thinking allows us to ponder stuff like an after life, the universe, gods, etc."

I wanted to show there were researchs showing signs of abstract thinking in animals, so I posted the link to the article.
The rest of my previous post is my personal opinion.

About your question "On what grounds has it been deduced that they can and how did that lead to them having a concept of the afterlife? Complete nonsense that omits several steps between the observation and the conclusion."
It was the previous poster that made the connection between abstract thinking and afterlife, I never made such connection nor the article. At most I mentioned afterlife since that was something the previous poster talked about

Now you can try to discredit the article all you want, but the researchers probably having been studying and working in this field their whole life, while your best observations about animals is that your girlfriend's cat can hiss.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Way to take things out of context. The person I was replying to said "I think it's been proven that outside of dolphins, animals do not have the ability to think abstractly. This abstract thinking allows us to ponder stuff like an after life, the universe, gods, etc."
> 
> I wanted to show there were researchs showing signs of abstract thinking in animals, so I posted the link to the article.
> The rest of my previous post is my personal opinion.
> ...


I think that when you're desperately looking for something, you will eventually find it, or convince yourself that you did. The problem with studying animal behaviour is that you can't ask the animal for an opinion. Exchanging sex for gain is a thing that already exists in nature, I believe Bonobo monkeys have an entire social structure based on sex, which includes sex in exchange for sustenance, so I don't treat this evidence as convincing. A big part of critical thinking is questioning everything - I'm not going to believe a study just because a scientist says so, that's an appeal to authority fallacy. Admittedly I'd have to read the whole study and check the controls that were used, but it seems to me that they've reached a result because they wanted to, not because they conclusively proved anything. It's not an attack, it's a healthy dose of skepticism. They showed a monkey a concept and the monkey mimicked it - that's it. No species of monkeys devised currency by their own accord, they merely taught a monkey that it can exchange object X for things, so it began doing whatever it can to get more of object X - that's not abstract thinking, that's basic, primal gathering skills most mammals have, monkeys just have more capacity to learn because they're closely related to us.


smf said:


> The reason they wrote that being gay is bad is that they were worried that if too many people pursued same sex relationships then they wouldn't reproduce and the religion would die out. If they weren't so transfixed on bumping up their numbers, which most controversial concepts of a religion are essentially to do with, then they wouldn't care if two men or two women got together.
> 
> It's the same for stoning women who have sex outside of marriage, they or their children were more likely to die because they didn't have a man to protect them. Women are purposefully left uneducated so that they can be treated like baby factories to boost religions followers.
> 
> ...


You seem to have a very basic understanding of what religion is. Nobody in the world thinks that thunder strikes because God willed it to strike - religion has gone way past that point, and while these are the roots of it, it no longer serves an explanatory function. As I said earlier, it doesn't answer the questions of "what?" or "how?" - that's science. What it does answer, or attempt to answer, is "why?" - a question science is not equipped to answer, unlike religion and philosophy. Humans absolutely exhibit creativity before they are coerced to do so - all children doodle with crayons while no animal in the world has ever been seen drawing a picture without first being introduced to the concept - there are no wall scribbles drawn by monkeys just because they were bored or because they thought of documenting their history, it just doesn't happen. You exhibit something that really worries me - militant atheism. You blame religion for ISIS when there's no shortage of atheist groups that committed similar atrocities, just look at Stalin's regime or Lenin's League of Militant Atheists who persecuted religious people just because they were religious. They both realized that religion keeps people together and in order to crush their spirits they thought to erradicate it - by all means necessary, including mass murder of civilians and assassination of the clergy. Religion is not the root of terrorism or hate - it's xenophobia and lack of education. If Islam was at fault for ISIS, they would win that war - there's over a billion of muslims out there and only a handful of them are violent extremists. They're naive people who are being used by masterminds to push political agenda - more efforts need to be put into educating them, teaching them to think critically and for themselves. Believing or not believing in a higher authority or a global order of things has nothing to do with this.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 13, 2015)

I am an anti-theist. I don't believe in any deity and for some very small minorities, religion is a bad thing, at least in my opinion. In this day and age, it's silly to entrust your life to a magical being in the sky that gives you no answers to questions you're not allowed to ask, because all of them point to the same answer. I believe in science, which has explained more in the last century than religion has in a millennia. I couldn't care less about terrorism, as there are many other things worse than ISIS - american death counts because of gun violence, for example. Faith is just fear masquerading as virtue, that is all.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> I am an anti-theist. I don't believe in any deity and for some very small minorities, religion is a bad thing, at least in my opinion. In this day and age, it's silly to entrust your life to a magical being in the sky that gives you no answers to questions you're not allowed to ask, because all of them point to the same answer. I believe in science, which has explained more in the last century than religion has in a millennia. I couldn't care less about terrorism, as there are many other things worse than ISIS - american death counts because of gun violence, for example. Faith is just fear masquerading as virtue, that is all.


Why do you say religion is a bad thing?


----------



## Mr. Prince (Dec 13, 2015)

smf said:


> This is the cause of the problem that muslims face today. ISIS say you aren't a real muslim, you say you are. ISIS says that real muslims should kill, you get upset that everyone thinks you want to kill them. You finally get so upset that you start wanting to kill people. I know muslims that are very liberal who are now really angry because of the bombing in Syria. When all we want to do is stop ISIL killing other muslims. ISIL are very good at manipulating anyone who identifies as muslim.
> 
> 
> 
> You might not be losing anything, but all your actions affect other people. Which is pretty selfish.



That's a pretty close-minded way to think about it. You say I start killing people because ISIS tells me to? Hello? I don't care what other people think about me, especially cold-blooded killers like ISIS. Look at my flag and read my post again and you'll understand.

How am I hurting other people just for believing and how is believing in religion selfish? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.


----------



## Arithmatics (Dec 13, 2015)

Wow. I'd add my two cents but I haven't finished going through the other replies and arguments


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

Yes, its just scientifically impossible for the universe to have come from nothing, and life cannot emerge from an empty void according to science.
So, god must exist by deductive logic.

But I don't believe god to be kind or benevolent. god is just the creator nothing more. God would be as benevolent to mankind as we would be to an tree ant.
God is god, its not kind, its not benevolent, but it did create the universe, and that's all.

And yes, I do refer to God as an it, not a he or she, because any being able to create the universe cannot be quantified by genders, or race, or creed, or culture. It must be beyond everything that we can imagine.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

Mr. Prince said:


> That's a pretty close-minded way to think about it. You say I start killing people because ISIS tells me to? Hello? I don't care what other people think about me, especially cold-blooded killers like ISIS. Look at my flag and read my post again and you'll understand.
> 
> How am I hurting other people just for believing and how is believing in religion selfish? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.


It's indeed very close-minded, he's likening all religion to extremism, pushing the idea that if you believe in something, you're automatically simple-minded and easy to manipulate, as if the capacity to learn and critical thinking weren't skills you can have. Being religious or atheist has nothing to do with your ability to use mental faculties - sure, there are Christians who want to teach creationism instead of evolution, there are Muslims who kill people for being different, but that's not because they're religious, it's because they're particularily naive, not to say stupid individuals. Atheism doesn't make anyone smarter or more clever than a religious person - there's no shortage of atheist idiots and history shows that atheist ideologies have as much of a potential for hate and destruction as religious ones. He has a pre-conception of what religion is and doesn't take into account the function religion plays in people's lives. "Being religious or not" and "Not being an asshole" are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Dec 13, 2015)

Yes I do, didn't for 28 years and the reasons I changed my mind are quite personal and by the standards of social norms are completely "crazy", although that word is quite overused these days. It was not a sudden change in beliefs/an epiphany, but a very gradual process that lead me to accept Christ, and if I wouldn't have, I would've been dead years ago. That's as personal as I'm willing to get.


----------



## Mr. Prince (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> It's obviously not, he's likening all religion to extremism, pushing the idea that if you believe in something, you're automiatically simple-minded and easy to manipulate, as if the capacity to learn and critical thinking weren't skills you can have. Being religious or atheist has nothing to do with your ability to use mental faculties - sure, there are Christians who want to teach Creationism instead of evolution, there are Muslims who kill people for being different, but that's not because they're religious, it's because they're particularily naive, not to say stupid individuals. Atheism doesn't make anyone smarter or more clever than a religious person - there's no shortage of atheist idiots and history shows that atheist ideologies have as much of a potential for hate and destruction as religious ones.



Oh my bad. I misinterpreted his post. For some reason I thought he/she wrote that ALL muslims (Or every religious person) will become killers (Or at least believe in killing) at one point. While I don't like to say it, most of the people where I live are extremely easy to manipulate. 1-2 years ago, most of the people were rooting for ISIS (I know, I'm disgusted by it, too). Right now, however, the whole place is filled with anti-ISIS propaganda. Posters with "Death to ISIS" plastered all over hospitals (As a med student, I can't help but find it ironic), government-owned news channels cursing everyone who supports ISIS, and even the king, himself, speaking against them. The same people who were supporting ISIS 1-2 years ago are now extremely vocal against them. I do believe that religion has a part in this, but I honestly think it's more related to politics and how the person was raised. Just when ISIS started to threaten the royal family, the anti-ISIS mentality started growing. Coincidence? I think not (I always wanted to say that lol). People here were raised with the "my country is better than yours" mentality. And how do they support that claim? By claiming that this country is the most religious and holy place out there. This effectively makes it so they believe that what this country does is always in the name of religion and therefore it is right. That being said, people here actually are becoming more and more open to other beliefs, so that's nice. I probably wouldn't be typing this if I was actually raised here lol.


EDIT: I read your un-edited post. I know that you changed your viewpoint, but I partially agree with your initial statement. I still think it's close-minded that he/she implied that it applies to EVERY person of faith.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

Mr. Prince said:


> Oh my bad. I misinterpreted his post. For some reason I thought he/she wrote that ALL muslims (Or every religious person) will become killers (Or at least believe in killing) at one point. While I don't like to say it, most of the people where I live are extremely easy to manipulate. 1-2 years ago, most of the people were rooting for ISIS (I know, I'm disgusted by it, too). Right now, however, the whole place is filled with anti-ISIS propaganda. Posters with "Death to ISIS" plastered all over hospitals (As a med student, I can't help but find it ironic), government-owned news channels cursing everyone who supports ISIS, and even the king, himself, speaking against them. The same people who were supporting ISIS 1-2 years ago are now extremely vocal against them. I do believe that religion has a part in this, but I honestly think it's more related to politics and how the person was raised. Just when ISIS started to threaten the royal family, the anti-ISIS mentality started growing. Coincidence? I think not (I always wanted to say that lol). People here were raised with the "my country is better than yours" mentality. And how do they support that claim? By claiming that this country is the most religious and holy place out there. This effectively makes it so they believe that what this country does is always in the name of religion and therefore it is right. That being said, people here actually are becoming more and more open to other beliefs, so that's nice. I probably wouldn't be typing this if I was actually raised here lol.
> 
> EDIT: I read your un-edited post. I know that you changed your viewpoint, but I partially agree with your initial statement. I still think it's close-minded that he/she implied that it applies to EVERY person of faith.


Even as a Christian I find the idea that Islam is to blame for terrorism repulsive. Everyone knows that these violent idiots make your life a living hell and brew internal conflict when the average muslim just wants to peacefuly get on with his/her life. Islam is not to blame here - poverty and poor education are. The bombs aren't helping either - I can see how someone would resent the West if it invaded his/her country and put a bullet through his/her brother's head, even if accidentally. It's pretty obvious that all the ISIS masterminds want is power, and they're using poor, gullible and hurt people to do their bidding. It's a huge mess, but religion has little to do with it - ISIS fighters don't kill for Allah, even if they claim to do so, they kill because of blind hate. I feel that it's hard to be a muslim in the wake of recent attacks. People apply that same blind hate to judge you all when really, ISIS, the Taliban etc. are just small subsets of all muslims, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they're so agressive - the West gives them all the reasons to with their constant interventions in middle-eastern affairs. If the West could befriend the East, muslims in those regions would have no reason to hate them and by extention terrorist cells would have no pull over the impressionable youth which can't see far beyond the basic idea of revenge. They were spoon-fed the idea that the West is the enemy and the only way to achieve peace is to eliminate its influence, just one of the many lies terrorists spout, and we're making it all too easy with constant Western military presence in the area. Violence begets violence, not religion. Blaming religion for the current situation is close-minded and omits crucial facts - even without Islam in the picture, anti-western terrorists would still be there because we keep poking the ant hill.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Even as a Christian I find the idea that Islam is to blame for terrorism repulsive. Everyone knows that these violent idiots make your life a living hell and brew internal conflict when the average muslim just wants to peacefuly get on with his/her life. Islam is not to blame here - poverty and poor education are. The bombs aren't helping either - I can see how someone would resent the West if it invaded his/her country and put a bullet through his brother's head, even if accidentally. It's pretty obvious that all the ISIS masterminds want is power, and they're using poor, gullible and hurt people to do they're bidding. It's a huge mess, but religion has little to do with it - ISIS fighters don't kill for Allah, even if they claim to do so, they kill because of blind hate. I feel that it's hard to be a muslim in the wake of recent attacks. People apply that same blind hate to judge you all when really, ISIS, the Taliban etc. are just small subsets of all muslims, and I don't think it's a coincidence that they're so agressive - the West gives them all the reasons to with their constant interventions in middle-eastern affairs. If the West could befriend the East, muslims in those regions would have no reason to hate them and by extention terrorist cells would have no pull over the impressionable youth which can't see far beyond the basic idea of revenge. They were spoon-fed the idea that the West is the enemy and the only way to achieve peace is to eliminate its influence, just one of the many lies terrorists spout, and we're making it all too easy with constant Western military presence in the area. Violence begets violence, not religion.


Yeah, muslims wouldn't get such bad credit if they didn't have ISIS ruining the way they look, Which i know just because your muslim your not ISIS but political figures such as Donald Trump don't seem to see that...


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 13, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why do you say religion is a bad thing?



What good does it do for our civilisation?

Most 'religious' people don't even know much about their own religion to start with. A vast majority of idiots that cherry pick from the bible don't know many of the other parts, either because they have enough scripture to think their views are morally and ethically sound or they're just not intelligent enough to understand parts.

The devil killed 10 people in the bible, 10. And those were still with permission from god. Reading from the Bible, you'll find passages where God killed at least 2,400,000 people, not including the great flood. You'd have to estimate, but biblical scholars estimate that toll to be about 20,000,000 people. The devil is both less evil and less deadly than God is. God punishes you for being human, the devil does not.

I don't care about terrorism, and people use terrorists to back up points about religion are very misguided. It isn't just Islam, it's all of religion, it genuinely doesn't enrich anybody's life. And what good is an insurance policy that expires as soon as you claim it? If god is as evil as in the bible, I expect very few people ever really got into heaven to start with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> What good does it do for our civilisation?
> 
> Most 'religious' people don't even know much about their own religion to start with. A vast majority of idiots that cherry pick from the bible don't know many of the other parts, either because they have enough scripture to think their views are morally and ethically sound or they're just not intelligent enough to understand parts.
> 
> The devil killed 10 people in the bible, 10. And those were still with permission from god. Reading from the Bible, you'll find passages where God killed at least 2,400,000 people, not including the great flood. You'd have to estimate, but biblical scholars estimate that toll to be about 20,000,000 people. The devil is both less evil and less deadly than God is. God punishes you for being human, the devil does not.


The Bible shouldn't be treated as an instruction booklet on how to live your live, it's a set of guidelines with some moralistic stories to go with them. Basic principles, like "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't cheat". I love the fixation most Atheists have around the Old Testament when Christians haven't been duty-bound to follow it  - we follow the New Testament, the old one is there as a background for future events. The Bible literally says that the new "Law of Christ" is just two commandments - "Love God" and "Love thy Neighbour".


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> What good does it do for our civilisation?
> 
> Most 'religious' people don't even know much about their own religion to start with. A vast majority of idiots that cherry pick from the bible don't know many of the other parts, either because they have enough scripture to think their views are morally and ethically sound or they're just not intelligent enough to understand parts.
> 
> ...


i agree with you completely. the only good thing religion does is bind communities together. but that also has the downside of excluding people of the community who aren't from that one religion. and there's other ways to get a good community spirit.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> The Bible shouldn't be treated as an instruction booklet on how to live your live, it's a set of guidelines with some moralistic stories to go with them. Basic principles, like "don't steal", "don't kill", "don't cheat". I love the fixation most Atheists have around the Old Testament when Christians haven't been duty-bound to follow it since the reformative period - we follow the New Testament, the old one is there as a background for future events.



Then why read it at all? Why follow a religion that essentially teaches nothing? There's more harm than good in all holy books, they're giant tomes of war and murder.

Nobody needs religion to teach them morality. Religious people use scripture to fuel their good deeds, not because they want to, but because their book tells them too. I suppose they just gloss over murder, rape and slavery? I've never had religion in my life and I turned out well without it. My morality was taught by my parents (both also non-religious). Even then, humans have instincts that we have evolved to know what is right and what is wrong. We know what honesty is, and we know what a lie is, even without having to be taught.


----------



## Lord M (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> This thread is going to be endless page!


And useless, expecially... Everybody believe and CAN believe in what he want, and is right in this way


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> Nobody needs religion to teach them morality.


that's what i don't understand either. christians say they follow the rules because its part of their religion. so what if they weren't religion they'd be out looting and shit? non religious people are just as moral and ethical as religious people.



Lord M said:


> And useless, expecially... Everybody believe and CAN believe in what he want, and is right in this way


everyone can believe whatever they want. the problem is when people act on those beliefs without consideration.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 13, 2015)

dimmidice said:


> that's what i don't understand either. christians say they follow the rules because its part of their religion. so what if they weren't religion they'd be out looting and shit? non religious people are just as moral and ethical as religious people.



If they followed their book instead of cherry picking the good parts, they'd know their god not just kills people, but condones it as well. But also is a hypocrite by saying not to do it as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> Then why read it at all? Why follow a religion that essentially teaches nothing? There's more harm than good in all holy books, they're giant tomes of war and murder.


That's an opinion, not a fact. Religion, much like ideology, can cause good and harm alike, depending on whether it's used correctly or misused. Remember Marx? All he wanted was equality and free distribution of goods. What came out of it? Communism and socialism - totalitarian regimes that killed thousands of people and caused immense suffering and war. Any idea can be perverted and crooked, and the only way to prevent that is to reject ideas altogether, which would essentially mean rejecting everything that makes us human. The only way to prevent tragedy is to educate, teach people to think critically and for themselves instead of being controlled, under whatever dogma, religious or secular.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> That's an opinion, not a fact. Religion, much like ideology, can cause good and harm alike, depending on whether it's used correctly or misused. Remember Marx? All he wanted was equality and free distribution of goods. What came out of it? Communism and socialism - totalitarian regimes that killed thousands of people and caused immense suffering and war. Any idea can be crooked, and the only way to prevent that is to reject ideas altogether, which would essentially mean rejecting everything that makes us human. The only way to prevent tragedy is to educate, teach people to think critically and for themselves instead of being controlled, under whatever dogma, religious or secular.



You're completely right, but if you read any holy book, you'd also know you're partly wrong. There is so much war and death in the bible and quran. They're the most gruesome pieces of fiction ever written.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> You're completely right, but if you read any holy book, you'd also know you're partly wrong. There is so much war and death in the bible and quran. They're the most gruesome pieces of fiction ever written.


So is your average history book - does that mean we should stop teaching it? Have you ever considered the fact that those events are depicted in such a way to prevent people from committing atrocities? Because that's also the function of history - those who don't know it are bent to repeat it. Does the Bible need a revision? Sure, it's been several centuries, it needs a check-up. Is it wrong as an idea? No, it most certainly isn't.


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 13, 2015)

what "idea" are you referring too exactly? what does the bible teach that's valuable? that isn't learned by just living your life?

edit: all i remember from bible class (i went to catholic schools) is a bunch of old stories that were cloaked in myth and fairy tales. supposedly they were meant to teach some great truths of life but all those lessons were really pretty obvious shit. e.g. sharing is good, be kind to people, don't stab people in the face. that sort of stuff.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

dimmidice said:


> what "idea" are you referring too exactly? what does the bible teach that's valuable? that isn't learned by just living your life?


It's a vehicle for teaching ethics, and I don't have a problem with that. The difference between pure ethics and religion is that one assumes the existence of a higher authority and the other doesn't. I also don't have a problem with what Atheists call cherry-picking and what I call critical thinking - religious dogmas have been devised centuries ago and don't always reflect the socio-economic climate - that was the reason behind reformation. Questioning authority is crucial in life, I'd argue that we should question everything and always, just to engage our thought process in all decisions and stimulate learning - we need to adjust while remaining ethical. To pick an example of such an adjustment, there's no shortage of Christianity chapters that allow gay relationships, or even gay clergy. Religion needs to evolve along with society, its only core belief that stays the same is higher authority.


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 13, 2015)

I think you're speaking about your own religion. as in the parts of christianity you like and believe in. you're ignoring a lot of the bad aspects of christianity IMO. like how people tend to only use religions to reinforce their own opinions and beliefs instead of learning from the books. how people to tend to become sheep about the whole thing. 
you say the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. is  this an official stance by the church? because if so the followers of the church should start doing that. there are too many people who do take it literally (but of course only the bits they agree with) 

is the bible as a whole bad? of course not. i don't remember much from bible class but what i do remember i found interesting. in the same way i find a fantasy novel interesting. there's definitely some good in it. but it's far outweighed by the bad it causes. and it doesn't offer anything that you need to be religious for. the discussion we're having isn't about the bible, it's about religion as a whole. and i agree that most religions do more bad than good.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 13, 2015)

dimmidice said:


> I think you're speaking about your own religion. as in the parts of christianity you like and believe in. you're ignoring a lot of the bad aspects of christianity IMO. like how people tend to only use religions to reinforce their own opinions and beliefs instead of learning from the books. how people to tend to become sheep about the whole thing.
> you say the bible isn't meant to be taken literally. is  this an official stance by the church? because if so the followers of the church should start doing that. there are too many people who do take it literally (but of course only the bits they agree with)
> 
> is the bible as a whole bad? of course not. i don't remember much from bible class but what i do remember i found interesting. in the same way i find a fantasy novel interesting. there's definitely some good in it. but it's far outweighed by the bad it causes. and it doesn't offer anything that you need to be religious for. the discussion we're having isn't about the bible, it's about religion as a whole. and i agree that most religions do more bad than good.


You are correct - religion is open to interpretation and interpretation is a two-edged sword. It can be used for evil, like with ISIS or the crusades, it can be used for good, by religious charities helping the less fortunate, or even just by binding communities together in times of need. To show another example, think of John Paul the II - he played a pivotal role in the liberation of my country, his position as the Pope strengthened people's spirits and with faith on one shoulder and banners in arms, eventually, my country was liberated from the U.S.S.R's influence. Again, like ideology, religion is merely a tool - it's not good or evil by definition, it's the implementation that can be good or evil. This is why having an educated populace is important - it prevents using ideas as shields in order to gain political influence, power or wealth. Religion should be a source of inner strength, the will to self-improve and face even impossible odds, not as an excuse to hate. I know I'm sounding terribly metaphysical which is very much unlike me, but I have a strong tendency to believe that people have a degree of innate goodness. Whatever they do, they believe to be good for whatever reason - nobody fancies themselves a villian, that's a sign of insanity. People do things because they believe they will bring some form of benefit, to themselves or to others. Now, the problem is steering that drive towards a mutual greater good, and that's a challenge for which many disciplines need to meet. Regarding your question about what Christians are supposed to follow, the Bible explicitly states that by "loving God", meaning believing in higher authority, and "loving thy neighbour", meaning treating others with the same respect you would expect for yourself, you fulfill all of the other commandments. That's two things Christians need to do in order to be in-line with their faith, everything else is a matter for personal consideration and pondering, with the Old Testament not being relevant at all.


----------



## Megalegacy98 (Dec 13, 2015)

I'm an Orthodox Christian so yeah. I believe that Jesus died for us and that God is real. I also believe in Hell and Heaven.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 13, 2015)

Megalegacy98 said:


> I'm an Orthodox Christian so yeah. I believe that Jesus died for us and that God is real. I also believe in Hell and Heaven.



Good for you but umm.. God has a name because Jesus mentioned that. I can't blame you but  there is no Hell. I thought it was there too until I found out about it. Now, I know that there is no Hell at all. The bible did explain that.


----------



## Megalegacy98 (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Good for you but umm.. God has a name because Jesus mentioned that. I can't blame you but  there is no Hell. I thought it was there too until I found out about it. Now, I know that there is no Hell at all. The bible did explain that.


Can you tell me where?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 13, 2015)

God has a name:

PSALM 83:18

Jesus mentioned that:

John 17:26

Now..

Some bible translations use the world "hell" for the hebrew word "Sheol" and the matching Greek word "Hades," both of which refer to the common "grave" of mankind. Psalm 16;10, Acts 2:27. Many people believe in a fiery hell. I can't blame you too. Your church and my church taught us that. However, the Bible teaches otherwise:

1. Those in hell are unconscious and so cannot feel pain. "There is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol." Ecclesiastes 9:10... BINGO!!!

2. Good people go to hell. Wait a minute.. Sheol, that is. Yes, the faithful men Jacob and Job excepted to go there. Here: Genesis 37:35, Job 14:13.

3. Death, not torment in a fiery hell, is the penalty for sin. "He who has die has been acquitted from his sin." Here: Romans 6:7.

4. Eternal torment would violate God's justice. How ? Read this: Deuteronomy 32:4 - When the first man, Adam, sinned, God told him that his punishment would simple be to pass out of existence: "Dust you are and to dust you will return" Here: Genesis 3:19.. Don't you forgot that! :-)

God would have been lying if he were actually sending Adam to a fiery hell.

5: God does not even contemplate eternal torment. The idea that he would punish people in hellfire is country to the Bible's teaching that "God is love" See ? Here: 1 John 4;8, Jeremiah 7:31

Cheers!


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> Yes, its just scientifically impossible for the universe to have come from nothing, and life cannot emerge from an empty void according to science.
> So, god must exist by deductive logic.


According to science, god must exist?  Please do show where science proved the existence of god.


----------



## Megalegacy98 (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> God has a name:
> 
> PSALM 83:18
> 
> ...


Thanks!


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hey, don't badmouth about Jehovah's Witness. Respect them.



Telling people that you demand their respect is usually the best way to ensure you don't get respect.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> God has a name:
> 
> PSALM 83:18
> 
> ...


That's actually really interesting, and I didn't know that! So the belief that nothing happens when you die can also coexist with a belief in God and Heaven. I like that idea


----------



## cdoty (Dec 13, 2015)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Yeah, muslims wouldn't get such bad credit if they didn't have ISIS ruining the way they look, Which i know just because your muslim your not ISIS but political figures such as Donald Trump don't seem to see that...



I'm not sure how Trump's statement was taken so far out of context... Actually, I do.. it's not newsworthy unless you use it out of context.

I would compare his statement to the creation of the TSA, grounding planes after the 9/11 attacks, limiting carry on water, etc. We adjust our policies based on events, this is nothing more than that. He does clearly say stop them until we can put controls in place. That could be as simple as a memo on passport and visa requirements, or a system to flag passengers for additional review. It does need a long term review, but that can be done as long as some preliminary controls are in place.

We've missed at least three cases where people traveled into known terrorist hot-spots which have lead to mass killings. They are: San Bernardino, Chattanooga, and Boston. It seems a bit odd that we can say 'Not one More' to gun violence, but cannot say the same thing to obvious terrorist attacks. How many additional cases either didn't happen or haven't happened yet?

How can the NSA can track your internet searches, but can't figure out when people fly into potential terrorist hot-spots? We should let NSA loose on gun sales, they probably could have identified Dylann Roof and stopped him.

Anyway... back to bigger issues..
It's probably a good thing Christians aren't all seen as Westboro baptist, Pat Robertson, or Harold Camping types.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

Yeah, I'm sorry that I took Trump's desire to create a Muslim registry/ID system and ban of all Muslim traffic in and out of the US the wrong way


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 13, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, I'm sorry that I took Trump's desire to create a Muslim registry/ID system and ban of all Muslim traffic in and out of the US the wrong way


Yeah i must've taken that the wrong way too..


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> According to science, god must exist?  Please do show where science proved the existence of god.



Well, think about it...

The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator. The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” Hebrews 3:4.

Although this logic is simple, many well-educated people find it to be powerful.

As humans, we have an innate desire to understand the meaning and purpose of life, a type of hunger that can remain after our physical needs have been met. This is part of what the Bible calls our “spiritual need,” which includes the desire to know and worship God. Matthew 5:3; Revelation 4:11

This spiritual need not only gives evidence that God exists but also indicates that he is a loving Creator who wants us to satisfy that need. Here: Matthew 4:4


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Well, think about it...
> 
> The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator. The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” Hebrews 3:4.
> 
> ...


None of that is even the slightest bit scientific


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> None of that is even the slightest bit scientific


Look up the Creation Research Institute (CRI). They're doing a lot of scientific digging with Biblical ideas. I personally am not a fan of their inability to let go of the 6,000-10,000 year "young earth" model (although I do personally believe for various reasons that scientists have wildly overestimated the age of the earth by a few hundred million years), but regardless it does partake in a lot of peer-reviewed research


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Well, think about it...
> 
> The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator. The Bible says: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.” Hebrews 3:4.
> 
> ...



Basically this says: the bible says god made everything, and there IS an everything, so therefore god! Plus, the fact a lot of people want there to be a god must mean a god exist! there is no other way. plus the bible says it. simple logic and really smart people agree with it!



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I do personally believe for various reasons that scientists have wildly overestimated the age of the earth by a few hundred million years



Which branch of science? Several branches have independently pointed to a very ancient age. Independent research of each other have verified data and projections of the other fields. It's not just one field that's guessing, it's multiple fields of science working in tandem to verify. That and there's zero evidence to the contrary. Out of curiosity, why would you believe the current science to be inaccurate?


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Look up the Creation Research Institute (CRI). They're doing a lot of scientific digging with Biblical ideas. I personally am not a fan of their inability to let go of the 6,000-10,000 year "young earth" model (although I do personally believe for various reasons that scientists have wildly overestimated the age of the earth by a few hundred million years), but regardless it does partake in a lot of peer-reviewed research


The CRI is not a scientific organization.  They begin with a conclusion and then search for supporting evidence while rejecting contradictory evidence.  It's just religion trying to disguise itself a science.  There's a reason that upon seeking approval for a science Masters Degree program, scientific faculties voted against it 95%.


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> According to science, god must exist?  Please do show where science proved the existence of god.


Deductive logic states that if according to science life in the most rudimentary single celled form cannot miraculously appear from nothing, then something must have placed life in the universe.

If life cannot come from nothing then something must have created life, an entity that is capable of creating life in the universe must be God.

Its very simple science, an empty lifeless void will remain that way from now until the end of time, thus life must have originated from something. Call it what you will, but I choose to that entity which created life "God".


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> Deductive logic states that if according to science life in the most rudimentary single celled form cannot miraculously appear from nothing, then something must have placed life in the universe.
> 
> If life cannot come from nothing then something must have created life, an entity that is capable of creating life in the universe must be God.
> 
> Its very simple science, an empty lifeless void will remain that way from now until the end of time, thus life most have originated from something. Call it what you will, but I choose to that entity which created life "God".


In order for your logic to work, you must assume there is no natural way for single cell life to have formed. That's bad logic. It sounds like you already have your conclusion, you're just trying to figure out how to make everything point to it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

I'm an idiot, it's actually ICR lol


grossaffe said:


> The *ICR is not a scientific organization.  They begin with a conclusion and then search for supporting evidence while rejecting contradictory evidence.  It's just religion trying to disguise itself a science.  There's a reason that upon seeking approval for a science Masters Degree program, scientific faculties voted against it 95%.


Hm. All the same, look up "Ice Cores, Sea Floors, and the Age of the Earth". It's an article that they put out that I think you'd find interesting

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> Which branch of science? Several branches have independently pointed to a very ancient age. Independent research of each other have verified data and projections of the other fields. It's not just one field that's guessing, it's multiple fields of science working in tandem to verify. That and there's zero evidence to the contrary. Out of curiosity, why would you believe the current science to be inaccurate?


The particular article I just referenced


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> Deductive logic states that if according to science life in the most rudimentary single celled form cannot miraculously appear from nothing, then something must have placed life in the universe.
> 
> If life cannot come from nothing then something must have created life, an entity that is capable of creating life in the universe must be God.
> 
> Its very simple science, an empty lifeless void will remain that way from now until the end of time, thus life most have originated from something. Call it what you will, but I choose to that entity which created life "God".


That is not science.  The axiom that life comes from life and not spontaneously created from non-life is not to say it is impossible for life to form not from life, but rather the axiom was refuting the belief at the time in the so-called life-force.  It was believed that some mystical life-force existed that would create Maggots out of nothing.  Instead, after experimentation with rotting meat in a sealed jar, it was proved that maggots did not form when the meat was sealed away where other life couldn't get to it.  That wasn't good enough, though, because then people complained that the jar was sealing out the life-force, so the experiment was repeated with a mesh covering the jar instead of sealing it, so the life-force could get into the jar, but still the maggots did not appear.  So based on this experiment, we get the axiom that life comes from life, which does not disprove a natural abiogenesis creating the first, most rudimentary forms of life that evolved into what we are today.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> Deductive logic states that if according to science life in the most rudimentary single celled form cannot miraculously appear from nothing, then something must have placed life in the universe.
> 
> If life cannot come from nothing then something must have created life, an entity that is capable of creating life in the universe must be God.
> 
> Its very simple science, an empty lifeless void will remain that way from now until the end of time, thus life must have originated from something. Call it what you will, but I choose to that entity which created life "God".



Precisely!


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> In order for your logic to work, you must assume there is no natural way for single cell life to have formed. That's bad logic. It sounds like you already have your conclusion, you're just trying to figure out how to make everything point to it.


There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.

The very first singled celled life form cannot exist unless something created it. I choose to call that something, "God".

I'm a man of science, I don't believe in the biblical sense of god, but to negate the fact that a superior godlike entity created the very universe that we live in, is really being juvenile.
Life in the universe came from something, it did not just come to be on its own accord.

Everything in life can be broken down to deductive logic, once all the impossible is removed, the only answer left is the right answer. No answer can explain the creation of life, thus the only answer left is a superior being of some sort.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.
> 
> ...


You claim to be a man of science, but I am seeing a tenuous grasp on science.  If science agreed that there must be a god, we'd have heard of it before your revelations here.


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> That is not science.  The axiom that life comes from life and not spontaneously created from non-life is not to say it is impossible for life to form not from life, but rather the axiom was refuting the belief at the time in the so-called life-force.  It was believed that some mystical life-force existed that would create Maggots out of nothing.  Instead, after experimentation with rotting meat in a sealed jar, it was proved that maggots did not form when the meat was sealed away where other life couldn't get to it.  That wasn't good enough, though, because then people complained that the jar was sealing out the life-force, so the experiment was repeated with a mesh covering the jar instead of sealing it, so the life-force could get into the jar, but still the maggots did not appear.  So based on this experiment, we get the axiom that life comes from life, which does not disprove a natural abiogenesis creating the first, most rudimentary forms of life that evolved into what we are today.


Your experiment proves nothing when it comes to the origin of life.

In order to prove that god exist, one must simply place an baron lifeless rock within an void. The baron rock will remain baron from now until the end of time if remained sealed within the void. This proves that life cannot spontaneously exert itself into existence, and that all life come from an unknown catalyst. God.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> You claim to be a man of science, but I am seeing a tenuous grasp on science.  If science agreed that there must be a god, we'd have heard of it before your revelations here.


Science does not claim that there must be a god, but it does claim that life cannot exist without an catalyst, thus it has already proven the existence of god.

Only a fool can believe that the vastness of the universe and the life that resides within such a universe came from nothing.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> Your experiment proves nothing when it comes to the origin of life.


Exactly.  It disproved the life-force, hence the axiom that life comes from life, but it does not disprove abiogenesis as you claim.



> In order to prove that god exist, one must simply place an baron lifeless rock within an void. The baron rock will remain baron from now until the end of time if remained sealed within the void. This proves that life cannot spontaneously exert itself into existence, and that all life come from an unknown catalyst. God.


So your proof that god exists is that you arbitrarily created an experiment in your head and arbitrarily decided upon the results.  Now that's science.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 13, 2015)

As a man of science, I must say that after thirty pages the evidence seems to demonstrate that nobody will be changing their minds.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> There is no way for single celled life to emerge from an empty void, its already scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> Life on earth in the single cell form, came from panspermia of some sort, most likely from a meteor. But it is impossible for life to suddenly appear from nothing in the universe.
> 
> ...



"scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Where do you come from? the 1940s? You should pick up the latest research on abiogenesis. If you truly are one to think scientifically, I think you'll find the latest research will completely change your current position (since your position relies on abiogenesis not being scientifically viable, which is false). Heck, start at the PAH world hypothesis and keep up the research until you reach the rest of us in the modern day.


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 13, 2015)

I'd say one of the biggest problems the formation of life has without intelligent design, is the fact that nature/evolution cannot "learn".  Suppose it's possible for single cell life to have spontaneously popped into existence (which I would think scientists would have been able to replicate by now under controlled circumstances, but apparently we can't even do it with intelligence behind it).  It would be irrelevant unless that single cell were also capable of reproduction.  Otherwise it lives, dies, and we start over.  Without learning, what's to stop the same "design" from being used over and over again.  It's not like the universe can go "Hey, I know, it needs to be able to reproduce."  The ability to reproduce cannot evolve into being, by definition.  You have to get it right on the first go.  Oh, and that successful, reproducing cell must also be capable of eventually evolving or everything just stays at that level forever. Sure a room of monkeys with typewriters might eventually produce a Shakespearean play, but there's also nothing to stop them from just pressing "q" over and over for eternity.  Basically, the odds are ridiculously against the spontaneous existence of sustainable life.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> I'd say one of the biggest problems the formation of life has without intelligent design, is the fact that nature/evolution cannot "learn".  Suppose it's possible for single cell life to have spontaneously popped into existence (which I would think scientists would have been able to replicate by now under controlled circumstances, but apparently we can't even do it with intelligence behind it).  It would be irrelevant unless that single cell were also capable of reproduction.  Otherwise it lives, dies, and we start over.  Without learning, what's to stop the same "design" from being used over and over again.  It's not like the universe can go "Hey, I know, it needs to be able to reproduce."  The ability to reproduce cannot evolve into being, by definition.  You have to get it right on the first go.  Oh, and that successful, reproducing cell must also be capable of eventually evolving or everything just stays at that level forever. Sure a room of monkeys with typewriters might eventually produce a Shakespearean play, but there's also nothing to stop them from just pressing "q" over and over for eternity.  Basically, the odds are ridiculously against the spontaneous existence of sustainable life.


Early life swapped genes around. It was crazy back then. Look into "Horizontal gene transfer" for an explanation on how this is possible.


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Exactly.  It disproved the life-force, hence the axiom that life comes from life, but it does not disprove abiogenesis as you claim.
> 
> 
> So your proof that god exists is that you arbitrarily created an experiment in your head and arbitrarily decided upon the results.  Now that's science.


This is not an arbitrary experiment, scientists have attempted to spontaneously seed life within a baron void, with no success.

Ask yourself, do you honestly believe that singled celled life can spontaneously will itself into existence without an external catalyst? How juvenile is that?
If you wait long enough then life will suddenly just come to be? Really, is that what you people really believe?

I don't know what's worse people who believe in God or people who believe in life suddenly appearing from nothing. lol

C'mon, if God does not exist, then life must have just up and appeared out of thin air. How likely is that?


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 13, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> Early life swapped genes around. It was crazy back then. Look into "Horizontal gene transfer" for an explanation on how this is possible.



Interesting...  So, replace "reproduction" with "ability to transfer genetic information" in my previous post.  Still has to "evolve" that particular characteristic in one try.


----------



## T-hug (Dec 13, 2015)

I believe in ancient astronaut theory.


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> "scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Where do you come from? the 1940s? You should pick up the latest research on abiogenesis. If you truly are one to think scientifically, I think you'll find the latest research will completely change your current position (since your position relies on abiogenesis not being scientifically viable, which is false). Heck, start at the PAH world hypothesis and keep up the research until you reach the rest of us in the modern day.


I just heard you spout a lot of nonsense, didn't see a single shred of proof that life can spontaneously appear without a catalyst.  
Seems like the anti-god in you is getting angry. 

You prove to me that life can come from nothing, and I'll believe in your godless universe. Until then its all pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 13, 2015)

T-hug said:


> I believe in ancient astronaut theory.



And here I was hoping we humans would eventually become smart enough to send life seeds back in time and start ourselves...


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> And here I was hoping we humans would eventually become smart enough to send life seeds back in time and start ourselves...


That would make us God. 
Now the next question is how many parallel universes exist where we fucked up and never created ourselves. lol


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> Interesting...  So, replace "reproduction" with "ability to transfer genetic information" in my previous post.  Still has to "evolve" that particular characteristic in one try.



Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we now would consider life (or at least, life-like). And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.

Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start (after a bunch of other steps/things). Before that point where evolution could be a thing, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions(more or less).

It is a pretty complex thing, and we don't know everything, but we have a lot of solid evidence that this, or something very similar, is what happened. There's zero reason to believe that there wasn't a natural method to it, at any rate. That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> This is not an arbitrary experiment, scientists have attempted to spontaneously seed life within a baron void, with no success.
> 
> Ask yourself, do you honestly believe that singled celled life can spontaneously will itself into existence without an external catalyst? How juvenile is that?
> If you wait long enough then life will suddenly just come to be? Really, is that what you people really believe?
> ...


Biology is a series of chemical reactions.  Chemical reactions happen outside of biology.  Given the right environment, chemical reactions could result in ribonucleic acids.


----------



## drakegraves (Dec 13, 2015)

I really don't mean to sound contentious, I don't have an ego about this idea, and you can take it with a grain of salt! I just want something to add to the conversation!

I think Atheism and Christianity are similar in one specific way: Neither belief system has enough evidence to prove or disprove the real core questions they're asked by nature of the subject. And the people who are loud enough to preach either one, seem to do it sometimes for vain and almost even Freudian reasons. People who are confident in what they believe tend not get in your face and try to make you believe it, too; that's what people who are in denial do.

I'm not saying this about all Atheists, but many of the ones I've known are small, petty people. They want to appear as a cold logical machine, and they're afraid people can sense their tendency towards whimsy and superstition. They want to convince themselves and everyone around them they're not as suggestible as you are. 

Conversely, Christianity can be a wonderful belief system; it results in strong community ties, acts of good will, it even saves some people's lives. But it's too effective a drug for people who are just afraid to confront what a dark place life is, or what horrible human impulses they know they have. 

It's too tempting for members of either camp to use their beliefs to of say "See, i'm not running from anything, look at how many people agree with me, YOU'RE the one who's in denial"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we no would consider life. And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.
> 
> Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start. Before that point, before that, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions.
> 
> That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.


I understand the principles that you're explaining, as a matter of fact we kind of skimmed over them in chemistry earlier this year. However, the thing I genuinely don't understand about that model is how said living creatures could ultimately evolve to become sentient, let alone sapient. Also I like your paraphrasing of Darwin's "evolution does not leap", but that raises another issue in the sense that under the Darwinian model life evolved over the course of (I don't remember exactly how many) hundred million years, but then stayed largely the same for the ~3.9 (or fewer, again I'm speaking off the top of my head) billion, with only comparatively minor tweaks and mutations. Comparatively that's not just a leap, that's an evolutionary BOUND


----------



## KSP (Dec 13, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Biology is a series of chemical reactions.  Chemical reactions happen outside of biology.  Given the right environment, chemical reactions could result in ribonucleic acids.


In order for this to happen you would need complex hydrocarbons and time, again where does that come from? Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), cannot happen within a void. Again, you go back far enough the same question pops up, what is the catalyst?


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I understand the principles that you're explaining, as a matter of fact we kind of skimmed over them in chemistry earlier this year. However, the thing I genuinely don't understand about that model is how said living creatures could ultimately evolve to become sentient, let alone sapient. Also I like your paraphrasing of Darwin's "evolution does not leap", but that raises another issue in the sense that under the Darwinian model life evolved over the course of (I don't remember exactly how many) hundred million years, but then stayed largely the same for the ~3.9 (or fewer, again I'm speaking off the top of my head) billion, with only comparatively minor tweaks and mutations. Comparatively that's not just a leap, that's an evolutionary BOUND


Well, as abiogenesis uses different mechanisms than evolution (though there are a lot of similarities), it is best to try and keep them separate in your head. Kind of like how you'd keep planet formation and waterfall formation separate in your head, though they might have similarities and one is dependent on the other. Questions are excellent to have though  I suggest you keep on thinking as many as you can, try and punch as many holes in the current thinking as possible. You just have to follow up with them and see if anyone's done any research on the matter to find out. That second part is where most people tend to fail out. And "we don't know yet" is always an okay answer. Doesn't mean there isn't an answer, just means we're still looking for one.

As far as evolution of sentience, that's also a fun conversation! It's interesting, I just saw an article a week or two ago about how chimpanzees, capuchins and macaques have started/been using stone tools. Which means they've entered the stone age, and may be on their way to a greater degree of intelligence. Maybe. it's fascinating anyway.

I think you'll find a lot of good information if you look into "the fitness landscape". Look up "C0nc0rdance vs. the Discovery Institute" for a crash course on a lot of the ideas that I think you're looking for in regards to evolution.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 13, 2015)

KSP said:


> In order for this to happen you would need complex hydrocarbons and time, again where does that come from? Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), cannot happen within a void. Again, you go back far enough the same question pops up, what is the catalyst?


I'm not here to prove abiogenesis happened.  You are the one saying it is 100% impossible and therefore god did it.


----------



## cdoty (Dec 13, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> Then why read it at all? Why follow a religion that essentially teaches nothing? There's more harm than good in all holy books, they're giant tomes of war and murder.



I think you can extract good information from just about any religious document. But, you have to stop and realize most of established ones were written by barbaric or less civilized humans.

I wouldn't want a doctor using a 2000+ year old manual to operate on me any more than I would live my life strictly by these documents.


----------



## Foxchild (Dec 13, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> Ahh, nah, that's not what the situation was back then. The situation back then was different than what we have today. Imagine more of a lot of complex hydrocarbons (which are one of the most common compounds in the universe), that through various reasons turned into things like amino acids, which eventually became rna, which eventually became self-organized. The thing is that life was not some huge jump that happened at one point. It was this huge slow change, that wasn't "life" one second and then the next was. It took a very. very. very long time, and eventually became something we now would consider life (or at least, life-like). And even after that, it continued to take a very long time afterwards before distinct cells were formed.
> 
> Basically, the chemicals weren't distinct organism all living together, they were just all these complex chemicals there intermingling and interacting, that through sun radiation and whatnot (energy being put into the system), chemically reacted enough times in the right way to push its way in the direction that eventually become organized enough for evolution to start (after a bunch of other steps/things). Before that point where evolution could be a thing, there was no "evolution" in the sense that we know it. Just horizontal gene transfer and chemical reactions(more or less).
> 
> It is a pretty complex thing, and we don't know everything, but we have a lot of solid evidence that this, or something very similar, is what happened. There's zero reason to believe that there wasn't a natural method to it, at any rate. That was a bit complex, sorry. It's been a while since I've had to explain the basics.



Indeed.  I think we'd both agree that chemical reactions =/= life.  You describe a set of circumstances where these reactions eventually become cooperative and begin to function as an organism, given enough time.  I guess the difference between you and I is that I do not see those reactions "pushing their way" (to borrow your terms) toward life without guidance/ability to learn/design, yet, from a "life" standpoint, those chemical combos "improve" over time.  There is no reason for that to occur, no need for nature to do so, thus no reason for those reactions to move "uphill" rather than stay status quo (in fact it seems the opposite of what occurs naturally with something like 99.9% of genetic mutations being harmful or at best neutral).  Even you seem to imply in your wording (correct me if I'm wrong) that all these reactions/evolutions are working toward the goal of life and eventually more complex life (not that you would state that as your position, but more that it is kind of a subconscious assumption you might not even be aware of), but working toward anything implies intelligence, something truly random would just as likely take two steps back for every one forward.  Neither the chemicals nor evolution have that kind of intelligence.  Sure, ineffective combos can die off and more effective ones can survive, and even that can only occur if there is a system for encoding that successful information to be transferred to others (dna) which would also randomly have to come about.  There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that).   You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 13, 2015)

Foxchild said:


> Indeed.  I think we'd both agree that chemical reactions =/= life.  You describe a set of circumstances where these reactions eventually become cooperative and begin to function as an organism, given enough time.  I guess the difference between you and I is that I do not see those reactions "pushing their way" (to borrow your terms) toward life without guidance/ability to learn/design, yet, from a "life" standpoint, those chemical combos "improve" over time.  There is no reason for that to occur, no need for nature to do so, thus no reason for those reactions to move "uphill" rather than stay status quo (in fact it seems the opposite of what occurs naturally with something like 99.9% of genetic mutations being harmful or at best neutral).  Even you seem to imply in your wording (correct me if I'm wrong) that all these reactions/evolutions are working toward the goal of life and eventually more complex life (not that you would state that as your position, but more that it is kind of a subconscious assumption you might not even be aware of), but working toward anything implies intelligence, something truly random would just as likely take two steps back for every one forward.  Neither the chemicals nor evolution have that kind of intelligence.  Sure, ineffective combos can die off and more effective ones can survive, and even that can only occur if there is a system for encoding that successful information to be transferred to others (dna) which would also randomly have to come about.  There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that).   You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something.



You're right, there's no inherent reason for them to. Which is why it didn't happen for the longest time. And the problem, I think, is we tend to ascribe to nature this idea of intent or purpose to how it does things. There isn't. It's just mechanisms interacting with each other. They're just so frikin' complex and there are so so so so many different mechanisms interacting with each other, we tend to talk about their implication and assign intent to better understand what's happening.

To be clear: nature has no intent, goal, purpose, or intelligence. Life didn't have to happen. It could just have easily been that different circumstances lead to different results.  But, life did happen because a certain set of circumstances were there due to how our universe inherently exist. We're still figuring out the specific mechanisms operate (though we've got a solid working concept at the moment that fits our current evidence), and how easy it is for those circumstances to come about.

We do tend to assign emotion and intent in eeeeverything as people. "ungh, my car is a giant jerk, of course it had to get a flat tire today". It's just what we do. It's easier to explain things that way too  It's why you see some scientist talking about a god or the supernatural even though they may believe in neither. Nature has no intent, it's just much easier to explain and understand when phrased that way because that's how humans perceive their world.

"There is no natural, scientific reason for chemicals to react their way into life (law of entropy and all that)". Except for the sun. The earth is not a closed system, we have energy from the sun pouring in on us on a daily basis. If not for the sun, life never would most likely not have formed, correct.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 13, 2015)

Muffins said:


> As a man of science, I must say that after thirty pages the evidence seems to demonstrate that nobody will be changing their minds.



At some level then sure, however there are those that might have doubts and weaker opinions and those can be swayed in various directions. You will never get the hardcore, or at least not without Herculean effort, but there are those you can tip 

"being off by a few hundred million years"
Well when you are dealing in billions (4.5 billion being the mainline version) and a good portion of the early years were spent as a molten wasteland, and then again during/after the creation of the moon, I will take that kind of accuracy.

"You almost have to invent some kind of scientific law that the universe desires life and works toward that end or something."
osaka35 seems to be taking the actual biology side of things, I am more here to say that I once got into a conversation with some microbiologists and after sufficient booze on their part out came the notions of eukaryotes being around more for the whims of the prokaryotes (or complex multi celled stuff being there more to further the aims of the single celled stuff which is by far the most common/widespread form of life on the planet).


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

Why would the creator of all reality and the first being into sentience bother with a infinitely insignificant and pathetic species like human?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> At some level then sure, however there are those that might have doubts and weaker opinions and those can be swayed in various directions. You will never get the hardcore, or at least not without Herculean effort, but there are those you can tip
> 
> "being off by a few hundred million years"
> Well when you are dealing in billions (4.5 billion being the mainline version) and a good portion of the early years were spent as a molten wasteland, and then again during/after the creation of the moon, I will take that kind of accuracy.
> ...


Biologist simply cannot comprehend structures beyond organism, and a being can be composed of things beyond organic chemicals. One thing I can tell you that information is beyond energy and the very existence was an infinite collection of information no intelligence of our knowing is capable of. The exact reason that the universe would have any logic is uncertain but I suspect the presence of a creator. Sentience is to be carried on information but its origin was also unknown.
Human, this planet, even this universe is but a infinitely small piece of the entire reality, yet the earth is still much bigger than all humans combined.


----------



## KSP (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> Why would the creator of all reality and the first being into sentience bother with a infinitely insignificant and pathetic species like human?


It wouldn't, just as we wouldn't care about an ant if we stepped on one either. To an ant, are we not like gods, we shape the very world that they live in and we can destroy it at will, but do we care? No.

God is like a father that never calls, and never sends alimony, but a father non the less. You don't have to like him, nor he like you, doesn't change the relationship.

I think the biggest misconception with God that either causes people to gain faith or lose faith is that God cares. I've long come to terms with the fact that God doesn't care, never has, never will, but God is still God, and still the creator of all things.

Not believing in God is like not believing in your father cause he doesn't call. God is God, and that's all there is to it.

What does a divine being that created the universe care for? Who knows, and honestly who cares, just live your life.

One thing that is certain is, when you believe in a being greater than man, you realize how small we are, and its humbling. Its a also a great to understand that one has little control over their own life, which non believer to tend to have a hard time to grasp.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 14, 2015)

KSP said:


> Not believing in God is like not believing in your father cause he doesn't call. God is God, and that's all there is to it.


No it's not.  We can observe that fathers exist in humanity by looking at other humans who have fathers and by looking at the human reproductive process and seeing that a new human is created with the sperm of a father.  We have no analog in nature where we can see another creature has a god and we cannot observe the origins of biological life on other worlds where we see a god's involvement in the creation.


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

KSP said:


> It wouldn't, just as we wouldn't care about an ant if we stepped on one either. To an ant, are we not like gods, we shape the very world that they live in and we can destroy it at will, but do we care? No.
> 
> God is like father that never calls, and never sends alimony, but a father non the less. You don't have to like him, nor he like you, doesn't change the relationship.
> 
> ...


God has no gender, femininity and masculinity is an opposition that had its form after the birth of reality.
That is many Christians have trouble understanding. They devote too much into believing god, which served no purpose for the creator. And to have god decides everything and does everything for them is indeed more lazy than doing nothing and waiting to be fed, and that their very existence would have no purpose.
But believer did serve great use  for "low gods", as followed by Greek mythology. But many are not even to be considered a force of nature but simply some entity, which I hope they would hand off the humans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> No it's not.  We can observe that fathers exist in humanity by looking at other humans who have fathers and by looking at the human reproductive process and seeing that a new human is created with the sperm of a father.  We have no analog in nature where we can see another creature has a god and we cannot observe the origins of biological life on other worlds where we see a god's involvement in the creation.


Why would the creator do such an act that serves no purpose. With or without guidance a substance seems to gain sentience over time, which is ironic since something referable as time does not exist when the creator first came into sentience, which then is odd how sentience can come before logic.


----------



## dimmidice (Dec 14, 2015)

the more i read this thread the more i think you're all just nutters.


----------



## KSP (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> God has no gender, femininity and masculinity is an opposition that had its form after the birth of reality.
> That is many Christians have trouble understanding. They devote too much into believing god, which served no purpose for the creator. And to have god decides everything and does everything for them is indeed more lazy than doing nothing and waiting to be fed, and that their very existence would have no purpose.


Yes this worship of the divine stems its roots in all religions, including Islam, amongst other major faiths.
I think once you grasp the truth, you no longer need to worship, it would be like an Ant worshiping us. A little pointless to say the least.
Your faith is unshaken when you expect nothing from God.

And yes, the gender of God is something placed upon God by man in our means to quantify something that is beyond our understanding.

All in all, the true benefit of believing in God is that it humbles man, whom without God seem to believe that they are the master of their own destiny, which is the biggest facade of all.

As a matter of fact we can all die tomorrow by an act of nature, I think this lack of control tends to scare the non believer, after all how can a human being not be in control of their own destiny. And how can a human being not be able to explain the origin of their own being? This control or illusion of control is what drives most non believer.


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

KSP said:


> Yes this worship of the divine stems its roots in all religions, including Islam, amongst other major faiths.
> I think once you grasp the truth, you no longer need to worship, it would be like an Ant worshiping us. A little pointless to say the least.
> Your faith is unshaken when you expect nothing from God.
> 
> ...


In perspectives, we are and we are not in control of our destiny. However one that would interfere with humans to be worshiped as gods simply for their ego are no creator or a thing beyond our comprehension, but maybe a thing we might be able to fight. Yet by the will of a truly higher being, it is our fate and for the best of all else that we perish, though I believe the time is yet to come, and I personally cannot do such slaughter, nor I shall aid the humans. But when humans really possess such threat, perhaps the creator will simply will us into void (you can see it as delete), not by flooding which is not beyond the power of man.


----------



## KSP (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> In perspectives, we are and we are not in control of our destiny. However one that would interfere with humans to be worshiped as gods simply for their ego are no creator or a thing beyond our comprehension, but maybe a thing we might be able to fight. Yet by the will of a truly higher being, it is our fate and for the best of all else that we perish, though I believe the time is yet to come, and I personally cannot do such slaughter, nor I shall aid the humans. But when humans really possess such threat, perhaps the creator will simply will us into void (you can see it as delete), not by flooding which is not beyond the power of man.


Okay, now you're just heading in nutzville. I'm outta here, gonna play some Yakuza 5, god or no god, beating random dudes with a traffic cone is hella fun. 

Hope this thread dies out before things get real crazy around here.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> Biologist simply cannot comprehend structures beyond organism, and a being can be composed of things beyond organic chemicals. One thing I can tell you that information is beyond energy and the very existence was an infinite collection of information no intelligence of our knowing is capable of. The exact reason that the universe would have any logic is uncertain but I suspect the presence of a creator. Sentience is to be carried on information but its origin was also unknown.
> Human, this planet, even this universe is but a infinitely small piece of the entire reality, yet the earth is still much bigger than all humans combined.



My post was supposed to relay a joke of sorts (hence the after sufficient booze thing). As for life beyond conventional organic chemistry I did cover it in passing a few pages back when abiogenesis first came up.

Also I have to say information is actually a physics term and very much related to energy. Outside of more theoretical physics there are three main occasions you will encounter it
1) Cryptography, specifically brute forcing certain things and storing data pertaining to it. Usually done as an example of why brute forcing is likely not practical in a given situation.
2) In discussions of the end of the universe. Specifically the universe expanding (in all of the directions it can whizz)
3) Amusing thought experiments like


If you want to ponder something beyond that (you seem to be heading towards the universe as a computer program/simulation of some form thing) then feel free, however I encourage you to find a different term.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> Why would the creator do such an act that serves no purpose. With or without guidance a substance seems to gain sentience over time, which is ironic since something referable as time does not exist when the creator first came into sentience, which then is odd how sentience can come before logic.


Was that meant for someone else?  Because I fail to see how it relates in the slightest to what you quoted from me.


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> My post was supposed to relay a joke of sorts (hence the after sufficient booze thing). As for life beyond conventional organic chemistry I did cover it in passing a few pages back when abiogenesis first came up.
> 
> Also I have to say information is actually a physics term and very much related to energy. Outside of more theoretical physics there are three main occasions you will encounter it
> 1) Cryptography, specifically brute forcing certain things and storing data pertaining to it. Usually done as an example of why brute forcing is likely not practical in a given situation.
> ...



Know that reality is its own hardware, software and data. It does not rely on a physical machine. Everything comes down to math then philosophy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



grossaffe said:


> Was that meant for someone else?  Because I fail to see how it relates in the slightest to what you quoted from me.


Or you failed to see what I am saying. In the grand term of creator, which may or may not be the Christian god, all are his creation that comes into being followed by our physics, better yet logic which the creator defined. Non-existence->Existence(where opposition yet to eixst)->Sentience (the first or some other being of sentience is to be considered the creator, which is way beyond our comprehension, as another could emerge from)->Logic (which the creator create as a form our known reality is formed upon, and where opposition came into being)->Physics (including time, and I do not know the exact form of our world out of time and how sentience was developed)->Universe->>Substance->>Earth->>Organism->>Human, It is beyond our comprehension how it has its current form we resides in.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 14, 2015)

Yil said:


> Or you failed to see what I am saying. In the grand term of creator, which may or may not be the Christian god, all are his creation that comes into being followed by our physics, better yet logic which the creator defined. Non-existence->Existence(where opposition yet to eixst)->Sentience (the first or some other being of sentience is to be considered the creator, which is way beyond our comprehension, as another could emerge from)->Logic (which the creator create as a form our known reality is formed upon, and where opposition came into being)->Physics (including time, and I do not know the exact form of our world out of time and how sentience was developed)->Universe->>Substance->>Earth->>Organism->>Human, It is beyond our comprehension how it has its current form we resides in.


How does, whatever this is, have anything to do with what I said?


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> How does, whatever this is, have anything to do with what I said?


I am sorry for bothering you, never mind.


----------



## Kayot (Dec 14, 2015)

Wow, 31 very long pages, they started short and simple and just got longer and longer. I'll try to make this long.

Technologist and Agnostic in the sense that I don't believe nor disbelieve as neither has any impact on who I am or how I live. I'm also Chaotic Good, having no real use for laws and regulations and instead doing what I feel is right despite what society may think. I'm not sure if I want an afterlife or not. Even if I was god there, I would someday grow board and find myself sleeping trillions of years away because of it. I might also find myself creating a universe simply to get idea's or help ease the passing of eternity.

I think the idea of a beginning is a flawed human concept created by a possibly unique life and death cycle. The universe is both timeless and infinite and abstract from any laws concocted by humans. The theories of relativity, quantum science, and astrophysics are nothing but approximations of observed facts and inherently flawed. A good example is the bicycle which follows no laws of motion based physics and is also the most efficient means of transportation for energy created and used. There is also an experimental space engine that creates momentum with electricity but since it doesn't follow the laws of physics, scientist who should be open minded instead reject the working prototype since it doesn't fit in their cookie cutter ideas of how the universe works. People have become close minded, instead referencing materials of the greats rather than exploring themselves.

That's how I feel about it.


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 14, 2015)

Would you believe me if I told you that their are multiple Gods and that they are very much physical and spiritual at the same time? What if I told you this as a fact, but didn't want you to take it on face value.  So, I will tell you to become an atheist because its better for your mind.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 14, 2015)

Number 622

Woah this discussion is really growing!


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 14, 2015)

Hmm...I wonder who thought ' doubt that' mere seconds ago...interesting.  Excuse me, I meant they thought 'I doubt that' and I don't' think it was the original poster.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 14, 2015)

What is this about bicycles and engines not following the laws of physics?


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 14, 2015)

"A good example is the bicycle which follows no laws of motion based physics and is also the most efficient means of transportation for energy created and used."

Do what now? Push bikes are used for loads of examples of elementary motion based physics and basic engineering and there is nothing really what you would call unknown about them as a concept. Also most efficient? The wind resistance/aerodynamics of the average push bike are terrible.

"The theories of relativity, quantum science, and astrophysics are nothing but approximations of observed facts and inherently flawed. A good example is the bicycle which follows no laws of motion based physics and is also the most efficient means of transportation for energy created and used."
The motion based physics, despite still being a useful abstraction, are supplanted by quantum mechanics which in turn nobody is encouraged to not question if they can do so.

"instead referencing materials of the greats rather than exploring themselves."
Again any of the "greats" can be questioned, however referencing what came before is the only thing that allows people do anything to progress within a human lifetime. I am not sure how the experiment would get set up* but I would be impressed if you gave people a reasonably comfortable existence and some motivation to figure things out if they even got to the laws of motion within a lifetime.
*progress of science being pretty closely linked to the progress of tech which in turn tends to influence the quality of life. Diseases and natural disasters get in the way from time to time but even there the whole adversity breeds ingenuity thing comes into play, indeed that is why war was not included in the opening part.


----------



## Yil (Dec 14, 2015)

Kayot said:


> Wow, 31 very long pages, they started short and simple and just got longer and longer. I'll try to make this long.
> 
> Technologist and Agnostic in the sense that I don't believe nor disbelieve as neither has any impact on who I am or how I live. I'm also Chaotic Good, having no real use for laws and regulations and instead doing what I feel is right despite what society may think. I'm not sure if I want an afterlife or not. Even if I was god there, I would someday grow board and find myself sleeping trillions of years away because of it. I might also find myself creating a universe simply to get idea's or help ease the passing of eternity.
> 
> ...


First, eternity is pointless without time, where such state have occured before. Second, with infinite imagination and being infinitely knowledgable about our reality you can create a new universe which I do not know if the creator would allow, but I think he is too wise to bother with you.
And second bicycle is at most university year one physics as soon as you get on circular motion. Plasma thrust seems to be rely on the somehow increased momentum of electricity potential which enhances its micro level movements, thus carrying momentum in a way we cannot imagine, which is not even to the level of quantum physics. It seems catholics are not so closed minded as I have believed.
Lots of banning only happens after catholic priests gets power lusted as other believes, even just in terms of logic are forbidden as it will prevent growth of catholics chruches and thus their personal power. I am still pissed how they label all other gods as demons even if the main gods are never classified as the creator.
As someone slightly knowledgable, satanism (specifically the church of satan) is one of the most ancient religion, their main entity is an evil diety, has nothing to do with "force of nature" of sort, and they have been enemies of other old religions. I have considered taking them down but I do not want to be responsible for killing millions even if their god is the devil and in non christian sense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bannana2 said:


> Would you believe me if I told you that their are multiple Gods and that they are very much physical and spiritual at the same time? What if I told you this as a fact, but didn't want you to take it on face value.  So, I will tell you to become an atheist because its better for your mind.


Aye, but you also must know that there are hell and a specific devil in other religions. Even in mythical practices dealing with the devil is the last thing you want to do. Not to mention that the devil cannot really offer what I seek if I choose to give up morality and let my minds be corrupted, which is why I must be in perfect control of myself. As the old saying "hope for the best, prepare for the worst".


----------



## Kayot (Dec 15, 2015)

Time is a concept created by memory and prediction. It might not really exist as we perceive it.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 15, 2015)

Kayot said:


> Time is a concept created by memory and prediction. It might not really exist as we perceive it.



Am I butterfly dreaming I'm a man? Or a bowling ball dreaming I'm a plate of sashimi? Never assume what you see and feel is real!


----------



## Yil (Dec 15, 2015)

Kayot said:


> Time is a concept created by memory and prediction. It might not really exist as we perceive it.


We refer changes as time, since we cannot understand how changes happen without time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Muffins said:


> Am I butterfly dreaming I'm a man? Or a bowling ball dreaming I'm a plate of sashimi? Never assume what you see and feel is real!


That was quite a Taoism (philosophy, not magick) statement. Want to talk about that?
And all is our feelings, it matter little if it is the 'real' world, since the experience exist it is to be real.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 15, 2015)

I am atheist. However, I believe that if god does exist (which I am not 100% positive he doesnt) he 1. cares more about how good you were than what you believed, and would let any good person into heaven and 2. isnt all powerful, otherwise he would certainly be trying harder to make the world nicer. Just my thoughts  I cant imagine god telling some Hindu "well you spent your life saving little kids lives but you didnt worship me every week so you cant go to heaven"


----------



## Muffins (Dec 15, 2015)

> That was quite a Taoism (philosophy, not magick) statement. Want to talk about that?
> And all is our feelings, it matter little if it is the 'real' world, since the experience exist it is to be real.



It was from Chrono Trigger.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 15, 2015)

Muffins said:


> It was from Chrono Trigger.



+100 points for chrono trigger reference.



Yil said:


> That was quite a Taoism (philosophy, not magick) statement. Want to talk about that?
> And all is our feelings, it matter little if it is the 'real' world, since the experience exist it is to be real.



I tend to find philosophy lacking when it's not grounded in reality. Hopefully you'll agree that those without a solid grounding in reality/critical thinking/science that partake in philosophy because "it's totally deep", tend to just get their head stuck up their butt, smelling how sweet their thought roses are, insisting if you don't like it you just "don't get it". The best philosophers, I've found, are those that operate with the highest level of critical thinking and have an extremely grounded understanding of how reality really is.

But fortune cookie sayings are fun too  as long as you don't take them too seriously.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 15, 2015)

KSP said:


> In order for this to happen you would need complex hydrocarbons and time, again where does that come from? Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), cannot happen within a void. Again, you go back far enough the same question pops up, what is the catalyst?


I'm just going to point out that scientists did an experiment simulating Earth hostile environment before life existed. The results that they managed to obtain complex organic molecules necessary to life. Hence "Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), *can* happen within a void (not an actual void, but I guess that was not what you meant anyway)"

If you want to find out what the catalyst just search the experiment on google.


----------



## SomecallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2015)

TC,

No to both your questions. Why well we have seen no objective proof of such things. All we have are testaments from people saying they feel God and/or the Holy Spirit but I want to see real proof of this. A lot of what is in the bible has been disproven by science; and the things that we don't know...well we don't know in the moment.

Could there be a God? Yeah sure but I want to know why he doesn't just show himself.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 15, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I'm just going to point out that scientists did an experiment simulating Earth hostile environment before life existed. The results that they managed to obtain complex organic molecules necessary to life. Hence "Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), *can* happen within a void (not an actual void, but I guess that was not what you meant anyway)"
> 
> If you want to find out what the catalyst just search the experiment on google.


To add to this, hydrocarbons are the second most abundant compounds in the universe, after water. As the most abundant three reactive elements in the universe are(in descending order) hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, hydrocarbons (hydrogen and carbon) are going to be the second most common, behind water (hydrogen and oxygen). Helium is the #2 element in the universe, but it is inert.


----------



## Yil (Dec 15, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I'm just going to point out that scientists did an experiment simulating Earth hostile environment before life existed. The results that they managed to obtain complex organic molecules necessary to life. Hence "Chemical reactions in the right environment (aka catalyst), *can* happen within a void (not an actual void, but I guess that was not what you meant anyway)"
> 
> If you want to find out what the catalyst just search the experiment on google.


There was no direct indication that the only outcome of micro structure is molecules, or the atoms.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 15, 2015)

Yil said:


> There was no direct indication that the only outcome of micro structure is molecules, or the atoms.



outcome of micro structure is molecules or atoms? I don't follow your meaning.


----------



## Yil (Dec 15, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> outcome of micro structure is molecules or atoms? I don't follow your meaning.


It means form we know of and are built from is merely a possibility. Things could be completely different on both micro and grand scale, in forms we do not know of.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 15, 2015)

Yil said:


> It means form we know of and are built from is merely a possibility. Things could be completely different on both micro and grand scale, in forms we do not know of.


I'm not sure if English isn't your first language, or if you're trying to convey something that I'm missing. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. What we know exist does exist, but yes, we're still trying to understand the quantum level and beyond and the universal scale of things and beyond, and how that relates to what we know about things at our level. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Yil (Dec 15, 2015)

osaka35 said:


> I'm not sure if English isn't your first language, or if you're trying to convey something that I'm missing. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. What we know exist does exist, but yes, we're still trying to understand the quantum level and beyond and the universal scale of things and beyond, and how that relates to what we know about things at our level. Is that what you mean?


What I means is that life does not need to be based on organic compounds, molecules or even atoms, like the organism we know of and a part of.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 15, 2015)

Yil said:


> What I means is that life does not need to be based on organic compounds, molecules or even atoms, like the organism we know of and a part of.


That's fair, though you run into the risk of having a tautological argument. It's difficult enough to define what life is with what we know, much less what we don't know.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

Mr. Prince said:


> How am I hurting other people just for believing and how is believing in religion selfish?



I don't have anything against muslims as individuals, however the Quaran does say that muslims are better than non-muslims. Therefore if you say you are muslim then I would expect you to believe that to some level.

After the attacks on Charlie Hebdo there were plenty of Muslims who were vocal at how angry they were for the drawings. They didn't go as far as saying they condoned the murders, they weren't very condemning of them either.

On the other hand there are also plenty of Muslims who are angry at non-muslims attempts to kill murderers in Syria.

Kill French non-muslim satirists for drawing=ok
Kill Muslims for murder=bad and convinced more people to turn into ISIS murderers.

This isn't the view of minority terrorists, these are liberal muslims that some of whom I know personally. When you're sharing a meal with a muslim who has lived in your country for 40 years who is upset that our forces aren't labelled as terrorists then you know there is something up.



KSP said:


> Yes, its just scientifically impossible for the universe to have come from nothing, and life cannot emerge from an empty void according to science.
> So, god must exist by deductive logic.



No, you've picked up a few logical fallacies in there.

Science has no explanation for how a universe is created, so to say it's scientifically impossible is a lie.

Essentially you've used god to solve a problem you don't understand but now you have two problems.
The universe is everything, including god. He might have made what we know about, but by your on argument he didn't make himself.



Foxi4 said:


> pushing the idea that if you believe in something, you're automatically simple-minded and easy to manipulate,



Followers of religion are self selecting, so they do have certain traits. There are plenty of people who say they believe in a religion because there is a payoff, while they don't actually believe it though.



Foxi4 said:


> Atheism doesn't make anyone smarter or more clever than a religious person - there's no shortage of atheist idiots and history shows that atheist ideologies have as much of a potential for hate and destruction as religious ones.





Foxi4 said:


> He has a pre-conception of what religion is and doesn't take into account the function religion plays in people's lives. "Being religious or not" and "Not being an asshole" are mutually exclusive.



Not a pre-conception, I have a lot of experience. I agree that being an asshole is mutually exclusive. The problem with most relgions is they teach you to look down on non believers.



Mr. Prince said:


> Just when ISIS started to threaten the royal family, the anti-ISIS mentality started growing. Coincidence? I think not (I always wanted to say that lol). People here were raised with the "my country is better than yours" mentality. And how do they support that claim? By claiming that this country is the most religious and holy place out there.



And you don't think this supports my viewpoint? People supported ISIS when it was beheading foreign non muslim aid workers and journalists, but not when they threatened your royal family. How much would people have tolerated if ISIS had thought your royal family was muslimy enough



Foxi4 said:


> Even as a Christian I find the idea that Islam is to blame for terrorism repulsive.



Every country and religion has been involved with fighting over the years. However Islam was born in violence and because it's engrained in the quran then it's very difficult to eradicate it. So you might find the idea repulsive, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.



Foxi4 said:


> Everything in life can be broken down to deductive logic, once all the impossible is removed, the only answer left is the right answer. No answer can explain the creation of life, thus the only answer left is a superior being of some sort.



We don't have any idea on what is impossible when it comes to how the universe was created. So you're just guessing.

Your logic proved that god isn't required, because if god exists then something created him. If it's possible for god to come into existence without a creator then it's possible for a universe as well.



KSP said:


> Only a fool can believe that the vastness of the universe and the life that resides within such a universe came from nothing.



I could say that only a fool can believe they came from god, but it's not a good argument.



KSP said:


> what is the catalyst?



The big bang. When science has more answers about what happened before the big bang then you can use science as an argument about god, until then your arguments are only going to be effective on people who already believe.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> I don't have anything against muslims as individuals, however the Quaran does say that muslims are better than non-muslims. Therefore if you say you are muslim then I would expect you to believe that to some level.


To be fair, the Christian Bible says basically the same thing


----------



## RevPokemon (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> To be fair, the Christian Bible says basically the same thing


Practically all religions say that to some extent. Why? Perhaps it is they feel this quasi superiority will gain them power and followers.


----------



## Yil (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> To be fair, the Christian Bible says basically the same thing


To be fair, lots of people in other religions (multiple gods, simply magical training and ascending, worshipping nature, etc.) are curious why Judaism, Catholics, Christians and even Muslim are fighting each other at all. Should they not be fighting other religions and specifically the church of Satan (for the sake of everyone Satanist should extinct. They have been enemies of old religions, and is directly responsible for their fall and still give people confusion, not to mention Satanists really worship the devil)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RevPokemon said:


> Practically all religions say that to some extent. Why? Perhaps it is they feel this quasi superiority will gain them power and followers.


I must say that Christian greatly amplify human ego despite pride being the original sin, to the level that one feel no guilt hurting others and nature. I highly doubt Christianity would be well spread if it does not put human and specifically man above all else.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2015)

Actually most modern Satanists are pretty respectful. I'm not saying it's not a toxic religion, but it's also not as bad as most people make it out to be


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Practically all religions say that to some extent. Why? Perhaps it is they feel this quasi superiority will gain them power and followers.



Everything about religion is to kill off all other religions. Whether they do it with violence or by other measures is irrelevant.

Islamic banking is purely to starve jewish money lenders.
Catholics ban contraception to increase the catholic to non-Catholic ratio (where there are not enough resources to sustain the population then they hope that the catholics will survive and the non-catholics will die but they can't be sure).



TotalInsanity4 said:


> To be fair, the Christian Bible says basically the same thing



Where? New testament is mostly peace and pacifism. Old testament is another matter, but that is more Jewish than Christian.



Yil said:


> To be fair, lots of people in other religions (multiple gods, simply magical training and ascending, worshipping nature, etc.) are curious why Judaism, Catholics, Christians and even Muslim are fighting each other at all.



Muhammad didn't like the Jews and Christians so he started a religion, they have been fighting over a worthless piece of land ever since. Christianity is more complex, because Jesus himself was Jewish.

If Muhammad or Jesus were born today and tried to do what they did then he'd be labelled as cult leaders and only a few people would listen to them and they would end up doing prison time for something while the followers would be deprogrammed.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> After the attacks on Charlie Hebdo there were plenty of Muslims who were vocal at how angry they were for the drawings. They didn't go as far as saying they condoned the murders, they weren't very condemning of them either.


I am not saying Muslims were in the right, but imagine this situation.
Try to put yourself on the other's shoes... Imagine you're the average french muslim, you felt very offendend by the Charlie's Hebdo joke. You, of course, didn't wish death to anyone at Charlie Hebdo and was sad that the killing happened. But at the same time, the joke didn't get any less ofensive and the ones that died aren't your favorite people in the world. It was like your high school bully died, of course you want to feel sad for him, but deep down you didn't forget all the bad he made you and can't get yourself to feel as sorry as the others.

Also, you're muslim and everyone looks at you as you had some kind of responsability for the killing. But you didn't kill anyone, you didn't do anything. But because you're muslim everyone expect for you to take responsability, to feel even sorrier for Charlie Hebdo than most people, even to deny your own culture and religion. It wasn't you, but everyone looks at you as you're also somehow guilty.

I once read at "The Diary of Anne Frank" this saying: "A christian man must respond only for his own actions. Every jew must respond for the action of a single jew" I think if we exchange "jew" for "muslim" this saying hold up just as well.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> Where? New testament is mostly peace and pacifism. Old testament is another matter, but that is more Jewish than Christian.


I didn't say that wasn't the case. What I did say was that Christians are taught to believe through the Bible that our religion is the one true religion and that every other one is wrong


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What I did say was that Christians are taught to believe through the Bible that our religion is the one true religion and that every other one is wrong



All religions do that, because it's the only way to convince people to join.

Would you become Christian if they said "you know what? we could be wrong about this and the Muslims might be right".



RodrigoDavy said:


> Try to put yourself on the other's shoes... Imagine you're the average french muslim, you felt very offendend by the Charlie's Hebdo joke. You, of course, didn't wish death to anyone at Charlie Hebdo and was sad that the killing happened. But at the same time, the joke didn't get any less ofensive and the ones that died aren't your favorite people in the world. It was like your high school bully died, of course you want to feel sad for him, but deep down you didn't forget all the bad he made you and can't get yourself to feel as sorry as the others.



I did put myself in their situation and yes I can see how they would be offended. However this is where it ends. If you are so immature that you think that being offended, however much, makes it permissible to even hurt someone then you need to grow up. Those offended Muslims don't care how their actions offend non-muslims at all, they are behaving with a sense of superiority. Mostly because they are surrounded by other Muslims cheering on ISIS because they are all so superior. Now if you are a Muslim and you haven't witnessed this yourself and are offended, then I apologise but ask you to go and be truly honest and try to seek this behaviour out because it is probably happening closer than you think.



RodrigoDavy said:


> Also, you're muslim and everyone looks at you as you had some kind of responsability for the killing. But you didn't kill anyone, you didn't do anything.



If I join the KKK and wear a white pointy hooded onsie but don't kill any black people, then when a black person gets killed then I would expect to be looked at as if I had some responsibility. You have a responsibility for who you associate with.



RodrigoDavy said:


> I once read at "The Diary of Anne Frank" this saying: "A christian man must respond only for his own actions. Every jew must respond for the action of a single jew" I think if we exchange "jew" for "muslim" this saying hold up just as well.



She was talking about how it was unfair that Jews were persecuted, Muslims aren't persecuted at all in comparison.

I think a much more relevant quote is:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

You have a moral duty to speak out.


----------



## mrdude (Dec 16, 2015)

No, I also don't believe in Santa/Satan/leprechauns/Fairy's or any other non believable figments of peoples imaginations.

Religion is a man made fantasy - invented to control the masses, that's my take on it.

If I was to believe in anything - I'd believe there is a much greater chance that there are aliens and the universe is filled with different forms of life. I also think the big bang is a load of crap.
Matter/Time spontaneously coming into being and the universe expanding into nothing - what a load of crap.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> All religions do that, because it's the only way to convince people to join.
> 
> Would you become Christian if they said "you know what? we could be wrong about this and the Muslims might be right".


Right. That's what _I'm_ saying. You made it sound as if that was something that only the Muslim religion did.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

mrdude said:


> I also think the big bang is a load of crap.
> Matter/Time spontaneously coming into being and the universe expanding into nothing - what a load of crap.



It sounds amazing right? "The big bang" is probably a load of crap, there is a theory that there have been multiple big bangs which is more likely.

If Matter/Time didn't spontaneously come into being at some point in the past (even if it's ten big bangs ago) then where do you think it came from? If you include deity/aliens etc then you need to say how they spontaneously came into existence as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I didn't say that wasn't the case. What I did say was that Christians are taught to believe through the Bible that our religion is the one true religion and that every other one is wrong


Meanwhile Democrats think that Democracy is the only correct system of government, Republicans think the same about Republics and Communists about Communism. Subscribing under a certain idea necessarily means that you disagree with or disapprove of the opposite of that idea. This applies to everything from Pro-abortion versus Pro-life to Apple versus PC, it permeates every facet of our lives - if you believe in something, you feel it is correct, aka "better" than other options by definition.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually most modern Satanists are pretty respectful. I'm not saying it's not a toxic religion, but it's also not as bad as most people make it out to be


As far as I'm aware, Satanism isn't even a religion.  It doesn't involve Satan or any gods.  It's a philosophy focused on the self.  Individuality, personal gratification, etcetera.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Right. That's what _I'm_ saying. You made it sound as if that was something that only the Muslim religion did.



I hold all religions as ludicrous as each other. Except Pastafarians of course, they are trying too hard to actually be ludicrous (like you can't try to be cool).


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> It sounds amazing right? "The big bang" is probably a load of crap, there is a theory that there have been multiple big bangs which is more likely.
> 
> If Matter/Time didn't spontaneously come into being at some point in the past (even if it's ten big bangs ago) then where do you think it came from? If you include deity/aliens etc then you need to say how they spontaneously came into existence as well.



Well, since the current theories hold that we are living inside of a membrane universe of which there are infinite numbers of them, then it didn't just pop into existence. That would be the opposite of what current physicists state and it would be a gross misrepresentation of high science works.  Once thought about, time can be either linear or circular and if its circular than it has no beginning and no end.


----------



## coveiro24 (Dec 16, 2015)

When I get older maybe!


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2015)

edit not working, so hopefully someone can auto merge this.



grossaffe said:


> As far as I'm aware, Satanism isn't even a religion.  It doesn't involve Satan or any gods.  It's a philosophy focused on the self.  Individuality, personal gratification, etcetera.



A religion doesn't actually require you to follow a god.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> All religions do that, because it's the only way to convince people to join.


Except that's not why they do it, see above.
[qiote]Would you become Christian if they said "you know what? we could be wrong about this and the Muslims might be right".[/quote]See above.


> I did put myself in their situation and yes I can see how they would be offended. However this is where it ends. If you are so immature that you think that being offended, however much, makes it permissible to even hurt someone then you need to grow up. Those offended Muslims don't care how their actions offend non-muslims at all, they are behaving with a sense of superiority. Mostly because they are surrounded by other Muslims cheering on ISIS because they are all so superior. Now if you are a Muslim and you haven't witnessed this yourself and are offended, then I apologise but ask you to go and be truly honest and try to seek this behaviour out because it is probably happening closer than you think.


Appeal to Emotion and Leveraging Fear fallacies. You have no evidece and you're painting the canvas in black and white - no shades. With us or against us, friend or foe, despite chatting with muslims *right here*, muslims who *disapprove* of ISIS, directly debunking your hypothesis that "the evil muslims" are everywhere.


> If I join the KKK and wear a white pointy hooded onsie but don't kill any black people, then when a black person gets killed then I would expect to be looked at as if I had some responsibility. You have a responsibility for who you associate with.


You definitely are not responsible for the actions of other people, no matter how big of a hyperbole you use. Group responsibility is a totalitarian idea that has no place in contemporary society, if my neighbour kills someone, I'm not an accomplice just because I live in the same building.


> She was talking about how it was unfair that Jews were persecuted, Muslims aren't persecuted at all in comparison.


Mosques are getting burned down, people are getting killed in reprisal attacks and the fear of refugees is at an all-time high, and all that is happening in civilized, western countries - they're pretty persecuted. Nobody wants to ban jewish immigration as far as I know.


> I think a much more relevant quote is:
> 
> "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist.
> ...


Good quote that I agree with, but I'm not sure I like the context it's being used in. Your whole argument is giving me strong 1984 vibes.


grossaffe said:


> As far as I'm aware, Satanism isn't even a religion.  It doesn't involve Satan or any gods.  It's a philosophy focused on the self.  Individuality, personal gratification, etcetera.


It's a mock-religion - they say they've picked Satan as a role model because he was "truly free", but we all know the reason was more immature than that - they just wanted to piss off Christians. "Look at us, we're more than Atheists - we're SATANISTS!" - real mature.


----------



## Yil (Dec 16, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually most modern Satanists are pretty respectful. I'm not saying it's not a toxic religion, but it's also not as bad as most people make it out to be


I am not talking about satanist in general, I am talking about a specific group called the church of satan that see satan as their god. The rest use it as a symbol or idea, but this group acknowledge they are serving the devil as an entity.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 16, 2015)

Yil said:


> I am not talking about satanist in general, I am talking about a specific group called the church of satan that see satan as their god. The rest use it as a symbol or idea, but this group acknowledge they are serving the devil as an entity.


The Church of Satan practices LaVeyen Satanism, which does not actually believe in Satan.  As I previously mentioned, it's really a philosophy of individuality.


----------



## Yil (Dec 16, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> The Church of Satan practices LaVeyen Satanism, which does not actually believe in Satan.  As I previously mentioned, it's really a philosophy of individuality.


There is a religious group that actually worship the entity and group themselves under such brand. Their presence alarms me, but still I know not if it is necessary to react with force. Devil worshipping has been way earlier than Judaism, and as opposition of old religions and there is very few ways to counteract them.
One cannot just screw over everyone else for one's own gain. That was very selfish, yet it is happening very often.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 16, 2015)

Yil said:


> There is a religious group that actually worship the entity and group themselves under such brand. Their presence alarms me, but still I know not if it is necessary to react with force. Devil worshipping has been way earlier than Judaism, and as opposition of old religions and there is very few ways to counteract them.
> One cannot just screw over everyone else for one's own gain. That was very selfish, yet it is happening very often.


They are not with the Church of Satan.  The high priest of the Church of Satan has publicly rejected Theistic Satanism.

The fact that you are even considering to "react with force" is much more unsettling to me than the idea that there exists a subset of devil-worshippers.


----------



## Yil (Dec 16, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> They are not with the Church of Satan.  The high priest of the Church of Satan has publicly rejected Theistic Satanism.
> 
> The fact that you are even considering to "react with force" is much more unsettling to me than the idea that there exists a subset of devil-worshippers.


I would admit my mentality could lead to dangerous results, and that is way I need to watch my own behaviours. Anyway like I have previously posted worshipping the devil cannot bring the kind of subject I would like if I was ever going corrupted.


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 16, 2015)

I like these conversations because evil by humans is dirty and not pure.  Pure evil is something inter dimensional beings and demons know about.  It makes them behave in ways not even a psychopath could fathom.  In fact, that is why when you hear of possessions, the demon is always talking shit.  Its because its telling the truth about people.  Pure evil doesn't lie; not really.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 16, 2015)

smf said:


> Now if you are a Muslim and you haven't witnessed this yourself and are offended, then I apologise but ask you to go and be truly honest and try to seek this behaviour out because it is probably happening closer than you think.


I'm not muslim, bro.


> If I join the KKK and wear a white pointy hooded onsie but don't kill any black people, then when a black person gets killed then I would expect to be looked at as if I had some responsibility. You have a responsibility for who you associate with.


That comparison is extreme to say the least. Having the same religion as someone doesn't mean being associated with that person.
There are many christian murderes, it doesn't mean you condone murder if you're christian.

Honestly, though... I get that in Europe there has been some problems with muslims, so it's only natural for europeans to not be as friendly with them. But I would like to point out that... how to say this in a nice way? European countries like UK, France and Russia has kind of had a very shitty attitude with many countries in the world for some centuries now.

That includes intervention in Africa, South America and the Middle East. There's only so many times that Europe and the USA can act like they own the world without some form of backlash.

As an example, France and the UK have tried so many times to stop my country, Brazil, from growing its own industry that we only stopped being a rural country because World War II happened and we had the opportunity to grow our industry without european intervention. You might think I am exaggerating, but I kid you not. One of my country's president actually received a written threat from France demanding him to halt his plans for investing in our industry.

I am not defending the terrorists groups in any way, I sincerely hope they lose. What I'm saying is that had the government of these European countries + USA minded their own business who knows if we would have a more peaceful world today?


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 16, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> I'm not muslim, bro.
> 
> That comparison is extreme to say the least. Having the same religion as someone doesn't mean being associated with that person.
> There are many christian murderes, it doesn't mean you condone murder if you're christian.
> ...


ISIS Is just as bad as (If not worse than) the nazis, just now in modern times the press and government make it look WAY less scary then it actually is...


----------



## osirisjem (Dec 16, 2015)

Believe in him ?
I am him !!!


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 17, 2015)

"Well God said himself he put in mankind a feeling giving them theres a GOD
All through the centuries people "worship" stars moon planets ETC everyone on earth is religious. God made us like that
You might be an atheist but there is something that you worship or believe! ALL humans on earth are religious"

First line. Much like you can not define a word using the word itself I do not think that plays.
People seeing patterns in things is a well documented concept in psychology. The classic example of this would be the Skinner box experiment where you can train animals (and people) to do things that have no bearing on the actual result because they "saw" a pattern.
Again I am not sure how you can make that assertion. Two things though -- biology has allowed for some considerable aberrations to happen, would it be possible for a person in your frame of logic to be born without it or is it beyond biology? Similarly atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief and if words want to be twisted then can we have a term to describe the lack of belief?

The others seem to be religious arguments for religious people. I suppose I could debate within that framework but I am not seeing the need other than to say there are those that would claim to believe and find your assertions to be completely false, others would agree. Such is the fun of things.

"You do realize unicorn isn't really a one horned horse its a extinct kind of rhino "
I saw the thing about the saola the other year ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/1...e_asian_unicorn_snapped_in_vietnamese_forest/ ), a creature some hold to have inspired the Chinese equivalent of the unicorn, however I have not really seen anything of note for the unicorn to be an ancient*, presumably now extinct, creature.

*troublesome word that depending upon when things came into folklore.


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 17, 2015)

cornerpath said:


> Guys I am a good debater in this.. If you are an atheist and want a good debate with a believer like me please quote me!
> 
> because its too many pages i don't wanna go through all pages replying to you guys
> 
> ...


I never said what you quoted.. Stop lying your making me look bad


----------



## henn64 (Dec 17, 2015)

Whoa


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 17, 2015)

Yes, I stand corrected. It is the endless page.


----------



## zezzo (Dec 17, 2015)

osirisjem said:


> Believe in him ?
> I am him !!!


Not funny or cool


----------



## urherenow (Dec 17, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> There are many christian murderes, it doesn't mean you condone murder if you're christian.


What? The one thing ALL branches and offsets of Christian faith has in common is the 10 commandments. Anybody who commits murder is NOT a Christian. Period. Calling yourself something or associating yourself with something doesn't make it so.

(the following are my own thoughts and not a reply to anyone in particular)
That being said, I was brought up in the Catholic faith, myself. I do value the morals I have gained from that upbringing, but ultimately I learned to think for myself and no not believe in a God. I do not claim to be a Catholic or a Christian. I'm more of an agnostic or perhaps a combination of agnostic and atheism. There are too many things wrong with every religion to accept any of them as fact. You believe in the Holy Bible? Ha! Which one? I see new bibles pop up every year, and the oldest writings from the bible known to exist were written more than 300 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. Don't even get me started on the number of times is has been revised.

There are ancient texts on walls of ruins that date far beyond that timeframe 2,500BC even, that depict accurate charts of the cosmos at a time when humans could not have possibly known the information without outside help, and construction techniques that would be difficult at best using 21st century technology. Bah. I'll stop there noting that I believe more in alien intervention more than I believe in a God. (and people at that time would have believed such advanced creatures to be "gods")

As for life after death? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Only transformed from one form to another. The potential energy from your body can be converted to light and heat if you are cremated. If buried, gasses are formed and released, and without a casket, plants or whatever else can make use of the nutrients to grow, etc, etc... so the final question there would be, is there a soul and if so, does it have energy, and where does that energy transfer to when your body gives out?

And my final thought is... what the hell is a thread like this doing on GBATEMP?


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

osirisjem said:


> Believe in him ?
> I am him !!!


Then you won't need to sell your Wii u, even if churches are not as rich.


cornerpath said:


> Guys I am a good debater in this.. If you are an atheist and want a good debate with a believer like me please quote me!
> 
> because its too many pages i don't wanna go through all pages replying to you guys
> 
> ...


Still why would the creator create heaven? It serves no purpose other than amplify his ego which unlike human the creator cannot really feel.
Or why would he use a flood to kill the humans instead of willing every human into non-existence. Such power was merely at the level of low gods in some mythology.
And some other religion do acknowledge the existence of the creator and worshipped him (the creator has appeared in many different brand of mythology), but still to be marked as devil worshippers.
Or if the bible was interpreted the wrong way for the sake of political gain. Like how Jesus's forgiveness was only on those who tried to kill him. Or how Jews was treated terribly by Catholics.
Unicorn resemble much more of a horse than rhino. And being imaginary does not mean not true, they just do not follow our physics or possess physical forms.


----------



## henn64 (Dec 17, 2015)

urherenow said:


> And my final thought is... what the hell is a thread like this doing on GBATEMP?


For the same reason that SmashBoards has one.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

cornerpath said:


> Well God said himself he put in mankind a feeling giving them theres a GOD
> 
> All through the centuries people "worship" stars moon planets ETC   everyone on earth is religious. God made us like that
> 
> You might be an atheist but there is something that you worship or believe! ALL humans on earth are religious



re·li·gious
rəˈlijəs/
_adjective_
relating to or believing in a religion.

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
_noun_

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

as an athiest I believe in no god or supernatural controlling force therefore i am not religious. Also your proof assumes god is real in order to prove his existence.


----------



## osaka35 (Dec 17, 2015)

Hi everybody! Just a reminder:
- The religion is not the religious
- Any two people, even from the same religion, will rarely ever have the exact same beliefs (even within the same denomination or church or family)
- People can easily conflate personal self-worth with their religion
- The KKK is to christians as muslim extremism is to muslims
- People are completely responsible for their own actions, regardless of their religion
- There's probably no god(s), so try not to get too worried about it and just live your life

Why in the world would you say someone who belongs to X religion is responsible for Y action? Those directly responsible for supporting or promoting that behaviour should be pointed out, but unless they spread the teachings that directly influence that action(or did it themselves, obviously), how are they responsible?

Incidentally, violent behaviour based on religious zeal happens outside of organized religions and is also present in other strong belief structures. SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) are good examples of these crusades-without-religion. So it's not that religion is responsible for some people being violent jerks, it's just a way for some to have moral permission to be violent jerks.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 17, 2015)

cornerpath said:


> I will start with you..
> 
> Well God said himself he put in mankind a feeling giving them theres a GOD
> 
> ...


I never said I was an Atheist, note the word "Theistic," as in I believe in a literal beings. I am basically a Pagan at my core. I just don't believe in the Biblical God, there's a difference. Pagans are not inherently Christians because they believe in other Gods. 
But I do not worship anything, I see them are guides and teachers on my journey. Worship is something completely different.
Like I said though, I am actually religious, but that does not equal the same "religious," as a Christian meaning. I have my believes that are not inherently Christian.


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I never said I was an Atheist, note the word "Theistic," as in I believe in a literal beings. I am basically a Pagan at my core. I just don't believe in the Biblical God, there's a difference. Pagans are not inherently Christians because they believe in other Gods.
> But I do not worship anything, I see them are guides and teachers on my journey. Worship is something completely different.
> Like I said though, I am actually religious, but that does not equal the same "religious," as a Christian meaning. I have my believes that are not inherently Christian.


I could be considered partially Wicca, though I am aggressive and delusional at times. I simply just hope that extreme Christians can stop acting in such offensive manners and be a bit more reasonable.
I have talk to several Christian Wiccan and they do say how people are terribly misinterpreting Jesus. He never wants blind believers, it is just the religion seeking political power.
And how Christians treat Jews.
I do have to point out that god is underpowered compared to the description of the creator in other mythology.
Right now I was trying to figure out a way to witness the birth of this reality (by which I mean possibly much beyond this universe), hope my pathetic intelligence can survive all these information. The two biggest question is why physics is constructed in such a way and also how does sentience ever came.


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 17, 2015)

Yil said:


> I could be considered partially Wicca, though I am aggressive and delusional at times. I simply just hope that extreme Christians can stop acting in such offensive manners and be a bit more reasonable.
> I have talk to several Christian Wiccan and they do say how people are terribly misinterpreting Jesus. He never wants blind believers, it is just the religion seeking political power.
> And how Christians treat Jews.
> I do have to point out that god is underpowered compared to the description of the creator in other mythology.
> Right now I was trying to figure out a way to witness the birth of this reality (by which I mean possibly much beyond this universe), hope my pathetic intelligence can survive all these information. The two biggest question is why physics is constructed in such a way and also how does sentience ever came.


I am not sure I totally follow this posts relation to my post. Not to be rude, but it seems a little off-topic from my post


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

Crystal the Glaceon said:


> I am not sure I totally follow this posts relation to my post. Not to be rude, but it seems a little off-topic from my post


That is perhaps my nature. I once thought I unknowingly was a piece of some evil plot.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> despite chatting with muslims *right here*, muslims who *disapprove* of ISIS, directly debunking your hypothesis that "the evil muslims" are everywhere.



You don't appear to understand my hypothesis, just because some muslims disapprove of ISIS doesn't directly debunk anything.



Foxi4 said:


> You definitely are not responsible for the actions of other people, no matter how big of a hyperbole you use. Group responsibility is a totalitarian idea that has no place in contemporary society, if my neighbour kills someone, I'm not an accomplice just because I live in the same building.



No, but you are an accomplice if you agree with him and cheer him on.



Foxi4 said:


> Mosques are getting burned down, people are getting killed in reprisal attacks



I don't condone Mosques being burned down, I think anyone responsible should be found and held accountable. However a lot of liberal Muslims do use these isolated occurrences to justify what the terrorists do (as it appears do you).



Foxi4 said:


> and the fear of refugees is at an all-time high, and all that is happening in civilized, western countries - they're pretty persecuted. Nobody wants to ban jewish immigration as far as I know.



They aren't persecuted at all. A lot of muslims have congregated in areas because they only want to live with other Muslims, they don't want to integrate and so they don't. They want to look different (which isn't the right way to get a job) and so they don't get a job. That isn't persecution. We've been pretty tolerant for a long time, providing interpreters so that people aren't forced to learn English etc. Apparently it was all in vain as a lot of them secretly (and others not so secretly) still hate us anyway.

I can't speak for the US but in Europe the fear of immigrants is more about the financial impact as we have free health care and unemployment benefits. So if you turn up with your family you will get housed. We just don't want to pay for people to live, just because they are fleeing from ISIS but they then get upset because the west wants to bomb ISIS out of existence.



Foxi4 said:


> Good quote that I agree with, but I'm not sure I like the context it's being used in. Your whole argument is giving me strong 1984 vibes.



Whether you like the context or what vibes it's giving you is irrelevant. We have all been conditioned a certain way, which obviously isn't paying off and your feelings are a reaction to that.



Foxi4 said:


> It's a mock-religion - they say they've picked Satan as a role model because he was "truly free", but we all know the reason was more immature than that - they just wanted to piss off Christians. "Look at us, we're more than Atheists - we're SATANISTS!" - real mature.



That sounds like pretty much every religion to me.



RodrigoDavy said:


> I'm not muslim, bro.



I didn't say you were, the "You" was anyone reading.



RodrigoDavy said:


> That comparison is extreme to say the least. Having the same religion as someone doesn't mean being associated with that person.



Having the same religion absolutely associates you with other people of that religion. Humans like to label things, including ourselves. If you say you are a vegetarian then I would assume you don't eat meat. If you belong to an organisation that says it's members are better than others and it's ok to murder them, then I would expect all members to have the same view.



RodrigoDavy said:


> There are many christian murderes, it doesn't mean you condone murder if you're christian.



The ten commandments are pretty clear on that, but when a Christian commits a murder in the name of Christianity then Christians do condemn it.

With Charlie Hebdo the Muslim reaction appeared to be "well the victims did draw some pictures".



RodrigoDavy said:


> European countries like UK, France and Russia has kind of had a very shitty attitude with many countries in the world for some centuries now.



In the past yes, there were Muslim invasions of other countries too. You can't use that to justify killing someone today.



RodrigoDavy said:


> As an example, France and the UK have tried so many times to stop my country, Brazil, from growing its own industry that we only stopped being a rural country because World War II happened and we had the opportunity to grow our industry without european intervention. You might think I am exaggerating, but I kid you not. One of my country's president actually received a written threat from France demanding him to halt his plans for investing in our industry.



I would like to see evidence of this. UK politicians blame the EU for lots of things, quite often it's completely fabricated.



cornerpath said:


> Guys I am a good debater in this.. If you are an atheist and want a good debate with a believer like me please quote me!
> 
> because its too many pages i don't wanna go through all pages replying to you guys
> 
> Well God said himself he put in mankind a feeling giving them theres a GOD



How can you have a good debate with an atheist if you are going to use an argument that requires you to believe in god?
My answer to that is "God didn't say anything because he didn't exist". Just because you have a feeling that god exists and someone wrote that god says he put a feeling in mankind, that doesn't prove anything.



cornerpath said:


> All through the centuries people "worship" stars moon planets ETC   everyone on earth is religious. God made us like that
> 
> You might be an atheist but there is something that you worship or believe! ALL humans on earth are religious



Just because humanity has looked for things to worship, it doesn't mean we are right to do so.[/QUOTE]



cornerpath said:


> Sad thing is people don't realize religion isn't needed to say "Hey I believe in GOD and the bible"



The word religion is used in various ways, but you seem to be nitpicking.



cornerpath said:


> You do realize unicorn isn't really a one horned horse its a extinct kind of rhino
> 
> Dictionary and other google searches will pull this up



There are a lot of theories, until we find evidence then that is all it is.. Or we could invent a religion about them and all we'd need is circular reasoning and remove the need evidence.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

smf said:


> snip



This is honestly so full of disgusting logical fallacies that I would love to tear apart every single thing you said but I'm taking my senior finals so it will have till I get home unfortunately. As an atheist I am disgusted by what you are saying about Muslims.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> This is honestly so full of disgusting logical fallacies that I would love to tear apart every single thing you said but I'm taking my senior finals so it will have till I get home unfortunately. As an atheist I am disgusted by what you are saying about Muslims.


I know what you mean. I made an attempt earlier, but the constant stream of stereotypes and generalizations seems to drown out all reason in this case, so I fold.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2015)

urherenow said:


> What? The one thing ALL branches and offsets of Christian faith has in common is the 10 commandments. Anybody who commits murder is NOT a Christian. Period. Calling yourself something or associating yourself with something doesn't make it so.


By that logic neither are anyone who lie, steal, envy, disrespect their parents, etc...


bi388 said:


> This is honestly so full of disgusting logical fallacies that I would love to tear apart every single thing you said but I'm taking my senior finals so it will have till I get home unfortunately. As an atheist I am disgusted by what you are saying about Muslims.


Same, except replace "finals" with semester exams and "atheist" with Christian


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> By that logic neither are anyone who lie, steal, envy, disrespect their parents, etc...


You are correct - breaking a commandment does not invalidate your status as a Christian, it merely means that you've sinned - you can admit to your sins via confession and repent. Sins are also subdivided into venial (forgivable) sins which do not fully break the connection to God and mortal sins which can condemn a soul to hell if they are unforgiven. The severity (graveness) of a sin can be lessened if the individual was ignorant/uninformed of the fact that his/her act was sinful at the time when he/she committed it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> You are correct - breaking a commandment does not invalidate your status as a Christian, it merely means that you've sinned - you can admit to your sins via confession and repent. Sins are also subdivided into venial (forgivable) sins which do not fully break the connection to God and mortal sins which can condemn a soul to hell if they are unforgiven. The severity (graveness) of a sin can be lessened if the individual was ignorant/uninformed of the fact that his/her act was sinful at the time when he/she committed it.


The interesting thing is that from a very young age I was always taught that God sees all sins as the same and only a belief in Jesus could save you. So, for example, a lie would be seen akin to murder in His eyes. I now have a very much different view on life. I've actually come to resent what I was taught about Christianity as a child, when I think about it now it could easily have been seen as teaching religious extremism, yet no one ever complains about things like that near as much as how people complain about any other religion


----------



## urherenow (Dec 17, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> By that logic neither are anyone who lie, steal, envy, disrespect their parents, etc...
> 
> Same, except replace "finals" with semester exams and "atheist" with Christian


Nobody is perfect. It's almost impossible to not covet, for example. But you can atone for all of those other things. When you kill somebody, you can't take it back. And when you continually do those other things and never stop, atone, etc... no, you are not a Christian. So I stand by what I said. Ok, maybe with a slight caveat... when you WILFULLY/INTENTIONALLY kill someone, no you are not a Christian. Goes along the lines of suicide. You can't take it back, and it's a mortal sin, so according to even Christians themselves, it's game over and you go straight to hell. (and according to Hollywood, you are sentenced to an eternity of social work )


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The interesting thing is that from a very young age I was always taught that God sees all sins as the same and only a belief in Jesus could save you. So, for example, a lie would be seen akin to murder in His eyes. I now have a very much different view on life. I've actually come to resent what I was taught about Christianity as a child, when I think about it now it could easily have been seen as teaching religious extremism, yet no one ever complains about things like that near as much as how people complain about any other religion


I would say that when the old refer seven sins it is not god or Jesus to deliver this punishment. (In a way the real sin of Christianity is to possess intelligence and sentience) It is about way of life and to not be consumed by negativity and if you have done wrong vengeance (or justice but when get consumed by hate) can come earlier than after life.
I might be considered pure evil since I did have the idea of screw over everyone not even for fun. I am taking a risky approach to contain it but the chance of getting worse is of course bigger. But my biggest fear is indeed myself, though I am often scared by other stuff.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



urherenow said:


> Nobody is perfect. It's almost impossible to not covet, for example. But you can atone for all of those other things. When you kill somebody, you can't take it back. And when you continually do those other things and never stop, atone, etc... no, you are not a Christian. So I stand by what I said. Ok, maybe with a slight caveat... when you WILFULLY/INTENTIONALLY kill someone, no you are not a Christian. Goes along the lines of suicide. You can't take it back, and it's a mortal sin, so according to even Christians themselves, it's game over and you go straight to hell. (and according to Hollywood, you are sentenced to an eternity of social work )


The punishment can come much earlier than death. Vengeance will come to you if you kill.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

urherenow said:


> Goes along the lines of suicide. You can't take it back, and it's a mortal sin, so according to even Christians


Why is suicide a sin? I'm not for suicide but saying killing someone else and killing yourself are on the same level and deserve the same punishment is ridiculous.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 17, 2015)

I'm a Happy Happyist and I believe that if you aren't one of us, you deserve to get struck by lightning.


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> Why is suicide a sin? I'm not for suicide but saying killing someone else and killing yourself are on the same level and deserve the same punishment is ridiculous.


Because you must live with that guilt and wait either for forgiveness or vengeance, it is cowardly to suicide. Yet I highly doubt I would be able to control myself.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

Yil said:


> Because you must live with that guilt and wait either for forgiveness or vengeance, it is cowardly to suicide. Yet I highly doubt I would be able to control myself.


I've never researched this but I'm pretty sure most people who commit suicide do so out of sadness and depression not guilt. Not all but most. I don't see why good people who had terrible lives should be punished.


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

Tomato Hentai said:


> I'm a Happy Happyist and I believe that if you aren't one of us, you deserve to get struck by lightning.


And become Captain Marvel or the Flash? cool. And I wonder how to replicate that. Electricity that triggers transmutation before damage.
But seriously this is worse than extremists. And have no believers be struck by thunder?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 17, 2015)

Yil said:


> And become Captain Marvel or the Flash? cool. And I wonder how to replicate that. Electricity that triggers transmutation before damage.
> But seriously this is worse than extremists. And have no believers be struck by thunder?


I was just kidding. That's supposed to be a reference to EarthBound.


----------



## Yil (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> I've never researched this but I'm pretty sure most people who commit suicide do so out of sadness and depression not guilt. Not all but most. I don't see why good people who had terrible lives should be punished.


Maybe religion do not want to lose population, believers, and more importantly someone they can control. In older days especially get infected by disease and stuff is incurable and painful, and chruch would run out of money if all the sick suicide and stop donating money.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Another thing while the devil do exist, Lucifer just means falling sun. It is a king (which is an old kingdom of humans, you should find reference in the bible) who refer himself falling like how a day ends. And someone just have to create some non-existence angels and label the old gods as demons. The old gods and devil are enemies.
But I guess having some believers does make him true now. (there is a theory how believes can actually bring an imaginary entity to our world and bring him power, so I guess even if god/ Jesus (as superhuman rather than just king of Jews) was imaginary they are real now. But do know believes cannot make one with the power of the creator) Real good job bringing the Christian devil to life, Luciferian. (Just to be clear that was to be sarcasm)


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 17, 2015)

Feels relevant at this point


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 17, 2015)

urherenow said:


> Nobody is perfect. It's almost impossible to not covet, for example. But you can atone for all of those other things. When you kill somebody, you can't take it back. And when you continually do those other things and never stop, atone, etc... no, you are not a Christian. So I stand by what I said. Ok, maybe with a slight caveat... when you WILFULLY/INTENTIONALLY kill someone, no you are not a Christian. Goes along the lines of suicide. You can't take it back, and it's a mortal sin, so according to even Christians themselves, it's game over and you go straight to hell. (and according to Hollywood, you are sentenced to an eternity of social work )


Mortal sins are not "game over", they can be forgiven and atoned for. Moreover, killing another person knowingly is not necessarily unforgivable - you could kill another person because of circumstance (you can willingly and knowingly kill a mugger who threatens you, for instance). You could also kill someone because you're in a dark place in your life (because of drugs, poverty etc.), that doesn't mean that you can't have regrets or can't ask for forgiveness. Atonement doesn't necessarily mean that things are back to the way they were before the sin - atonement is an attempt at making things right. There isn't a sin you can't atone for and it's never too late to rediscover faith. Christianity, by definition, is a religion of forgiveness - many Christians forget that. The gospel is pretty clear about this - the last thing Christ did on the cross was forgiving everyone, including those who mocked, tortured and killed him. In fact, he specifically said that the criminal who expressed regret and wished to atone will sit with him in the heavens the same day. Seeing that Christians are supposed to follow that example, they are supposed to forgive those who truthfuly seek forgiveness.


----------



## XENOVALKRYIA (Dec 17, 2015)

Yes i believe God exist and He Is One.........

the reason is simple, True Justice Is Exist in afterlife but not in this world

Every evil will punished and every goodness will rewarded


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> Why is suicide a sin? I'm not for suicide but saying killing someone else and killing yourself are on the same level and deserve the same punishment is ridiculous.


There is a FABULOUS account from Rev. Adam Hamilton (Church of the Resurrection, Kansas City) about when he was serving for a funeral of a teenager who committed suicide. After the sermon, an older couple that looked disgruntled walked up to him and asked him straight up "Why didn't you tell his parents that their child is in Hell today?" He was kind of taken aback, and asked the couple "Wha-... Why do you say that?" The woman then responded, condescendingly, "Well! Everyone knows that people who kill themselves will go to Hell!" And he looked her in the eyes and said "I'm sorry, how can you be so sure that YOU know the will of God?". He then walked away before either of them could respond.


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 17, 2015)

XENOVALKRYIA said:


> Yes i believe God exist and He Is One.........
> 
> the reason is simple, True Justice Is Exist in afterlife but not in this world
> 
> Every evil will punished and every goodness will rewarded


See...that is your mistake.  You spate good and evil as if they are separate.  There are consequences to people's actions and certain thinking can lead to bad behavior and unwanted consequences.  However, this does not mean anything truly bad is out there.  Nothing that a person does is out of selflessness.  If it were nobody would go anywhere in this day and age.  Nobody is 100 percent good because nobody is perfect.  you can't define god, but insist its a he and that He exists.  Tell me then, how should I imagine this word you have made up.  One's mind trying to make up for the fear of the unknown and its natural.  But, you don't need religion; some people think they do.  Its all just an illusion and typically education can help with that, but sometimes it can't - okay?

You live your life.  No one is controlling you or your actions.  Only you can tell yourself if that action can lead to some other choice and if that choice is wise.  Only you are in control of the wheel.  Don't be fooled by the dumbasses you see preaching crazy shit and live your life as you see fit.  Believe what you want.  I am just telling you what you need to hear.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

XENOVALKRYIA said:


> Yes i believe God exist and He Is One.........
> 
> the reason is simple, True Justice Is Exist in afterlife but not in this world
> 
> Every evil will punished and every goodness will rewarded


That is the worst reason I've ever seen, you literally said the reason you believe in the afterlife is because the afterlife is good.


----------



## bannana2 (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> That is the worst reason I've ever seen, you literally said the reason you believe in the afterlife is because the afterlife is good.


If that is what this person meant to say, and I suggest you ask him/her, than this person needs to know they aren't going to hell over spilt milk.


----------



## XENOVALKRYIA (Dec 17, 2015)

True Justice........The Absolute True Justice Not Exist In This World...

If you are from super rich family or you are from powerful family, you can run from law..

But all human will dead, and no one can run from absolute justice in afterlife

evil people like stalin or hitler will punished or you forget about native indian in america and australia aborigin suffering for hundred years by western people ?

Where Is justice ? hey western people killing native people in america and australia, where is the justice ?

Absolute True Justice Exist In Afterlife...

Every Evil even smaller from atom will punished...

And every goodness even smaller from atom will rewarded...

No One Can Run From True Justice In Afterlife...

And God Is One......

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 17, 2015)

XENOVALKRYIA said:


> True Justice........The Absolute True Justice Not Exist In This World...
> 
> If you are from super rich family or you are from powerful family, you can run from law..
> 
> ...



There is no such thing as justice. Justice, like religion, was invented by humanity to divide us.Everybody has their own opinion on what 'Justice' is and religion is no different in that regard. 

Also, which god do you worship, is it the christian god? Or perhaps another god? All religions have a god that defines Justice differently. Islam has a much looser view of justice than other faiths, for example, whilst Christianity has a view of justice that only seems to apply in certain cases. The christian god killed tens of millions in the bible in the name of 'justice'. Many millions were innocent children. All holy books have a similar type of god though - selfish and they see their actions as justifiable because they are 'all powerful'. Even if I was religious, I don't think I would put much trust in any God, for their view of justice and fairness seems to change at their whim.


----------



## XENOVALKRYIA (Dec 17, 2015)

Nope True Justice is Exist........In Afterlife

believe or not is up to you you have free choice

I dont care what people say

just wait, no one can live forever.........death is coming for everyone

And you can see the truth in afterlife, 

just wait hehehe

Good Night & Good Luck....

Every Evil even smaller from atom will punished

And every goodness even smaller from atom will rewarded

No One Can Run From True Justice In Afterlife...

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 17, 2015)

XENOVALKRYIA said:


> Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)



Your entire proof is one line from Deuteronomy, that explains exactly nothing.

A good counter example is also from Dueteronomy about God's selfishness, greed and jealousy. 

Deuteronomy 13:13-19: ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before.14 In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you,15 you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock." 

He literally condemns an entire village to death if a single person worships another god.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 17, 2015)

post count: 12
Location: Antarctica
Language: Broken English
Logic: Circular

Troll?


----------



## mammastuffing (Dec 17, 2015)

I don't believe in a god simply because I don't believe in claims that lacks evidence to back them up.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 17, 2015)

mammastuffing said:


> I don't believe in a god simply because I don't believe in claims that lacks evidence to back them up.



With you there. Religious people forget, they are the ones with everything to prove.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> This is honestly so full of disgusting logical fallacies that I would love to tear apart every single thing you said but I'm taking my senior finals so it will have till I get home unfortunately. As an atheist I am disgusted by what you are saying about Muslims.



Well you have a perfect right to be disgusted, what you can't do is then threaten to kill me because of it.

People seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying anyway, FYI the last girl I dated was Muslim & I have recently stayed with a Muslim family quite a lot. I have an open invite to the mosque but timing has meant that I can't make it on a Friday. Yes I'm an atheist, but they are trying to convert me (for balance, so did a Christian a couple of years ago).

You are young, your opinions will change over time. You might even understand my point eventually.

I'm going to join the KKK and see how many of you judge me for their actions. FYI most Christian denominations have denounced the KKK.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 17, 2015)

Tomato Hentai said:


> I'm a Happy Happyist and I believe that if you aren't one of us, you deserve to get struck by lightning.



Blue, blue blue...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2015)

smf said:


> Well you have a perfect right to be disgusted, what you can't do is then threaten to kill me because of it.
> 
> People seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying anyway, FYI the last girl I dated was Muslim & I have recently stayed with a Muslim family quite a lot. I have an open invite to the mosque but timing has meant that I can't make it on a Friday. Yes I'm an atheist, but they are trying to convert me (for balance, so did a Christian a couple of years ago).
> 
> ...


There's a major difference between joining the KKK and joining the Muslim religion. One is entirely based on hate and completely wiping out everything that isn't them. The other is a religion that has largely peaceful elements that is being hijacked to push their own agenda of ruling the world. I will not deny the fact that there are Muslim extremists. However, you cannot claim to have Islamic friends that invite you into their mosque peacefully and then insult the entire religion and make the claim that any one of them are capable of the atrocities that ISIL has been commiting


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 17, 2015)

Come on... Nothing is impossible if you believe.


----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> There's a major difference between joining the KKK and joining the Muslim religion.



So you're saying you can judge people for who they associate with when it suits your argument?

What if you're not available when we need to figure out if you should judge someone for the actions of their associates? Can we have your cell number?

There is more one single Muslim religion, Wahhabi is most certainly not peaceful & it has more followers than the KKK. Is it ok to judge them for their associates behaviour?



TotalInsanity4 said:


> However, you cannot claim to have Islamic friends that invite you into their mosque peacefully and then insult the entire religion and make the claim that any one of them are capable of the atrocities that ISIL has been commiting



I didn't make that claim. I'd argue that inviting someone to convert them wasn't exactly peaceful either.


----------



## almmiron (Dec 17, 2015)

I believe in the power of myth. But i'm like Campbell itself. I play to believe each religion, but in theirs metaphoric meanings (Like, for example, a pedagogic way of insert a person in a given reality of a society, teaching Its rules), never in It's literal way: God Like a entity that really exists, Apple tree, heaven&hell, Mjolnir, Shiva, Ashanti: things and beings like that are for me just metaphoric constructions to prove a point. However, religions never were "built" rationally and here I must quote a guy that represents well all of this, Joseph Campbell:

"God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."

I believe, then, in spirituality as something intrinsic to mankind. But I myself don't practice.

For whose whants to begin understand psychological, sociological, philosophical and historical meaning of Myth/Religion/God, start here: (1/6 volumes of interview, but the guy has a lot of books written). Dont worry! He speaks to the lay and to the experts.



Also, read Freud (totem&tabu), Rudolf Otto, Jostein Gaarder, Mircea Eliade, if deepen understanding is needed. To this theme, ignore Marx, he didnt knew what religion was about.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 17, 2015)

smf said:


> So you're saying you can judge people for who they associate with when it suits your argument?


The difference is that the KKK is a group whose main purpose is to be racist and Muslims are not


----------



## razielleonhart (Dec 17, 2015)




----------



## smf (Dec 17, 2015)

bi388 said:


> The difference is that the KKK is a group whose main purpose is to be racist and Muslims are not



Well the KKK, like the Muslims, say it's not (from kkk.com)

"There is a race war against whites. But our people - my white brothers and sisters - will stay committed to a non-violent resolution. That resolution must consist of solidarity in white communities around the world. The hatred for our children and their future is growing and is being fueled every single day. Stay firm in your convictions. Keep loving your heritage and keep witnessing to others that there is a better way than a war torn, violent, wicked, socialist, new world order. That way is the Christian way - law and order - love of family - love of nation. These are the principles of western Christian civilization. There is a war to destroy these things. Pray that our people see the error of their ways and regain a sense of loyalty. Repent America! Be faithful my fellow believers. "

National Director of The Knights, Pastor Thomas Robb

Islam has multiple factions, like the KKK.
They both started out advocating war against people they classed as oppressors.

Maybe you are just prejudiced against the KKK.


----------



## Cylent1 (Dec 18, 2015)

I cannot believe in God when 10 year old kids hearts quit beating, hunger, war, aliens, ect...
Also the bible is the most rewritten book in history at over 1500 times.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 18, 2015)

"Maybe you are just prejudiced against the KKK."

The KKK has an air of the cult about them (from what we have seen of their recruitment tactics it is certainly reminiscent) and as such the rank and file may necessitate something closer to pity, however assuming that someone that is a participating member of the KKK is a cunt seems a fairly valid thing to do.


----------



## Yil (Dec 18, 2015)

almmiron said:


> I believe in the power of myth. But i'm like Campbell itself. I play to believe each religion, but in theirs metaphoric meanings (Like, for example, a pedagogic way of insert a person in a given reality of a society, teaching Its rules), never in It's literal way: God Like a entity that really exists, Apple tree, heaven&hell, Mjolnir, Shiva, Ashanti: things and beings like that are for me just metaphoric constructions to prove a point. However, religions never were "built" rationally and here I must quote a guy that represents well all of this, Joseph Campbell:
> 
> "God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that."
> 
> ...


There are people who failed to understand the power of the creator and simply bind him to the description in the bible. If bible was indeed words from the creator itself then the descriptions are a dumbed down version so humans can understand. And heaven is not in form of a garden but human mind simply cannot comprehend.

And to all else.

And while this seems extrem, isis were simply a form of revenge (and also  the government who can restrain them was shut down by the west) for what the west and soviet union did to the middle east starting from the cold war. The pain in the middle east are far more than what terriost caused today. We should appreciate that not every muslim turn on the west.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Come on... Nothing is impossible if you believe.


Just because I believe MOTHER 3 is going to get localized doesn't mean it'll happen


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 18, 2015)

Tomato Hentai said:


> Just because I believe MOTHER 3 is going to get localized doesn't mean it'll happen


The ninja king works in mysterious ways?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> The ninja king works in mysterious ways?


I mean officially


----------



## almmiron (Dec 18, 2015)

Yil said:


> There are people who failed to understand the power of the creator and simply bind him to the description in the bible. If bible was indeed words from the creator itself then the descriptions are a dumbed down version so humans can understand. And heaven is not in form of a garden but human mind simply cannot comprehend.
> 
> And to all else.
> 
> And while this seems extrem, isis were simply a form of revenge (and also  the government who can restrain them was shut down by the west) for what the west and soviet union did to the middle east starting from the cold war. The pain in the middle east are far more than what terriost caused today. We should appreciate that not every muslim turn on the west.



Likes to me you quoted my post as if I saying/replying something about extremism groups, that I didn't. I just posted in answer to the 1st post of Jack_Sparrow. But i've seen your point (I guess). Well, regarding extremism groups, I think they misunterstood the meaning of the Religion they belong, and have been locked to the metaphors. Note that when I say "religion", I mean a form of "spiritual belief" in a given traditional religion, not the institutional or political side of the religion (catholic church, Islamic State, etc), thing that most people confuses about.


----------



## anhminh (Dec 18, 2015)

If we think the world is a complex program then it hard to believe we can reach this far based solely on randomness code without crashing it. It's like you point a bunch of random dot and in the end it end up become a beautiful landscape picture.

So it's reasonable for some people to not believe in those randomness. Maybe there is no randomness, maybe all of this was a big plan of someone, someone with the power to put in the code and point those dot to a big picture. As far as we know, we could only answer the question of how it happen, we never have a real answer for why it happen. Why in a bunch of option we end up with this? Is it real just by chance?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 18, 2015)

I'm absolutely astonished that this comparison of the KKK to Muslims has gotten this far


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm absolutely astonished that this comparison of the KKK to Muslims has gotten this far


----------



## urherenow (Dec 18, 2015)

bi388 said:


> Why is suicide a sin? I'm not for suicide but saying killing someone else and killing yourself are on the same level and deserve the same punishment is ridiculous.


Because your life isn't yours to take. It's Gods. He made you for a reason, and that reason was not to kill yourself. This isn't me talking, this is what Christians believe. And still, there is no way to forgive it because you can't even ask for forgiveness.


----------



## Yil (Dec 18, 2015)

anhminh said:


> If we think the world is a complex program then it hard to believe we can reach this far based solely on randomness code without crashing it. It's like you point a bunch of random dot and in the end it end up become a beautiful landscape picture.
> 
> So it's reasonable for some people to not believe in those randomness. Maybe there is no randomness, maybe all of this was a big plan of someone, someone with the power to put in the code and point those dot to a big picture. As far as we know, we could only answer the question of how it happen, we never have a real answer for why it happen. Why in a bunch of option we end up with this? Is it real just by chance?



Reality itself is both the hardware and software, and data. All our physics are just program, and we live as infinitely complex yet simple construct of information, or precisely numbers. But the fundamental of reality is far beyond what our computer have today. It is not binary, it has no bottleneck, the ram and storage is infinite, the programing is infinitely paralleled, data transfer happen in the same instance (actually time do not exist), it has no physical body and it just keeps going. I wonder how does physics came to being since the only thing that exist before it is existence. And before this how would a sentience came into being. And since the status before existence is non-existence (which is logically contradicting how I refer to non-existence make it exist), which is beyond logic we may never understand. And perhaps there are more than one being of sentience that are directly derived from existence. And for the purpose I think the first sentience is just lonely.
Anything in form of information, including our imagination is existing and thus real.
And what ever try to gather believers to increase their power are only to be considered low gods (sorry for pointing out, whoever believed the old religions).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 18, 2015)

urherenow said:


> Because your life isn't yours to take. It's Gods. He made you for a reason, and that reason was not to kill yourself. This isn't me talking, this is what Christians believe. And still, there is no way to forgive it because you can't even ask for forgiveness.


So I understand that it isn't just you talking, but is that what you also believe?


----------



## urherenow (Dec 18, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So I understand that it isn't just you talking, but is that what you also believe?


Not at all. As I said earlier, I'm on the border between atheist and agnostic. Just like being gay seems to be hard wired into the brain, some people are more prone to depression and what not. Anybody who COULD commit suicide can only do so because of the way their brain is wired and if there was a creator... guess what? He made you that way. Religions are hypocritical all over the place and MY brain is wired to think logically. Religion just doesn't compute.

And you could continue to add on to the shittiness of suicide by not simply stopping at the fact that you've taken away something that God created... you are also inflicting emotional harm on countless others. And of course, you aren't around to apologize and/or atone for that either.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2015)

This has all been fluff up until now.  The real question is: Are there video games in heaven?


----------



## urherenow (Dec 18, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> This has all been fluff up until now.  The real question is: Are there video games in heaven?


Video? Who needs "video"?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> This has all been fluff up until now.  The real question is: Are there video games in heaven?


If there's an afterlife, there better be video games.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 18, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> This has all been fluff up until now.  The real question is: Are there video games in heaven?





Tomato Hentai said:


> If there's an afterlife, there better be video games.


The question that that invariably brings up is what would be the point? You could literally do _anything _you wanted for all of eternity, if you wanted to you could probably actually be in a physical version of said games


----------



## Muffins (Dec 18, 2015)

But what if you _wanted _to play the NES, 2D Super Mario Brothers?


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The question that that invariably brings up is what would be the point? You could literally do _anything _you wanted for all of eternity, if you wanted to you could probably actually be in a physical version of said games


You know, I can play hockey, and I do, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy a session of NHL '94 on my SNES.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 18, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The question that that invariably brings up is what would be the point? You could literally do _anything _you wanted for all of eternity, if you wanted to you could probably actually be in a physical version of said games


I'd rather not actually fight Giygas


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 18, 2015)

Tomato Hentai said:


> I'd rather not actually fight Giygas


Of course you wouldn't, you're in that happy happy cult.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 18, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> Of course you wouldn't, you're in that happy happy cult.



Join us, Grossaffe.

Ittttttt'ssssss blisssssssss.......


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 18, 2015)

smf said:


> So you're saying you can judge people for who they associate with when it suits your argument?
> 
> What if you're not available when we need to figure out if you should judge someone for the actions of their associates? Can we have your cell number?
> 
> ...




About wahhabism, anyone who is a wahhabi Muslim don't get this post wrong. It is a relatively new movement, started from 19th century I guess, along with Ahmadiya almost I think. They really are a little bit extreme in their belief and infact many terrorist branch seem to follow their rules, to the utmost level.

Now let's consider the base of Islam in all sects. Pray five times a day, fast in the holy months, and if affordable the major Pilgrimage. None of these are acts of violence by any means. Even our biggest sins written in our Holy book are, Premarital For the children I'll let you guess, Taking the blood of another human, Pride, apostasy.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 18, 2015)

MionissNio said:


> About wahhabism, anyone who is a wahhabi Muslim don't get this post wrong. It is a relatively new movement, started from 19th century I guess, along with Ahmadiya almost I think. They really are a little bit extreme in their belief and infact many terrorist branch seem to follow their rules, to the utmost level.
> 
> Now let's consider the base of Islam in all sects. Pray five times a day, fast in the holy months, and if affordable the major Pilgrimage. None of these are acts of violence by any means. Even our biggest sins written in our Holy book are, Premarital For the children I'll let you guess, Taking the blood of another human, Pride, apostasy.



The core of Islam is for war though. Muhammad was a warlord who killed thousands. He killed those who would not convert. Heck, Muhammad was killed by a Jewish slave girl by poisoning in retribution for beheading most of her village and family.

However, Muhammad wasn't just a bloodthirsty tyrant, he was a genius strategist from the accounts in the Quran and matching history. He led raids and revolutionised arabian warfare by creating one of the world's first armies motivated by a coherent system of ideological belief.

Many Jihadi today use these points to kill as justification for their own insurgencies.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 18, 2015)

"He killed those who would not convert"
Not universally by any means, indeed for my money it was probably only Genghis Khan that was more tolerant of different ideologies when doing the international warlord/warlord dynasty of note bit*. The history of the Jizya tax again being a good thing to look at. Neither would look particularly pleasant from a modern perspective but if we are looking at the most egregious shit done in history with idealogical motivations playing a big role then early Islam does not rank half as high.

*some of the sub Saharan African tribal stuff could count as international I guess, though not on the scales of the alternatives.

"Many Jihadi today use these points to kill as justification for their own insurgencies."
I read catcher in the rye once, now I am a killer. It seems about as useful a comparison.


----------



## G0R3Z (Dec 18, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> "He killed those who would not convert"
> Not universally by any means, indeed for my money it was probably only Genghis Khan that was more tolerant of different ideologies when doing the international warlord/warlord dynasty of note bit*. The history of the Jizya tax again being a good thing to look at. Neither would look particularly pleasant from a modern perspective but if we are looking at the most egregious shit done in history with idealogical motivations playing a big role then early Islam does not rank half as high.
> 
> *some of the sub Saharan African tribal stuff could count as international I guess, though not on the scales of the alternatives.
> ...



Yet many muslims use the Quran as a book of historic fact, much as some christians do with the bible. Some people's faith is so strong that they can't seem to be able to see that it is a compilation of stories and myths.

I'm with you, it's ridiculous. But that's how it is. They read their holy book, see things that back up their point of view and run with it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 18, 2015)

There are literalists and similar* in every major and probably most minor belief systems. Likewise from what I have seen of the Quran and associated works there is a decent chunk of history in it, especially compared to the likes of the bible, jewish books, definitely most hindu stuff and the other things I might read. Taking it, and especially the hadiths, as read is a silly idea but there are worse choices for a book to do that from.

*strictly speaking literalism would probably be the notion that everything in it was some level of actual happening, however the concepts of parables and stories with meaning is older still, and clearly used in even the most cursory of readings, so strict literalism does strike me as an odd way to set about things. To that end the similar part of that would be those that are not strict literalists but would still take whatever book as the only authority on matters of morality.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 18, 2015)

Some of the people in the is thread remind me of the champlain from The Stranger who kept getting mad and insisting Meursault has to believe in god because it's impossible not to lol


----------



## MionissNio (Dec 18, 2015)

G0R3Z said:


> Yet many muslims use the Quran as a book of historic fact, much as some christians do with the bible. Some people's faith is so strong that they can't seem to be able to see that it is a compilation of stories and myths.
> 
> I'm with you, it's ridiculous. But that's how it is. They read their holy book, see things that back up their point of view and run with it.



I agree that there were a lot of wars in the history of Islam, but where in the first law of Islam aka the Quran it is written there is punishment or no heaven for those who don't jihad? Surely there is no disagreement either from those picked verses of sword from the Quran are there, but none of them strain on the fact the one who is calm, prays and gives charity and follow virtue path according to Islam won't go to heaven. Their are also many of verses which indulge peace, now on the argument of supercession of previous verses by violent ones, according to Islamic history the quran was not revealed in order but verses were revealed according to situations. Most of the violent verses were sent down in times of war. During that time Muslims were not even one to start war and had faced a lot of persecution.

Besides ISIS or Deash as I like to adhere them, their martyr scheme doesn't work out, none can simply not be a martyr by blowing self up, even in 'Jihad' one can not be martyr killing one's own kind and drinking alcohol (Quite allegations I have heard), One can simply not wear black clothes (and flags which is a sign of Shia I think?) and call themselves Sunni. Lastly one can simply not kill defected children and claim a F***** Fatwa on it, don't you agree with me Muslims and non-Muslims alike? Where in the Quran is written to kill innocent children? Not even Sun nah says so. God! Reading the news daily makes me think I should take the Mars space program Asap.


Off-Topic: I have a Christian builders working on renovating my house and seeing them work honestly and justly I usually pay them extra than bill. Not only me my whole family and neighbourhood is alike. Infact my neigbours are currently non-Muslims in an Islamic country. Surprisingly my previous neighbours were also Christians but I still behaved with gratitude.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 18, 2015)

Tomato Hentai said:


> Just because I believe MOTHER 3 is going to get localized doesn't mean it'll happen



Very funny. Nonsense. This is about God discussion.


----------



## smf (Dec 18, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Very funny. Nonsense. This is about God discussion.



It's a comment about belief not being linked to anything remotely possible, which is very appropriate for this discussion.



MionissNio said:


> Besides ISIS or Deash as I like to adhere them, their martyr scheme doesn't work out, none can simply not be a martyr by blowing self up



The problem is they believe it does work out for them. In my opinion there is no afterlife, so they are dead and gone forever. In their opinion they will be given 72 virgins (
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins). It's not a risk I'd take, but I'm sure some people would. One woman causes enough problems, let alone 72 of them.


----------



## mammastuffing (Dec 18, 2015)

It would be interesting to hear the reason(s) to peoples beliefs.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Dec 19, 2015)

smf said:


> The problem is they believe it does work out for them. In my opinion there is no afterlife, so they are dead and gone forever. In their opinion they will be given 72 virgins (
> http://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins). It's not a risk I'd take, but I'm sure some people would. One woman causes enough problems, let alone 72 of them.


Don't trust information from wikiislam...

Here's the informantion about this that I found from wikipédia:


> Among non-Muslims, the concept of the houri received wide publicity as "virgins" (most usually 72 in number for each shahid) promised as a reward to Muslim shahids (martyrs), after their death. However, contrary to such reports, the Quran states that all believers (not just martyrs, and nowhere either is it said it's just men) who go to Heaven shall be granted the company of more than one houri—explicitly mentioned in the plural, and the number 72 comes from a hadith with a weak chain of narrators (i.e. less than totally reliable), and not the Quran.


----------



## Yil (Dec 19, 2015)

RodrigoDavy said:


> Don't trust information from wikiislam...
> 
> Here's the informantion about this that I found from wikipédia:


I'd say screw every man who think he deserves more than one woman. Females, especially virgin are way too precious and men like that do not deserve to even touch them or any interaction.
Just to be clear I am male.


----------



## MJM2 (Dec 19, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Since you brought it up, the Qur'an has been changed/corrupted, http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Corruption_of_Previous_Scriptures
> 
> Not saying other books haven't been, but the Qur'an definitely has.


It's not the Qur'an that has been changed it's the Hadeeth that could be changed -not that it's all been changed or alerted but some might = The Qur'an hasn't changed from the day it came cause it's been delivered to us person by person -in the Islamic religion there is something called "Igaza" which is the hearing and revising the Qur'an as it's heard from the prophet him self person by person until now - a person who has an "Igaza" will be memorizing the quran as it's heard from the prophet 
with all the people in the chain registered and with multiple chains so that no mistake is made


----------



## Selim873 (Dec 19, 2015)

I consider myself agnostic.  There's no solid proof any God of any religion exists, but I believe there is most definitely a higher power in our universe beyond our knowing.


----------



## smf (Dec 19, 2015)

Selim873 said:


> but I believe there is most definitely a higher power in our universe beyond our knowing.



How can you be sure something most definitely exists, if we can never know about it? That sounds like hyperbole.

I can do it too.... I'm one million percent positive there is no such thing as god or any similar higher power.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 19, 2015)

smf said:


> How can you be sure something most definitely exists, if we can never know about it? That sounds like hyperbole.
> 
> I can do it too.... I'm one million percent positive there is no such thing as god or any similar higher power.


so positive that you're breaking the rules of math!


----------



## Blaze163 (Dec 19, 2015)

I believe in the human capacity to do good and do my best to encourage its growth. Call it the 'holy spirit' or whatever you want, I don't need to pin the face of some magical flying beardy man to the concept for it to be valid. I put my faith in the possibilities we all carry within ourselves, the inner light that guides us. When you boil it down, most people are generally decent, they do their best to survive a harsh world and find whatever comfort they can before they face the crushing inevitability of death. If we just started accepting hat death is the inevitable fate of us all and stopped trying to find an escape in 'heaven' or reincarnation or whatever and just got on with the life we have instead of trying to prolong it for an unattainable eternity, if we all simply focussed on this inner light instead of fighting over tribal god concepts in a desperate bid to escape the truth of what we are, the world would be a vastly superior place. So no, I don't believe in God. Because I'd rather have faith in myself and those around me than some 'magic man' to fix everything.


----------



## Yil (Dec 19, 2015)

Blaze163 said:


> I believe in the human capacity to do good and do my best to encourage its growth. Call it the 'holy spirit' or whatever you want, I don't need to pin the face of some magical flying beardy man to the concept for it to be valid. I put my faith in the possibilities we all carry within ourselves, the inner light that guides us. When you boil it down, most people are generally decent, they do their best to survive a harsh world and find whatever comfort they can before they face the crushing inevitability of death. If we just started accepting hat death is the inevitable fate of us all and stopped trying to find an escape in 'heaven' or reincarnation or whatever and just got on with the life we have instead of trying to prolong it for an unattainable eternity, if we all simply focussed on this inner light instead of fighting over tribal god concepts in a desperate bid to escape the truth of what we are, the world would be a vastly superior place. So no, I don't believe in God. Because I'd rather have faith in myself and those around me than some 'magic man' to fix everything.


Aye, even if there is afterlife it matters more of what we do now. And I highly doubt 'magic man' would solve problem for every believers which are at least one billion humans. Though I am to find my inner light shadowed by my chaotic nature and that if it is better to keep going or make it easier for everyone. But first there are things I must do.


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 19, 2015)

If by G-D you Mean '*G*ood *O*rderly *D*irection'? then YES. You might better have asked if anyone/everyone believes  in Spirituality.
The difference between religion and spirituality is that religion (specific) is for those who don't want to go to hell and spirituality (possible from any religion) is for those who have been there  [through hell] and don't wish to go back.  Do I believe in a power greater than myself (all mankind?) Yes, but that power could also be a 'way' see Taoism (an amazing study BTW) a force like Nature or many such things.

If you ask whether I believe in the Bible? Taking into account the Telephone theory which illlustrates how a story passed along through many ears eventually becomes grose-ly changed, so that would be a NO on the Bible thing, either that or it is greatly corrupted from the original. Does it hold sound advice for all living? Certainly. Worth Reading? Absolutely,  IIRC t's still a NYT best Seller   list <chuckle>
sorry for spelling, typing on a pad keyboard.....

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


----------



## Jack_Sparrow (Dec 19, 2015)

Wow the poll at the top is probably the largest on the temp lol


----------



## Yil (Dec 19, 2015)

syfyTy said:


> If by G-D you Mean '*G*ood *O*rderly *D*irection'? then YES. You might better have asked if anyone/everyone believes  in Spirituality.
> The difference between religion and spirituality is that religion (specific) is for those who don't want to go to hell and spirituality (possible from any religion) is for those who have been there  [through hell] and don't wish to go back.  Do I believe in a power greater than myself (all mankind?) Yes, but that power could also be a 'way' see Taoism (an amazing study BTW) a force like Nature or many such things.
> 
> If you ask whether I believe in the Bible? Taking into account the Telephone theory which illlustrates how a story passed along through many ears eventually becomes grose-ly changed, so that would be a NO on the Bible thing, either that or it is greatly corrupted from the original. Does it hold sound advice for all living? Certainly. Worth Reading? Absolutely,  IIRC t's still a NYT best Seller   list <chuckle>
> ...


But lots of people does not understand that. The originally was both misinterpreted and also went through change of contents. It is a shame how Taoism end up more of a religion until it was brought back in recent days, because most people at the time was too stupid to understand its meaning which goes far beyond mythical arts and even talks about the originally chaotic state of the universe and how it came to be. Having thousands of years in power growth is nothing compared to knowing great truth about ourselves and our world.
I would quote “人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然“， which means that us humans rely on the earth, the earth relies on the universe, the universe relies on logic, and logic relies on nature. Was nature supposed to be above existence?
And some stupid read it in reverse order and start a religion of magic and achemistry.


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 19, 2015)

in response to Yil, to ME, the Tao is about as accurate/functional/rational a paradigm  as anything I've ever heard/read/studied in my 52 + years on this green marble we call Earth. Due to the nature of my occupation, I have had the motive to read many, few that made any sense when tested by time (empiracle evidence). and some that were half truths  (at best) dressed as a method of making money or controlling the masses for on alterior motives.

To everyone)
Many tricks used by magicians today, were used during the times of old (Romans, the Great Library of Alexandria(?) and such to get the masses to donate money to keep the spiritual leaders fed. They created michanical miracles (considered marvels) to bring in the masses for thier sermons. Many great men from the Great Library were employed to create these methods. What bothers me is these same methods of trickery are still employed in one manner or another to this day (without conscience)in the name of 'Religion'. Don't take my word for it, do some (non internet) research for yourself... Far too many so called spiritual leaders have  twisted the words found in the bible to suit thier needs, fill thier coffers, and herd thier sheeple (sheep like people).


----------



## Yil (Dec 19, 2015)

syfyTy said:


> in response to Yil, to ME, the Tao is about as accurate/functional/rational a paradigm  as anything I've ever heard/read/studied in my 52 + years on this green marble we call Earth. Due to the nature of my occupation, I have had the motive to read many, few that made any sense when tested by time (empiracle evidence). and some that were half truths  (at best) dressed as a method of making money or controlling the masses for on alterior motives.
> 
> To everyone)
> Many tricks used by magicians today, were used during the times of old (Romans, the Great Library of Alexandria(?) and such to get the masses to donate money to keep the spiritual leaders fed. They created michanical miracles (considered marvels) to bring in the masses for thier sermons. Many great men from the Great Library were employed to create these methods. What bothers me is these same methods of trickery are still employed in one manner or another to this day (without conscience)in the name of 'Religion'. Don't take my word for it, do some (non internet) research for yourself... Far too many so called spiritual leaders have  twisted the words found in the bible to suit thier needs, fill thier coffers, and herd thier sheeple (sheep like people).


Aye. Jesus never said things like 'worship me or you are screwed', it is just that there are wisdom in his words at least at the time. The old testament was supposed to be read as histories of the Jews, not a absolute model of our actions.
Perhaps we need someone to set things right, or maybe the world is slowly following that path. One thing I must say is that Christians raise the arrogance of human by too much which is very unhealthy for the earth and for us.


----------



## Redhorse (Dec 19, 2015)

One more/last thing. I truely believe that science (electronics, tech etc) which is pure  trial/error, logic/proof (requiring no faith/emotional investment) is doing a great deal to undermine the ability of man to have 'blind faith' For reasons too extensive to list here, I still believe a certain measure of blind faith is needed to sanely transverse this existance. It feeds a desire for instant gratification which is seldom healthy in any area of life. (See Addiction Psychology and the works of Gorski & Miller; Staying Sober) Addi.ction Psychology has roots in tech as well as drugs. You can become addictedf to anything that changes the way you feel ie instant gratification.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> Aye. Jesus never said things like 'worship me or you are screwed', it is just that there are wisdom in his words at least at the time. The old testament was supposed to be read as histories of the Jews, not a absolute model of our actions.
> Perhaps we need someone to set things right, or maybe the world is slowly following that path. One thing I must say is that Christians raise the arrogance of human by too much which is very unhealthy for the earth and for us.


Ahmen Brother and Halaluyah!!! ( no joke intended) lol


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 25, 2015)

.
the earth is a Prison Colony. god (lowercase g) is the Warden, the secret societies are the guards. 

from the research i have done its clear more than ever. 

Approach #1 - what kind of god would keep us trapped here with no way to escape?, with billions of lightyears of dead empty hostile space between us and the next Goldilocks planet. space full of deadly cosmic background radiation and micrometeorites, muscle atrophy, making space travel nearly impossible.  

you think earth and nature is such an amazing place?, you are on Drugs dude. go into nature without your creature comforts and see how long you last. everywhere you go there is Bears, Lions, Tigers, Wolves, Black Widow spiders, Venomous snakes, and even half the plants are poisonous. 90% of the natural world is inedible, useless to us humans at best, and deadly at worst. the universe is horribly designed, like a hobbled together mess. Look at the drawings and paintings on Deviantart of science fiction worlds and imagined galaxies, what WE create in 2 hours on a rainy day is absolutely breathtaking and more beautiful and creative than any NASA image.

then look at the old testament, a petty, jealous, vindictive tyrant that demands obedience and can fly into a temper tantrum at a moments notice. Its exactly like a child with an ant farm.

Approach #2 - evolution is ridiculous. the law of entropy shows that things don't gain complexity, they lose it over time. everything rots and decays and becomes chaotic and turns to sh**. how do you explain genetic disorders and birth defects that kill the person before they can reproduce and pass on the defect?. look at the Cambrian Explosion, incredibly complex organisms just appearing out of nowhere, then slowly going extinct over time. 

its more logical that humans were genetically engineered by a technologically superior race of extraterrestrials. Zachiriah Sitchen, the Sumerian texts, the Annunaki creating man as a slave race. it makes sense. they spliced their own alien DNA with an ape to create a human hybrid, oops theres an extra chromosome just fuse it together, a few genetic errors are no problem because they are just slaves, they don't need to live that long, child birth kills the mother who cares they are just slaves, they cant fight off viruses and infections who cares they are just slaves.

Telepathy, Telekinesis, Clairvoyance, Synesthesia, Eidetic memory, Mental Calculators, these are the natural state of humans that aren't gimped genetically to keep us from becoming too powerful.


----------



## Yil (Dec 25, 2015)

superspudz2000 said:


> .
> the earth is a Prison Colony. god (lowercase g) is the Warden, the secret societies are the guards.
> 
> from the research i have done its clear more than ever.
> ...


Scientologists, really?
It does not really matter what humans are or the Annunaki, it is when the reality forms its current forms. And where do Annunaki and apes came from then?
Nature is still amazing, it is just that not everyone interpreted it the right way and yes, not peaceful. And when an animal of smaller size it will not necessarily attack you, and bigger ones is not necessarily aggressive. And I do find predating of wild life to be interesting and how humans sort of break the cycle which is bad. There are many human minds yet to comprehend and to be considered beautiful. And course there are to be good and terrible results. 
It is lucky that humans are a species with incredible intelligence that appear in this age and planet, but humans are still insignificant.
When a thing reach a complex form it may continue to be that way, not all goes into rotten.
And do not tell me life force was there in the origin, nothing, not even logic was there, just existence, or a better term "presence".


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 25, 2015)

why jump straight to scientology?, im only familiar with the South Park episode, and if that was accurate then it has nothing to do with anything i said. thats the problem with the world, people feel this compulsive need to fit everything into little boxes of limited perception.

what if your son eventually creates a time machine and while stuck in the past accidentally has sex with your grandmother, creating you. so your son is actually your grandfather. wrap your head around that. Maybe there is no "beginning" or "end" to existence, why cant something just be unknown, beyond our ability to understand it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 25, 2015)

"everywhere you go there is Bears, Lions, Tigers, Wolves, Black Widow spiders, Venomous snakes, and even half the plants are poisonous. 90% of the natural world is inedible, useless to us humans at best, and deadly at worst."
I suppose I could meet an especially aggressive badger and I guess people do get killed by cows (even if they are man made). On poisons a common phrase is "there are no poisons, only poisonous doses". On being useless I find the definition of ore to be useful, that being ore is rocks that you can extract useful quantities of materials from, or if you prefer then something is what you make of it. It might be that there is a better option (see also the rise of the new world/Americas foods) for a given task -- pine is cheaper and easier to make furniture from than oak, can still make oak furniture though.

"evolution is ridiculous. the law of entropy shows that things don't gain complexity, they lose it over time. everything rots and decays and becomes chaotic and turns to sh**. how do you explain genetic disorders and birth defects that kill the person before they can reproduce and pass on the defect?. look at the Cambrian Explosion, incredibly complex organisms just appearing out of nowhere, then slowly going extinct over time.
... might as well start at the beginning.
Yes entropy, universal expansion and nuclear decay means trend towards nothing as time goes on. However in this case the earth is but a small part of a larger solar system with a massive nuclear furnace providing energy for things to do stuff with. If you want to consider systems of entropy with the earth as a part of it then you kind of have to scale up to the solar system.
"Genetic disorders and birth defects that kill the person before they can reproduce and pass", combinatorial genetics and recessive genes, simple copying errors, environmental causes (too little oxygen, various chemicals, poor implantation)... even the simplified list goes on for a while.
"Cambrian Explosion, incredibly complex organisms just appearing out of nowhere, then slowly going extinct over time"
It is a great thing to contemplate and run through but I am not sure it what you are heading towards, especially if you are still on the entropy thing. On going extinct then that tends to be a trend -- life forms that are more adapted to their environment take over, and multi celled life arising is a rather good advantage in this life competition business. Also there are many types of life that appeared then which have strong evidence to link them to current forms of life.


----------



## Arras (Dec 25, 2015)

Oh well, since I saw this, I might as well post in it.
My personal stance is roughly as follows:
There may or may not be a god. It is literally impossible to say for certain whether one (or multiple) exist or not. Even if they do still exercise some kind of power over the current world, it is nothing that can't be explained using other means. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether god exists and I don't care.

The only possible consequence of ignoring god is ending up in whatever your religion's version of hell is after death. The problem here is that, again, there's no way to say for sure whether hell (and heaven) even exist or not. There might be a hell that you go to after death if you ignore god. There might be absolutely nothing. There may also be an amazing psychedelic adventure after death, but only if you trim exactly 3000 centimetres worth of hedges in your life. Literally everything is possible, so I'm not going to devote a somewhat significant chunk of my life to making sure I'm prepared for one possibility out of an infinite amount.


----------



## LittleFlame (Dec 25, 2015)

Arras said:


> Oh well, since I saw this, I might as well post in it.
> My personal stance is roughly as follows:
> There may or may not be a god. It is literally impossible to say for certain whether one (or multiple) exist or not. Even if they do still exercise some kind of power over the current world, it is nothing that can't be explained using other means. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether god exists and I don't care.
> 
> The only possible consequence of ignoring god is ending up in whatever your religion's version of hell is after death. The problem here is that, again, there's no way to say for sure whether hell (and heaven) even exist or not. There might be a hell that you go to after death if you ignore god. There might be absolutely nothing. There may also be an amazing psychedelic adventure after death, but only if you trim exactly 3000 centimetres worth of hedges in your life. Literally everything is possible, so I'm not going to devote a somewhat significant chunk of my life to making sure I'm prepared for one possibility out of an infinite amount.


well said


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 26, 2015)

Arras said:


> Oh well, since I saw this, I might as well post in it.
> My personal stance is roughly as follows:
> There may or may not be a god. It is literally impossible to say for certain whether one (or multiple) exist or not. Even if they do still exercise some kind of power over the current world, it is nothing that can't be explained using other means. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether god exists and I don't care.
> 
> The only possible consequence of ignoring god is ending up in whatever your religion's version of hell is after death. The problem here is that, again, there's no way to say for sure whether hell (and heaven) even exist or not. There might be a hell that you go to after death if you ignore god. There might be absolutely nothing. There may also be an amazing psychedelic adventure after death, but only if you trim exactly 3000 centimetres worth of hedges in your life. Literally everything is possible, so I'm not going to devote a somewhat significant chunk of my life to making sure I'm prepared for one possibility out of an infinite amount.




makes absolutely no sense, and lacks any logic or rationale. 

suppose you are immersed in an open world game, if you don't know or understand the point of the game, you will never be able to advance to the next level, or gain experience, or get to the final boss, you will just wander around aimlessly not achieving the actual goals of the game and finally beating it. 

spirituality is about "beating" this reality and achieving a higher state of consciousness. and religions are just cheat codes or Walkthroughs. they offer quick and easy solutions for the unenlightened. its your responsibility to make that determination by picking the walkthrough that works for you. there is no "right" or "wrong", just data.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 26, 2015)

"makes absolutely no sense, and lacks any logic or rationale."

Really? That looks like either a reverse Pascal's wager, or it extended to an infinite set.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Ultimately I would agree that Pascal's wager is a silly thing and makes no sense but it does not lack an underpinning logic or rationale, and neither does the reverse or infinite set variation.

"spirituality is about "beating" this reality and achieving a higher state of consciousness."
There are many with this as a stated goal and others with it as an effective goal. There are just as many that would adopt a "life is short and then you die, so here are some ways to act so as not to be a cunt to all the others that also happen to be in the same boat but still have life be acceptable to you (or at least stand a decent chance to achieve the whole Maslow's hierarchy thing which you biology will tell you is just as good).".
Also a walkthrough in an open world game?


----------



## Arras (Dec 26, 2015)

superspudz2000 said:


> makes absolutely no sense, and lacks any logic or rationale.
> 
> suppose you are immersed in an open world game, if you don't know or understand the point of the game, you will never be able to advance to the next level, or gain experience, or get to the final boss, you will just wander around aimlessly not achieving the actual goals of the game and finally beating it.
> 
> spirituality is about "beating" this reality and achieving a higher state of consciousness. and religions are just cheat codes or Walkthroughs. they offer quick and easy solutions for the unenlightened. its your responsibility to make that determination by picking the walkthrough that works for you. there is no "right" or "wrong", just data.


The thing is, even if this was an open world game, you don't know if any of those things exist. Is there a next level? Is there a final boss? Is there even experience? Who knows. Unlike in most open world games, there are plenty of things to do and discover in life that do not include spirituality or theology. I prefer sticking to things I know are real. 
That said, there is also an issue with treating religions as "pick one that works for you". That is, of course, that most are contradictory. If you choose to believe in the Christian God, you'll end up in Hell according to the Islam. If you choose to believe in Allah, you end up in Hell according to the Christian bible. How can anyone know what the correct choice is? Is it just a blind guess, and pray (heh) you happen to pick the religion that's real? According to the respective holy books, there very much is a right and wrong, and if you pick wrong, you're pretty much instantly sentenced to Hell.
I should probably also mention my beliefs on religion itself at this point. I believe every single religion is most likely wrong. The only real source of information we have for most is, to my knowledge, some version of a "holy book" (Bible, Quran, whatever else) that has been translated into many different languages and is probably significantly different from what the very first version said. But how do we even know this book is really holy, and not just the fantasies of someone who lived many centuries ago? That said, I suppose the shoveling of millions of dollars into the construction and upkeep of churches and other such things does allow people to feel like they're part of a big group, so it has some merit.


----------



## Yil (Dec 26, 2015)

Should I ever try to reach the creator? One thing that even eternity will not be enough not mention I am just human. I am still unsure where does physics/ logic relies on nature means because I am pretty sure some thing played a part  in the creation of what is referable as the original math. The first opposition, which might be light and dark (one and negative one), the first to split into two (1 = 2 * 1/2), the first to grow in size (1->2), the first to reach the other side (1-> -1), two attribute that are 'imaginary' to each other like 1 and i, and how vastly different physics in other world could be.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Dec 26, 2015)

Tbh i do believe in god. However i believe god doesn't help you he's just there using you as a sentient test subject and rewards you for doing well in said test. Being a muslim and living like how i do is pretty hard. I'm not what you'd call a traditional muslim i.e i believe in evolution. To end, The existence of god just helps fill a lot of gaps in my mind such as the creation of our very universe, which helps me live my life with a much better understanding of life and gives me meaning to my existence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Arras said:


> Oh well, since I saw this, I might as well post in it.
> My personal stance is roughly as follows:
> There may or may not be a god. It is literally impossible to say for certain whether one (or multiple) exist or not. Even if they do still exercise some kind of power over the current world, it is nothing that can't be explained using other means. Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether god exists and I don't care.
> 
> The only possible consequence of ignoring god is ending up in whatever your religion's version of hell is after death. The problem here is that, again, there's no way to say for sure whether hell (and heaven) even exist or not. There might be a hell that you go to after death if you ignore god. There might be absolutely nothing. There may also be an amazing psychedelic adventure after death, but only if you trim exactly 3000 centimetres worth of hedges in your life. Literally everything is possible, so I'm not going to devote a somewhat significant chunk of my life to making sure I'm prepared for one possibility out of an infinite amount.


Nice philosophical explanation.[/QUOTE]


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 27, 2015)

Arras said:


> The thing is, even if this was an open world game, you don't know if any of those things exist. Is there a next level? Is there a final boss? Is there even experience? Who knows. Unlike in most open world games, there are plenty of things to do and discover in life that do not include spirituality or theology. I prefer sticking to things I know are real.
> That said, there is also an issue with treating religions as "pick one that works for you". That is, of course, that most are contradictory. If you choose to believe in the Christian God, you'll end up in Hell according to the Islam. If you choose to believe in Allah, you end up in Hell according to the Christian bible. How can anyone know what the correct choice is? Is it just a blind guess, and pray (heh) you happen to pick the religion that's real? According to the respective holy books, there very much is a right and wrong, and if you pick wrong, you're pretty much instantly sentenced to Hell.
> I should probably also mention my beliefs on religion itself at this point. I believe every single religion is most likely wrong. The only real source of information we have for most is, to my knowledge, some version of a "holy book" (Bible, Quran, whatever else) that has been translated into many different languages and is probably significantly different from what the very first version said. But how do we even know this book is really holy, and not just the fantasies of someone who lived many centuries ago? That said, I suppose the shoveling of millions of dollars into the construction and upkeep of churches and other such things does allow people to feel like they're part of a big group, so it has some merit.



#1. the thing about this matrix is there is a time limit. around 60 years to accumulate enough knowledge about how this Prison works to make the great escape. and extending the time is both pointless and unpleasant (dieting, exercising, giving up vices). after the timer runs out, its game over. your memories are wiped and you are recycled back into the matrix, making everything you did previously utterly pointless. 

#2. you have a false idea about religions. hell is mentioned zero times in the quran and torah, hell is mentioned only once in the Christian bible, and the direct Hebrew translation is Sheol = "the grave". the idea of eternal punishment came from fiction writers like Dantes Inferno in the 14th century. and was originally based on Greek Mythology of Hades ruling over the underworld. the Norsemen had similar myths about Asgard and Mithgard. 

#3. all 3 abrahamic religions are based on the same ideas. the Jews wrote the christian bible. and the Quran mentions Jesus Christ and Moses more times than Mohammad. the only difference is what name they call god. except that human nature eventually takes over and racism, prejudice, and xenophobia dominates the human psyche.

#4. Christopher Columbus, Nikola Tesla, and Issac Newton, all christians that directly stated that their belief in god is what pushed them to a higher calling. Did you know that the Big Bang Theory was proposed by Georges Lemaitre a Belgian priest astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. Like it or not relegion has been the main driving force of western civilization up to the 19th century. whether we still need it now is a completely separate discussion, it has and will always be a powerful force that unites people together towards common goals. without it we are just savage brutes struggling in the wilderness.


----------



## Yil (Dec 27, 2015)

superspudz2000 said:


> #1. the thing about this matrix is there is a time limit. around 60 years to accumulate enough knowledge about how this Prison works to make the great escape. and extending the time is both pointless and unpleasant (dieting, exercising, giving up vices). after the timer runs out, its game over. your memories are wiped and you are recycled back into the matrix, making everything you did previously utterly pointless.
> 
> #2. you have a false idea about religions. hell is mentioned zero times in the quran and torah, hell is mentioned only once in the Christian bible, and the direct Hebrew translation is Sheol = "the grave". the idea of eternal punishment came from fiction writers like Dantes Inferno in the 14th century. and was originally based on Greek Mythology of Hades ruling over the underworld. the Norsemen had similar myths about Asgard and Mithgard.
> 
> ...


#1. Why does every one think it is a prison. It is a world where humans are and the body originated from. Maybe even where souls are formed.
#2. I think hell is mentioned in the old religions as where demons resides, but not where human soul goes after dies. Whenever you are dealing with a demon, always be prepared with protections and traps. And never deal with something higher if one cannot take him/her personally. This is where theists satanists have trouble understanding and not to mention their entire believe is Satan and god switched roles, where their 'astrology' is exactly the same as Christian.
#3. I think god was not interpreted as the creator of all by Jews, but the grand guardian.
#4. Religion also hold back some potentials humans could reach. What it does bring is temporary unity but it also caused many wars.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Dec 27, 2015)

I have a theory! Maybe god does exist and is just playing with us and giving us choices so he can watch us fight each other.Then when we die, he sends all to heaven just to have shits and giggles with those who tried extra hard.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



superspudz2000 said:


> #1. the thing about this matrix is there is a time limit. around 60 years to accumulate enough knowledge about how this Prison works to make the great escape. and extending the time is both pointless and unpleasant (dieting, exercising, giving up vices). after the timer runs out, its game over. your memories are wiped and you are recycled back into the matrix, making everything you did previously utterly pointless.
> 
> #2. you have a false idea about religions. hell is mentioned zero times in the quran and torah, hell is mentioned only once in the Christian bible, and the direct Hebrew translation is Sheol = "the grave". the idea of eternal punishment came from fiction writers like Dantes Inferno in the 14th century. and was originally based on Greek Mythology of Hades ruling over the underworld. the Norsemen had similar myths about Asgard and Mithgard.
> 
> ...


Wait im pretty sure its mentioned in the quran ive literally read that book 100 times just to be considered a practicing muslim...


----------



## Yil (Dec 27, 2015)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I have a theory! Maybe god does exist and is just playing with us and giving us choices so he can watch us fight each other.Then when we die, he sends all to heaven just to have shits and giggles with those who tried extra hard.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


that is very twisted and m_anipulative. Making it to heaven is so much easier than making it to the presence, because if it exists you can literally fly there(it is within the universe, just inaccessible like how we cannot touch a ghost).
And sort of unnecessary for people who wish to die and hoping their existence could perish. Maybe literally destroy their soul would do?_


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Dec 28, 2015)

Yil said:


> that is very twisted and m_anipulative. Making it to heaven is so much easier than making it to the presence, because if it exists you can literally fly there(it is within the universe, just inaccessible like how we cannot touch a ghost).
> And sort of unnecessary for people who wish to die and hoping their existence could perish. Maybe literally destroy their soul would do?_


Well it could be a totally different universe and common he's freaking god he can do what ever he wants


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 29, 2015)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I have a theory! Maybe god does exist and is just playing with us and giving us choices so he can watch us fight each other.Then when we die, he sends all to heaven just to have shits and giggles with those who tried extra hard.



exactly, god is the warden of this 3rd density prison. you can look at the early gnostic christian texts and the Nag Hammadi to see what the first christians really believed before the Roman Catholic Crusaders (Roman being the operative word) wiped them off the face of the earth. a higher being Sofia created an abomination and was so horrified trapped it in the third density prison, the abomination was an evil lesser god full of anger and vengeance that demands worship.

how much does an Ant or a Worm understand about humans?, if Gods existed they would be on such a higher plain of existence they would be totally incomprehensible to us. all we can observe is the results of the petty vindictive lesser god (lowercase g) called jehovah/yahweh that just happens to be trapped here with us in the prison. What if all the crop circles are just like footprints in the snow, beings existing in a higher density sending us little messages to show how evolved and unified they are compared to us.


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 29, 2015)

you do realize that crop circles are man-made, right?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 29, 2015)

Wow. I hope this thread is going to closed soon. It is getting out of control. Jeez.


----------



## Muffins (Dec 29, 2015)

azoreseuropa said:


> Wow. I hope this thread is going to closed soon. It is getting out of control. Jeez.



That happened 40 pages or so ago.


----------



## Flame (Dec 29, 2015)

35.9% who voted no will burn in hell...


how dare you lie and steal?



lying for saying god is real.
stealing for being on GBAtemp on finding out out how to pirate.


----------



## Lacius (Dec 29, 2015)

grossaffe said:


> you do realize that crop circles are man-made, right?


That's utter nonsense.


Spoiler


----------



## grossaffe (Dec 29, 2015)

Lacius said:


> That's utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Hmm, you present compelling evidence.  As a man of science, I am willing to re-think my position when it is proven incorrect.


----------



## Attacker3 (Dec 30, 2015)

Video Games are the Devil's work confirmed.


----------



## sl0ps (Dec 30, 2015)

I believe in the security that the idea of God brings.


----------



## damos1212 (Dec 30, 2015)

After reading all of http://gbatemp.net/threads/clarification-thread-what-is-going-on.407074 I don't anymore.


----------



## intensje (Dec 30, 2015)

No,

i believe humans are 'god' and everything we want, we will eventually create


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Dec 31, 2015)

superspudz2000 said:


> exactly, god is the warden of this 3rd density prison. you can look at the early gnostic christian texts and the Nag Hammadi to see what the first christians really believed before the Roman Catholic Crusaders (Roman being the operative word) wiped them off the face of the earth. a higher being Sofia created an abomination and was so horrified trapped it in the third density prison, the abomination was an evil lesser god full of anger and vengeance that demands worship.
> 
> how much does an Ant or a Worm understand about humans?, if Gods existed they would be on such a higher plain of existence they would be totally incomprehensible to us. all we can observe is the results of the petty vindictive lesser god (lowercase g) called jehovah/yahweh that just happens to be trapped here with us in the prison. What if all the crop circles are just like footprints in the snow, beings existing in a higher density sending us little messages to show how evolved and unified they are compared to us.


You hurt my head...


----------



## superspudz2000 (Dec 31, 2015)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You hurt my head...



excellent. thats the first step to higher understanding.


----------



## FanmadeEndings (Jun 21, 2016)

Sorry for bringing this back to life, I just like to give my thoughts on this topic.

I do not believe in god, at least not as he / she / it (for the sake of simplicity I'll refer to him / her / it as "he" now) is portrayed in any holy script. The fact that we can't disprove ourselves to be in the matrix means we can't disprove of a higher creator either - But I hardly doubt he  ever revealed himself to anyone of us. Maybe he doesn't even care and our world was just an experiment. That doesn't mean I think there has to be a higher creator, I just say there could be.
Also, if he exists, he's not almighty. Almightyness by definition *can not* exist.

For reincarnation, I take this point of view: *If* causility is a never ending thing, it appears logically to me that we will, at one far away point in the future, recreate the circumstances to live in this reality again.


----------



## Mr.ButtButt (Jun 21, 2016)




----------



## Lord M (Jun 21, 2016)

Religions were invented to subjugate and divide the peoples, then I'd say no, he no exist.
Only and fool and a weak mind needs to hang on to a more important figure than he, as children in need when creating the imaginary friend. Since religions was created by Illuminati to rule the whole world, i always think that who believe in a god/ religion is only a weak people who it became easily fooled it has become a pawn conformist who tries to mold his fellow


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

No, I don't. Omnipotence is just impossible. You can't have something that created itself, or that has existed for an infinite amount of time. That's simply not possible. Every time "god has spoken to someone," it was probably people just not recognizing their thoughts as their own, essentially what schizophrenia is.


----------



## Raylight (Jun 21, 2016)

I believe there is a god but I think everyone has their own interpretation of him. I don't think any current religion is right about everything. I'm in a bit of a crisis with my own religion. Christianity says reincarnation and evolution isn't real yet there is clear evidence of it. All in all I think we are here to live positively and hope for the best. I have Faith there is a Jesus but no one really knows the full story.


----------



## smileyhead (Jun 21, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 21, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> you do realize that crop circles are man-made, right?


Yes... They're made by...

SPACE MEN!

Duh-duh duuuuuuuhhhhh...! ;O;


----------



## bi388 (Jun 21, 2016)

FanmadeEndings said:


> Sorry for bringing this back to life


This is my favorite part of this thread


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 21, 2016)

What's the point ? Jack is already banned and this thread need to be closed.


----------



## mgrev (Jun 21, 2016)

Life is too short to care about gods


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

No because (IF YOU'RE A SENSITIVE PERSON, STOP READING THIS. Thanks) I only believe in things that exist =)
I'm honestly surprised (and glad) a lot of people voted no. 

Why chain yourself to a god anyways? Just believe in yourself. You'll be much happier that way.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 21, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> No because (IF YOU'RE A SENSITIVE PERSON, STOP READING THIS. Thanks) I only believe in things that exist =)
> I'm honestly surprised (and glad) a lot of people voted no.
> 
> Why chain yourself to a god anyways? Just believe in yourself. You'll be much happier that way.



Huh?!?! Really, much happier that way ?  Sadly, indeed but interesting concept.


----------



## bi388 (Jun 21, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Huh?!?! Really, much happier that way ?  Sadly, indeed but interesting concept.


It's not hard to understand when you take into account how many religions try to control your life and make enjoyment evil


----------



## richardparker (Jun 21, 2016)

i dont.
i dont bcoz i cant find a reason to be subjugated my someone in an indirect way.


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Huh?!?! Really, much happier that way ?  Sadly, indeed but interesting concept.





bi388 said:


> It's not hard to understand when you take into account how many religions try to control your life and make enjoyment evil


On point! Religion puts restrictions on your life. For example, my parents are Catholic (and this is what I was several years back, before I found out the light of the truth). They can't eat meat on certain Fridays of the year. 

Yeah no, I control my life. I won't let anyone else control me. If I want to eat meat on a Friday, I'm going to eat meat.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 21, 2016)

No, not really. It's the people!!!

Don't worry, my parents are Catholic too. I don't believed in Catholic either.

Ash Wednesday or Friday is a Christian holiday (PAGAN)(holy day) that is not a biblical. You can relax easy. 

My theory is that people intentionally "misinterpret"* religion in order to use it as a justification for the bad things they were going to do anyway.

Any look at the texts upon which religion is based show that they promote the ideals of love and selflessness. Sadly it is undeniable that religions get misused, but their overwhelming effect has been as a moderating influence.

People do bad things in the name of religion, and some do good things in the name of religion, can we say that some people just misinterpret religion. Religion is not bad; people who misinterpret it or use it against others are bad. It's not the concepts, it's the people that abuse them.

Easy:  How some smart people can be pretty dumb. SIGHING!


----------



## evandixon (Jun 21, 2016)

Rules like eating meat are archaic.  However, the remaining rules really aren't anything restrictive.

The 10 commandments (the short version)
1. Love God
2. No idols
3. Don't misuse God's name (ex. Don't say God supports something when He doesn't)
4. Take a day off
5. Respect your parents
6. No murder
7. Don't sleep with someone else's spouse
8. No theft
9. Don't lie in court
10. Don't be jealous.

The commandments (the even shorter version)
1. Love God
2. Love others

None of those are really restrictive IMO.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Rules like eating meat are archaic.  However, the remaining rules really aren't anything restrictive.
> 
> The 10 commandments (the short version)
> 1. Love God
> ...


That's totally restrictive! What if I want to kill someone?! *NO FAIR!!!*


----------



## DaMaverickBlast (Jun 21, 2016)

I belive that there's something after death but I also think that the Christian Religion is kinda silly.


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> 5. Respect your parents
> 6. No murder
> 7. Don't sleep with someone else's spouse
> 8. No theft
> 9. Don't lie in court


These are common sense (6, 8, and 9 are the law). If you need to believe in a God to have common sense, then rip.


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 21, 2016)

Could someone tell me why this thread was bumped?


----------



## DinohScene (Jun 21, 2016)

Never knew this thing be active.

I still don't believe in "gods"
I do believe in karma.
The do good, receive future happiness.


----------



## evandixon (Jun 21, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> These are common sense (6, 8, and 9 are the law). If you need to believe in a God to have common sense, then rip.


Unfortunately, people (believers and others) don't have enough common sense follow the simplified "Love God" and "Love others" commands, so this needs to be spelt out.  The law was based on these because people lack common sense.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jun 21, 2016)

I feel like I only believe in god when bad stuff happens to me. I have been raised a christian though. I am still undecided


----------



## FanmadeEndings (Jun 21, 2016)

VinsCool said:


> Could someone tell me why this thread was bumped?



I guess... I'm to blame for that. But... actually, I think the replies are pretty interesting. :x


----------



## VinsCool (Jun 21, 2016)

DinohScene said:


> Never knew this thing be active.
> 
> I still don't believe in "gods"
> I do believe in karma.
> The do good, receive future happiness.


Same


----------



## XDel (Jun 21, 2016)

I suggest everyone who has answered to read this book regardless of how they answered. If anything, you'll have fun with it!

https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Science-Death-Logic-Reincarnation/dp/1622873246


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 21, 2016)

Nope. I was raised in an Evangelic household and apostated when I got a little older. I never saw a real reason to believe. Not one. I was just repeatedly told I should love and fear God, and if I don't, I go straight to hell.

I don't believe in anything supernatural.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 21, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Nope. I was raised in an Evangelic household and apostated when I got a little older. I never saw a real reason to believe. Not one. I was just repeatedly told I should love and fear God, and if I don't, I go straight to hell.
> 
> I don't believe in anything supernatural.



Hell ? Not really. Hello doesn't exist. Again, Hell misinterpreted in scripture. Hell is the dead in any of various religious traditions.. I said again, any of various religious traditions, such as the Hebrew Sheol or the Greek Hades.

The bible barely mentions it, seriously! 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that the punishment for those deemed wicked is not fiery torture, but destruction, “shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

Edit: Knowing how this world works, I know a lot of sensitive people are out there. I'd rather not start a flame war with people that think God exists. If you had the chance of reading this post before the edit, I'm not retracting what I stated.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 21, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Hell ? Not really. Hello doesn't exist. Again, Hell misinterpreted in scripture. Hell is the dead in any of various religious traditions.. I said again, any of various religious traditions, such as the Hebrew Sheol or the Greek Hades.
> 
> The bible barely mentions it, seriously! 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says that the punishment for those deemed wicked is not fiery torture, but destruction, “shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”



Mathew 25:46 also talks about hell or at least "eternal punishment". Anyway, I agree with you that Hell doesn't exist.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 21, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Mathew 25:46 also talks about hell or at least "eternal punishment". Anyway, I agree with you that Hell doesn't exist.



Yes, that's correct.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> Edit: Knowing how this world works, I know a lot of sensitive people are out there. I'd rather not start a flame war with people that think God exists. If you had the chance of reading this post before the edit, I'm not retracting what I stated.


Now I want to know what you said. ;o;


----------



## Katsumi San (Jun 21, 2016)

Hmm to believe? I think there is something more greater out there than human. All that space and nothing? If we are truly alone then perhaps is because all human is trash. No escaping lol. Not best way too see this topic, but reality...


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Now I want to know what you said. ;o;


I'll say it just for you :3 (I don't care what others say, it'll just prove they're in denial).

The bible is a fictional story book. It's as real as my manga collection.
In Yato we trust!


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> I'll say it just for you :3 (I don't care what others say, it'll just prove they're in denial).
> 
> The bible is a fictional story book. It's as real as my manga collection.
> In Yato we trust!


How dare you! You'll go to hell for not believing in the Almighty Arceus!


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

The biblical deity (sexy Zeus-like humanoid), as I know is supposed to be an alien related to the story of Enki and Enlil (go read, too long to tell).
The God I believe in is the cosmic being that is consciousness and pure energy, basically the whole cosmos is their body (integrates both male and female, light and dark, etc, etc.) and is the one that is said to be pure love, life, blah, blah. From this being were born the first entities of X races that created more life and stuff.
I consider myself not religious but spiritual, even though I am a very scientific, logical and rational person, and all that, but even like that I do have some understanding of the "God phenomenon", I even have my theories from a mathematical and systemic point of view (then talk about philosphical mathematics, logic, systems theory, information theory, quantum physics, biology, even computer science! ... and many other powerful matters and topics that give a strong basis).
I know there is such a huge history untold, lost, fragmented and distorted... but I know someday we will know the whole thing.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 21, 2016)

Supster131 said:


> I'll say it just for you :3 (I don't care what others say, it'll just prove they're in denial).
> 
> The bible is a fictional story book. It's as real as my manga collection.
> In Yato we trust!


Well, this isn't entirely true. Actually, many archaeological discoveries have proven merit to the stories told. I wouldn't call it fiction, just a historical re-telling with A LOT of exaggeration.


----------



## Phearoz (Jun 21, 2016)

Organized religion is a *plague; *always has and always will be. Believing in God on the other hand is totally innocuous. I definitely think there's something out there that we couldn't begin to grasp but that's where my opinion ends, as should any other sane individual. Trying to define something as nebulous as "_God_" is a fool's errand and the basis for hate around the world.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 21, 2016)

Phearoz said:


> Organized religion is a *plague; *always has and always will be. Believing in God on the other hand is totally innocuous. I definitely think there's something out there that we couldn't begin to grasp but that's where my opinion ends, as should any other sane individual. Trying to define something as nebulous as "_God_" is a fool's errand and the basis for hate around the world.



“Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.” -Einstein


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> Well, this isn't entirely true. Actually, many archaeological discoveries have proven merit to the stories told. I wouldn't call it fiction, just a historical re-telling with A LOT of exaggeration.



Well, to complement the answer I'll also add:
Misrepresentation
Mistranslations
Fragmentation and destruction of material
Interpretation of allegories
Subjectivity
Forced distortion to make it a thing so churches/doctrines/etc. have control over beliefs.

It is a mess! But it doesn't mean it cannot have one or two things true.


----------



## Phearoz (Jun 21, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As for afterlife, yes, I most certainly believe in both Heaven and Hell. However, I believe that there's a bit more to it than whether you believe in Christ or not, I personally believe it has more to do with what opportunities you were presented with in life and how you acted on them.



On what basis do you believe in an afterlife? Why do you think that? And hell? Do you not see how things are not black & white in real life, as in right & wrong are not clear and everything is very gray morally, other than killing and stealing, and even stealing could fall into a grey category if the reason outweighs the cost.

There is no logical reason to believe in "Heaven  and Hell." 
Personally I still believe in a "God," but one that's undefinable ect, but not so regarding "heaven & hell."


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

Phearoz said:


> On what basis do you believe in an afterlife? Why do you think that? And hell? Do you not see how things are not black & white in real life, as in right & wrong are not clear and everything is very gray morally, other than killing and stealing, and even stealing could fall into a grey category if the reason outweighs the cost.
> 
> There is no logical reason to believe in "Heaven  and Hell."



About the afterlife, well, several things give me an idea of how it works and tell that it works. Even the "reincarnation phenomenon". Not only the thousands of stories experiences told around the world, but also close and personal ones.

Unless that "running thread" called "consciousness" makes you own experience of heaven/hell, not a thing of a "God's judgement", it is a thing of self punishment/judgement.

It is a more mystic/esoteric matter the heaven/hell thing (actually a little more subjective too because talk about those who talk about of other worlds/universes/environments/"dimensions"/etc., in which it is told the "evil ones"/demon viruses/betrayers of spirit/etc were condemned to be imprisoned and that, and heaven could be a gorgeous alien empire on X world, or even some setting in the "logical/mental spaces", A.K.A spirit worlds, with what they describe on it)


----------



## rasputin (Jun 21, 2016)

The Earth is flat and has a firmament, therefore created.

The idea that we live on a spinning ball of rock rotating at 1000mph around itself whilst shooting around the sun, galaxy, universe at billions of miles per hour is quite frankly insane. Star constellations are always same for thousands of years. We can detect gravitational waves, exactly on the 100th anniversary of einstein the frauds plaugerised insane theory, of over 4.5 billion years ago, but we can't detect the earth moving?

You all need to take that tin foil funnel off your heads.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

rasputin said:


> The Earth is flat and has a firmament, therefore created.
> 
> The idea that we live on a spinning ball of rock rotating at 1000mph around itself whilst shooting around the sun, galaxy, universe at billions of miles per hour is quite frankly insane. Star constellations are always same for thousands of years. We can detect gravitational waves, exactly on the 100th anniversary of einstein the frauds plaugerised insane theory, of over 4.5 billion years ago, but we can't detect the earth moving?
> 
> You all need to take that tin foil funnel off your heads.


Star constellations don't change because they're so far away that it would take millions of years before we would start to notice a difference in them. Do you seriously believe that the Earth is flat???? Keep going East, and I can guarantee you that you will end up in the same place. Do you also believe in chemtrails and that the moon landing was fake?


----------



## rasputin (Jun 21, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Star constellations don't change because they're so far away that it would take millions of years before we would start to notice a difference in them. Do you seriously believe that the Earth is flat???? Keep going East, and I can guarantee you that you will end up in the same place. Do you also believe in chemtrails and that the moon landing was fake?



LoL you believe in the moon landing, you would believe anything they told you, anything.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

rasputin said:


> LoL you believe in the moon landing, you would believe anything they told you, anything.


... wat


----------



## YayIguess (Jun 21, 2016)

rasputin said:


> The Earth is flat and has a firmament, therefore created.
> 
> The idea that we live on a spinning ball of rock rotating at 1000mph around itself whilst shooting around the sun, galaxy, universe at billions of miles per hour is quite frankly insane. Star constellations are always same for thousands of years. We can detect gravitational waves, exactly on the 100th anniversary of einstein the frauds plaugerised insane theory, of over 4.5 billion years ago, but we can't detect the earth moving?
> 
> You all need to take that tin foil funnel off your heads.





rasputin said:


> LoL you believe in the moon landing, you would believe anything they told you, anything.


I hope and pray that you're trolling, otherwise just....


----------



## bi388 (Jun 21, 2016)

rasputin said:


> The Earth is flat and has a firmament, therefore created.
> 
> The idea that we live on a spinning ball of rock rotating at 1000mph around itself whilst shooting around the sun, galaxy, universe at billions of miles per hour is quite frankly insane. Star constellations are always same for thousands of years. We can detect gravitational waves, exactly on the 100th anniversary of einstein the frauds plaugerised insane theory, of over 4.5 billion years ago, but we can't detect the earth moving?
> 
> You all need to take that tin foil funnel off your heads.


What? Like I've read this 5 times and still don't understand a single point you made


----------



## rasputin (Jun 21, 2016)

You ain't moving geniuses.


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

bi388 said:


> What? Like I've read this 5 times and still don't understand a single point you made



Wasn't that sarcasm of the early man's attempt to explain natural phenomena?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 21, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Rules like eating meat are archaic.  However, the remaining rules really aren't anything restrictive.
> 
> The 10 commandments (the short version)
> 1. Love God
> ...



Relevant


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 21, 2016)

I used to have imaginary friends... Then I stopped going to church...


----------



## Phearoz (Jun 21, 2016)

Memoir said:


> I used to have imaginary friends... Then I stopped going to church...


----------



## bi388 (Jun 21, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> Wasn't that sarcasm of the early man's attempt to explain natural phenomena?


Don't think so, I've seen him say things before on this forum and they've never made much sense


----------



## Phearoz (Jun 21, 2016)

Hey this is really off-topic, but do you have to hit a certain level of membership before the forum lets you set up a *signature*?


----------



## Lia (Jun 21, 2016)

tbh I'm not sure.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Jun 21, 2016)

Phearoz said:


> Hey this is really off-topic, but do you have to hit a certain level of membership before the forum lets you set up a *signature*?


I think it's 100 messages. Although that might be for accessing the shoutbox.


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Don't think so, I've seen him say things before on this forum and they've never made much sense



Ah, I see, if you give it a second really looks like it.
Because, you know, that's one of the counterarguments to try to kill the "God phenomenon", the thing about the attemp to explain natural phenomena from a "seemingly random thing that somehow makes sense".

Still, not the case to prove/disprove.


----------



## LittleFlame (Jun 21, 2016)

someone needs to lock this thread


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 21, 2016)

LittleFlame said:


> someone needs to lock this thread


Why? It is not against the rules and people seem to be having a civil discussion, and even a slightly intellectual one at points.


----------



## Red9419 (Jun 21, 2016)

Yes and no. I do believe that there must of been a greater force the  created us. Right? I mean how could our bodies that have so many complex features and how they work together to keep you alive been made out of nothing? However, I do not believe in sins and stuff like that. If you do something "bad" what would be the consequence? Nothing. I don't go to church and don't try to force religion onto others.


----------



## I pwned U! (Jun 21, 2016)

Here is what I have to say on the matter. It is radical to say the least, and it could use a bit more polish. It is not like any idea that you have ever heard before…

God exists, but not in the way that you think.

Our multiverse is not real. We are not real. Everything that we know of is just part of an extremely advanced computer program. God is simply the administrator of that computer. He constantly watches over the program.

If he feels the need to intervene to help one of the worlds in his program, he creates a character, and he uses advanced virtual reality (like in the movie _Avatar_) to enter the body of his character. This explains how Jesus came to exist. Bad situations were taking place, so God intervened on Earth to help others more accurately understand how he wanted things to work in his multiverse. Who is to say that God has not done the same thing for other life forms in the multiverse? Maybe Jesus has already returned, but not in our particular solar system, and not in human form.

How did Jesus perform his miracles? Simple; it was just like hacking and homebrew! As the person with full control over his computer and the programs running on it, he decided to temporarily overwrite some of the physics and science code to help illustrate points to humans via normally impossible means.

How did God make it possible for digital beings to form and develop? Probably something like in the movie _Chappie_. At some point, the technology in God’s world was finally advanced enough for someone to develop code for digital consciousness. Later on, the first digital beings figured out a way to back up the consciousness of God’s kind to digital files. This enabled God’s kind to live forever and be as efficient as high-end computers. With the infinitely faster technological developments that took place after this, God and the others managed to create a computer program that was the digital equivalent of their multiverse! With the efficiency that only digital beings can have, God and his team developed a physics engine, laws of science, and various program assets (such as the elements on the periodic table) for their digital multiverse in only seven days! After some initial tests, they finally booted the program, and watched on the screen as their digital multiverse started out with the big bang.

Other advantages to a digital multiverse included being able to run diagnostics to analyze every single outcome for each possible variable, and the ability to “fast-forward” and “rewind” to quickly see every event without waiting it out in real-time. This has always been useful for whenever God feels the need to become Jesus in order to set the digital multiverse on the best possible path.

Does heaven exist? Of course! God and his team are always analyzing the digital beings and the type of people that they are. If a digital being has demonstrated exemplary morals, the being will have its consciousness uploaded to God’s cloud storage servers, where it will live on eternally in those servers in a program known as “Heaven.” Otherwise, the being will be moved to the Recycle Bin, and later be deleted once the Recycle Bin is emptied.

God may also live in a digital multiverse and not even know it. The God that created God’s multiverse may also live in a digital multiverse. And this could go on infinitely…

Therefore, there may not even be a God at the “root” of everything, because the “root” may not even exist! It could just be an infinite chain of digital Gods, and humans may be the next Gods in that line!

TLDR:

God is a digital being, who exists, and yet may not _technically_ exist.

Sorry for the huge wall of sentences. Despite how overwhelming it may seem, I think that I have compacted the information as best as I could.

Describing our existence in a GBATemp post in only 42 sentences is no easy feat!


----------



## Lacius (Jun 21, 2016)

Red9419 said:


> I mean how could our bodies that have so many complex features and how they work together to keep you alive been made out of nothing?


The theory of evolution explains this.


----------



## YayIguess (Jun 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The *theory *of evolution explains this.


and it isn't satisfactory to some. Think of your brain, why on earth are we the only creatures with such hugely complex brains, granted, primates are pretty darn smart but still nothing close to our intelligence levels in things like using tools and speaking. And thoughts, we can hardly explain them. I don't really feel like getting into a huge discussion right now but that's just my 2 cents. Evolution just seems to random for everything to work out so well.


----------



## Supster131 (Jun 21, 2016)

YayIguess said:


> and it isn't satisfactory to some. Think of your brain, why on earth are we the only creatures with such hugely complex brains, granted, primates are pretty darn smart but still nothing close to our intelligence levels in things like using tools and speaking. And thoughts, we can hardly explain them. I don't really feel like getting into a huge discussion right now but that's just my 2 cents. Evolution just seems to random for everything to work out so well.


More believable than a non-existent being that created us from dirt.


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

YayIguess said:


> and it isn't satisfactory to some. Think of your brain, why on earth are we the only creatures with such hugely complex brains, granted, primates are pretty darn smart but still nothing close to our intelligence levels in things like using tools and speaking. And thoughts, we can hardly explain them. I don't really feel like getting into a huge discussion right now but that's just my 2 cents. Evolution just seems to random for everything to work out so well.



Evolution, aliens and spirit aren't mutually exclusive.

You could perfectly develop a mutation that gives you a new organic module being a seemingly mindless/not-so-rational animal that would allow you to do X task, however, you don't even care you have the mutation, so how the heck do you know that mutation would allow you to do X and survive with it? Ah, the phenomenon of "instict", a programmatic event of intelligence that involves learning, right? Still, programatic phenomena found in biology are something-something to give a time to think about. Not only about animals of course, talk about plants and fungi, those ones seem to be "non-intelligent", however they have a very smart behavior and development! Without the so called "instinct" and "neurological intelligence".



Supster131 said:


> More believable than a non-existent being that created us from dirt.



Well, that's just one of hundreds of creation stories... stories told as allegories/metaphors/etc, that could have whole other stories behind (then talk about alien theories and such), refering to different deities (in what I know, the biblical one the Zeus-like guy with anger problems, is another alien, so I leave the "God phenomenon" to spirit and mystic understanding, but know there's also some science that can couple with them to understand it).



I pwned U! said:


> Here is what I have to say on the matter. It is radical to say the least, and it could use a bit more polish. It is not like any idea that you have ever heard before…
> 
> God exists, but not in the way that you think.
> 
> ...



OMG, I like that way of thinking. I support ideas coming from analogies to computer science or systems theory. In fact, I support the essence of this, but not fully, I mean, they have said one theory this is all but an analogy to a computer, but I say computers are analogous to reality (in terms of systemic logic, semantics, objects, entities, abstraction, programmatic energy, the great superuser root, and that... metadata would be like the essence they talk about in ontology).


----------



## Red9419 (Jun 21, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The theory of evolution explains this.


Well evolution and my thoughts are both theories, so we don't know which is true or false. This reminds me of something I learned in Physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. There had for be something that transfered all this energy right?


----------



## Issac (Jun 21, 2016)

The word "theory" in "The theory of evolution" doesn't mean that it's just a theory. 

And my own answer to the question: No, I don't believe in any god. I just don't have any reason to believe. I am happy for those who do have faith, and I'm always interested in hearing their opinions and thoughts. 
I see myself as a very passive agnostic (atheist). I can't be sure there is no god, but I don't believe. If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly accept that. 

I believe in cosmic justice though. Karma. Do good and good things will happen to you. Not that someone watches and decides that we've been good enough for something to happen, but I believe that some kind of energy builds up in us. A static charge of positivity, which triggers the energy of other people around us... like charged up magnets...


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 21, 2016)

Issac said:


> The word "theory" in "The theory of evolution" doesn't mean that it's just a theory.
> 
> And my own answer to the question: No, I don't believe in any god. I just don't have any reason to believe. I am happy for those who do have faith, and I'm always interested in hearing their opinions and thoughts.
> I see myself as a very passive agnostic (atheist). I can't be sure there is no god, but I don't believe. If I'm proven wrong, I'll gladly accept that.
> ...



Yep, it is an inductive scientific matter of hypothesis, observation, test, etc.
However, inductive reasoning is limited (because it wants to build the general knowledge from a particular set of proven facts, but when a contradictory proven fact falls into the bowl, everything just explodes, everything is wrong and has to be rethought).

Both inductive and deductive approaches (like mathematics) don't have to be necessarily mutually exclusive, but complementary. That's the way we can get into  bigger and more complex phenomena and cover them from both a reductionist to a holistic perspective (for example, when we start talking about the systemic nature of everything in the whole cosmos, then systems, then talk about systems theory and everything derived from that)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 22, 2016)

Phearoz said:


> On what basis do you believe in an afterlife? Why do you think that? And hell? Do you not see how things are not black & white in real life, *as in right & wrong are not clear and everything is very gray morally, other than killing and stealing, and even stealing could fall into a grey category if the reason outweighs the cost.*
> 
> There is no logical reason to believe in "Heaven  and Hell."
> Personally I still believe in a "God," but one that's undefinable ect, but not so regarding "heaven & hell."


Well, that's my point exactly. I'm saying that if you do the wrong thing but legitimately believe that it's for the right reasons, you're probably not going to be eternally punished for that


----------



## Lacius (Jun 22, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> Yep, it is an inductive scientific matter of hypothesis, observation, test, etc.
> However, inductive reasoning is limited (because it wants to build the general knowledge from a particular set of proven facts, but when a contradictory proven fact falls into the bowl, everything just explodes, everything is wrong and has to be rethought).
> 
> Both inductive and deductive approaches (like mathematics) don't have to be necessarily mutually exclusive, but complementary. That's the way we can get into  bigger and more complex phenomena and cover them from both a reductionist to a holistic perspective (for example, when we start talking about the systemic nature of everything in the whole cosmos, then systems, then talk about systems theory and everything derived from that)


The scientific method is in part both inductive and deductive, and regardless, it's both the best and only way we have to discover the truth about, for example, our origins as a species. The theories of evolution and common descent are supported by mounds of evidence, including but not limited to DNA evidence, fossil evidence, their predictive power, etc. It would be picking and choosing to accept some theories (e.g. germ theory, the theory of gravity, etc.) and not other theories (e.g. the theory of evolution). I'm not aware of any other method of inquiry that has been demonstrated to be better than random chance.



YayIguess said:


> and it isn't satisfactory to some. Think of your brain, why on earth are we the only creatures with such hugely complex brains, granted, primates are pretty darn smart but still nothing close to our intelligence levels in things like using tools and speaking. And thoughts, we can hardly explain them. I don't really feel like getting into a huge discussion right now but that's just my 2 cents. Evolution just seems to random for everything to work out so well.


There's a lot I could say here about the evolution of intelligence in humans. I could talk about how the evolution of intelligence is connected to our evolution as upright tool-using animals. I could talk about how the evolution of intelligence is connected to the evolution of our complex physiological vocal processors. However, it doesn't matter. An absence of an explanation for a specific thing does not cast doubt on the rest of evolution and common descent. If we didn't know how complex brains evolved, that would just mean we didn't have a specific answer to that question yet. Absence of an explanation is never evidence for another.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 22, 2016)

I pwned U! said:


> Here is what I have to say on the matter. It is radical to say the least, and it could use a bit more polish. It is not like any idea that you have ever heard before…
> 
> God exists, but not in the way that you think.
> 
> ...


This doesn't explain anything. It just adds another layer. I don't understand arguments that claim some God created the universe because they don't answer anything. Where did this God come from, then?


----------



## I pwned U! (Jun 22, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> This doesn't explain anything. It just adds another layer. I don't understand arguments that claim some God created the universe because they don't answer anything. Where did this God come from, then?


I am not sure. This is just my guess.


----------



## evandixon (Jun 22, 2016)

I've seen the theory of gravity cited a lot here.  I think it's time for a science lesson.

Science is at its core a way of describing natural phenomenon in terms of other natural phenomenon, the details of which are determined with the scientific method.  The whole process starts out with an observation.  Multiple observations can be generalized as a Scientific Law.  A Scientific Law describes direct observations we can make, like the Law of Gravity.  The Law of Gravity basically states that what comes up must come down.  "But why is this?" is what a scientist asks, so next part of the scientific method is to come up with a guess (in terms of natural phenomenon) that fits all of the observations, known as a hypothesis.  This hypothesis is tested repeatedly, and if it holds, it will become a Scientific Theory.  This Scientific Theory is generally regarded as fact unless future observations prove it wrong, in which case a new hypothesis is formed and the cycle begins again.

Notes about the terms:
-Scientific Law
--A fact based on direct observation
--If it doesn't occur in some circumstances, the requirements of nature have not been met, and will be described in a theory.
-Scientific Theory
--Tested extensively and is generally our best attempt at explaining something
--While treated as fact, can be disproven with future observations

How does this relate to the current discussion?  I've seen people saying that because evolution and gravity are both theories and gravity is fact, then evolution is too.  However, this is not necessarily correct because the law of gravity is a fact, while the theory of universal gravitation is at its core just a guess that happens to coincide with direct observation.  It's also hard to compare the theory of evolution to the theory of universal gravitation because while gravity can be directly observed, research on evolution relies mostly on historic records (like fossils).  Evolution is considered a scientific theory because the current model fits the observations that have been made time and time again.  While there is substantial evidence to believe micro-evolution, opponents to the theory of evolution often believe that it's a bit of a stretch to say that all life came from a common ancestor (i.e. macro-evolution).

As a Christian, I've observed that people on both sides of the evolution debate, theists and athiests alike, both base all their arguments on their conclusion, and work from there.  I'm of the mentality that it doesn't matter.  So what if God started with a single-cell life form, and did His thing to turn it into something more complex?  So what if God made each animal individually.  While some like to say that the theory of evolution challenges the book of Genesis, it's important to keep in mind the original target audience of Genesis: laymen without any scientific knowledge.  If God were to explain the details of His work, it would not only go over their heads, but likely ours too.  So He told us what we need to know: He created the heavens and earth first.  Then plants.  Then various animals, and finally _us_.  (If anyone here is skeptical of my claim that it's not literal, go read Revelation, where John's vision explicitly _tells him_ that at least part of his vision was figurative.  If that's figurative, it's not a stretch to believe the beginning of Genesis is too.)

Given all of that, I don't believe one should choose whether or not they believe in God based on all of that.  Base it off of whether or not you believe in intelligent design.
Think of a 200GB micro-sd card.  There's no chance that would be formed if I were to get the correct materials and let them sit for however long it takes.
Now think of a DNA molecule.  It stores mindbogglingly more information than the micro-sd, and yet people want to believe that _this_ formed by chance?  I don't think so.

One more thing before I end this post.  While I haven't seen anyone mention it, the Big Bang Theory also does not contradict God's creation; after all, it's only an affect.  Within the scope of the theory, the cause is unknown.  Put simply, I believe that the cause is God.



invaderyoyo said:


> Where did this God come from, then?


He always was.

I don't think we should attempt to grasp infinite concepts like God with our finite minds.  It will make everything easier.


----------



## Smiths (Jun 22, 2016)

I BELIEVE IN GATEWAY, THE BEST FLASH CARD FOR THE NINTENDO 3DS AND ONLY SOLUTION NEEDED FOR YOUR HOMEBREW AND BACKUP NEEDS ON THE NINTENDO 3DS SYSTEM


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jun 22, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> This doesn't explain anything. It just adds another layer. I don't understand arguments that claim some God created the universe because they don't answer anything. Where did this God come from, then?



That is THE question that needs to be answered, I feel. Every time it's brought up, it's treated like a rhetoric and just shoved aside, ignored. Which doesn't make sense to me. People can jump up and claim God created all, like nothing was before this omnipotent being. Then proceed to argue that the big bang doesn't make sense, claiming you can't come from nothing. It's a giant loop, never ending..


----------



## evandixon (Jun 22, 2016)

Memoir said:


> That is THE question that needs to be answered, I feel. Every time it's brought up, it's treated like a rhetoric and just shoved aside, ignored. Which doesn't make sense to me. People can jump up and claim God created all, like nothing was before this omnipotent being. Then proceed to argue that the big bang doesn't make sense, claiming you can't come from nothing. It's a giant loop, never ending..


Given our experience, there has to be a cause for the universe, there has to be a source.  The only thing that makes sense is something eternal, always having existed, and because our finite minds can't comprehend infinite concepts like this.  

Athiestic scientists try to say that matter is eternal and the source of the universe, while Theistic scientists believe God created everything.  Because eternal things cannot be observed and are fundamentally different than the finite things we're familiar with, it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain this.  After all, the difference between a guess and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis can be tested.  We cannot test anything infinite or outside the universe, so everything is pure speculation.

Given all of that, the argument is now whether or not to believe in intelligent design (i.e. God designing things).  See my previous post for a reason to believe in intelligent design.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 22, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I've seen the theory of gravity cited a lot here.  I think it's time for a science lesson.
> 
> Science is at its core a way of describing natural phenomenon in terms of other natural phenomenon, the details of which are determined with the scientific method.  The whole process starts out with an observation.  Multiple observations can be generalized as a Scientific Law.  A Scientific Law describes direct observations we can make, like the Law of Gravity.  The Law of Gravity basically states that what comes up must come down.  "But why is this?" is what a scientist asks, so next part of the scientific method is to come up with a guess (in terms of natural phenomenon) that fits all of the observations, known as a hypothesis.  This hypothesis is tested repeatedly, and if it holds, it will become a Scientific Theory.  This Scientific Theory is generally regarded as fact unless future observations prove it wrong, in which case a new hypothesis is formed and the cycle begins again.
> 
> ...


No biologist claims DNA formed by chance. The first "living" thing might've been an RNA molecule or something like that. We don't know. You're making an assumption.

Also, there doesn't HAVE to be anything. The fact is we don't know how the universe started. We don't know that eternity is even a thing. Time is relative. At a black hole, no time passes because of the gravity. It's different depending where in the universe you are. More gravity means slower time.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 22, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I've seen the theory of gravity cited a lot here.  I think it's time for a science lesson.
> 
> Science is at its core a way of describing natural phenomenon in terms of other natural phenomenon, the details of which are determined with the scientific method.  The whole process starts out with an observation.  Multiple observations can be generalized as a Scientific Law.  A Scientific Law describes direct observations we can make, like the Law of Gravity.  The Law of Gravity basically states that what comes up must come down.  "But why is this?" is what a scientist asks, so next part of the scientific method is to come up with a guess (in terms of natural phenomenon) that fits all of the observations, known as a hypothesis.  This hypothesis is tested repeatedly, and if it holds, it will become a Scientific Theory.  This Scientific Theory is generally regarded as fact unless future observations prove it wrong, in which case a new hypothesis is formed and the cycle begins again.
> 
> ...


A few very quick notes. First, we can agree that whether something is called a scientific _law_ or a scientific _theory_ has no bearing on its truthfulness; both can be considered facts. Second, the term _macroevolution_ is used in scientific circles nearly synonymously with _speciation_, and _microevolution_ is used to refer to evolutionary change that isn't related to speciation. When referring to the idea that we're all descended from a common ancestor, you'll want to use the term _common descent_, not _macroevolution_. It should also be noted that, in addition to the direct observational evidence for microevolution and macroevolution, there is substantial evidence for common descent. Third, I agree it would be absurd to expect modern DNA to form suddenly on its own from natural processes. DNA, like complicated life, likely evolved from more primitive molecules. While we don't know the exact process by which DNA and its precursors formed, we do know numerous ways in which precursors to DNA could have formed, and once we have self-replicating precursors to DNA, evolution can run its course to today. I can talk more about ways in which DNA precursors might have formed, but it's pretty dry for a gaming forum. Lastly, even if we disproved evolution and/or had no explanation for how DNA came into being, absence of an explanation is never evidence for another explanation.



UniqueGeek said:


> Given our experience, there has to be a cause for the universe, there has to be a source.  The only thing that makes sense is something eternal, always having existed, and because our finite minds can't comprehend infinite concepts like this.
> 
> Athiestic scientists try to say that matter is eternal and the source of the universe, while Theistic scientists believe God created everything.  Because eternal things cannot be observed and are fundamentally different than the finite things we're familiar with, it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain this.  After all, the difference between a guess and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis can be tested.  We cannot test anything infinite or outside the universe, so everything is pure speculation.
> 
> Given all of that, the argument is now whether or not to believe in intelligent design (i.e. God designing things).  See my previous post for a reason to believe in intelligent design.


Might the universe have had a cause? Sure. Is there any reason to think the universe is required to have had a cause? Not really. If causality is a property of the universe, it's a bit silly to talk about causality requiring a cause. It's also possible the universe in some form has always existed. In essence, there's no excuse for a hypothetical god not requiring a cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe. In fact, it might be fair to say the universe has always existed when time as we know it exists a finite amount backwards, but that's a matter of semantics.

If the universe did have a cause, there's no reason to think it wasn't a natural cause. Perhaps the natural cause to the universe has always existed in some form. Perhaps the cause is atemporal. Perhaps it's a causal loop of the universe in a future state causing the universe in a past state (e.g. something natural, or Stewie Griffin's time pad exploding and causing the Big Bang). We just don't know, and absence of an explanation is never a reason to believe another explanation.


----------



## Lord M (Jun 22, 2016)

No one can say if something similar exist or not, but for sure the image that Masons invented, ie the old-beard man like Gandalf, is surely fake, for the reasons i explained earlier. So if you really have the urge to believe in something, believe in The Force!!
P.S: I always think that everybody we are the One with the Universe, the absolute consciousness


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 24, 2016)

FanmadeEndings said:


> Sorry for bringing this back to life, I just like to give my thoughts on this topic.
> 
> I do not believe in god, at least not as he / she / it (for the sake of simplicity I'll refer to him / her / it as "he" now) is portrayed in any holy script. The fact that we can't disprove ourselves to be in the matrix means we can't disprove of a higher creator either - But I hardly doubt he  ever revealed himself to anyone of us. Maybe he doesn't even care and our world was just an experiment. That doesn't mean I think there has to be a higher creator, I just say there could be.
> Also, if he exists, he's not almighty. Almightyness by definition *can not* exist.
> ...


What do you mean he can't be all mighty?


----------



## FanmadeEndings (Jun 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What do you mean he can't be all mighty?



Because its a paradox. If he is allmighty, could he create a stone even he couldn't lift?


----------



## Dorimori (Jun 24, 2016)

oH BOY THIS

Nah, I don't believe in any deity, and I don't care if you do. You're still you, it doesn't bother me.

flying spaghetti monster is an exception


----------



## Youkai (Jun 24, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Given our experience, there has to be a cause for the universe, there has to be a source.  The only thing that makes sense is something eternal, always having existed, and because our finite minds can't comprehend infinite concepts like this.
> 
> Athiestic scientists try to say that matter is eternal and the source of the universe, while Theistic scientists believe God created everything.  Because eternal things cannot be observed and are fundamentally different than the finite things we're familiar with, it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain this.  After all, the difference between a guess and a hypothesis is that a hypothesis can be tested.  We cannot test anything infinite or outside the universe, so everything is pure speculation.



That's actually funny ... so the universe can't just "exist" because of who know why but in the nothingness (yeah I know "nothing" does not exist) there can be a God ? where would that God come from to be able to create the universe ? and where would that be to begin with when there is nothing ?

I am 100% for science and 0% for Religion ....

Maybe there was/is something you could call God but all the stories about creating the universe and worlds and living beings and whatever are just stories made up by humans.

There is a Reason most Religious humans live in underdeveloped places with where science is not really far ... 
and yes dear Americans I know your country is not underdeveloped but the most Hardliner are outside in the small villages where they are still burning witches and run after atheists with their forks XD


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jun 24, 2016)

I do not.

I have no issue with people having their own beliefs, but to me, believing in God is like believing in the Loch Ness Monster or that aliens built the pyramids.



Youkai said:


> I am 100% for science and 0% for Religion


Pretty much this.


----------



## evandixon (Jun 24, 2016)

Youkai said:


> That's actually funny ... so the universe can't just "exist" because of who know why but in the nothingness (yeah I know "nothing" does not exist) there can be a God ? where would that God come from to be able to create the universe ? and where would that be to begin with when there is nothing ?
> 
> I am 100% for science and 0% for Religion ....
> 
> ...


The universe as we know it had a beginning.  It is constantly expanding and because of entropy, losing usable energy.  Scientists have done math and came up with the big bang theory.

Given this, something must have already existed, that is unless you believe something can come from nothing, which is contradictory to the universe as we know it, and all of science.  You think it's funny that God can be eternal, having always existed, or have come from nothing, but find it perfectly reasonable that the universe, having been proven to have a beginning, always existed or came from nothing.

Your whole post sounds a little... arrogant.  You should remember that despite all the knowledge we have because of science, like the brain, subatomic particles, and the grand scale of the universe, we still hardly understand the full extent of it all.


----------



## Youkai (Jun 24, 2016)

Youkai said:


> That's actually funny ... so the universe can't just "exist" because of who know why but in the nothingness (yeah I know "nothing" does not exist) there can be a God ? where would that God come from to be able to create the universe ? and where would that be to begin with when there is nothing ?
> 
> I am 100% for science and 0% for Religion ....
> 
> Maybe there was/is something you could call God but all the stories about creating the universe and worlds and living beings and whatever are just stories made up by humans.





UniqueGeek said:


> The universe as we know it had a beginning.  It is constantly expanding and because of entropy, losing usable energy.  Scientists have done math and came up with the big bang theory.
> 
> Given this, something must have already existed, that is unless you believe something can come from nothing, which is contradictory to the universe as we know it, and all of science.  You think it's funny that God can be eternal, having always existed, or have come from nothing, but find it perfectly reasonable that the universe, having been proven to have a beginning, always existed or came from nothing.
> 
> Your whole post sounds a little... arrogant.  You should remember that despite all the knowledge we have because of science, like the brain, subatomic particles, and the grand scale of the universe, we still hardly understand the full extent of it all.



Maybe you misunderstood me ...
you said the Universe couldn't just be there already and that the only explanation is a "God"
And I at least wanted to say that if there needs to be a God to make a universe there needs to be something else to "make" that so called "God"

if the universe can't just be there how can a god be just there ?
and if there is this so called god, what did he do before he created the universe and everything else ?


/// -edit-
If you were talking about the last part about the most religious ppl in underdeveloped countries than sorry but I feel that this is true !
In most counries where the education is high and everything is modern and such (not all of course) there are less religious humans than in other places and they are getting even less as the world evolves even further.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jun 24, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Your whole post sounds a little... arrogant.  You should remember that despite all the knowledge we have because of science, like the brain, subatomic particles, and the grand scale of the universe, we still hardly understand the full extent of it all.


Arrogant? People like Youkai aren't the ones making claims without evidence; the only ones doing that are people who say "We don't know X, therefore God".



UniqueGeek said:


> You think it's funny that God can be eternal, having always existed, or have come from nothing, but find it perfectly reasonable that the universe, having been proven to have a beginning, always existed or came from nothing.


Except that the Universe isn't a conscious actor 'making' stuff; it just exists. We have evidence that the universe exists, not too much (read: less than zero) for God.


----------



## Haider Raza (Jun 24, 2016)

Only bad people don't believe in th creator. I believe because I know we are not created miracly. There is a reason for us to be here. That is to be tested for the afterlife. Any dis-believer who can prove me this. If we are miracle. Then who created big bang? I mean where did water'fire'stones came from? There is no way we are miracle. If the creator wanted he could show himself but He is not showing because this is a test. If he wanted he could made us like angels. Angels only obey the creator. They have no free will. We are humans we have free will we can obey & disobey creator. This is the test. If we disobey his rules. Then you'll know what will happen to you on judgement day.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 24, 2016)

Xiphiidae said:


> Arrogant? People like Youkai aren't the ones making claims without evidence; the only ones doing that are people who say "We don't know X, therefore God".
> 
> 
> Except that the Universe isn't a conscious actor 'making' stuff; it just exists. We have evidence that the universe exists, not too much (read: less than zero) for God.


How do you know the universe has no consciousness? One could argue that consciousness exists on every level of physics, as they all obey natural laws of the universe. As far as less than zero argument, read about infinite concept. Also check out Eulers identity. Both mathematical theories that end in paradox, just like the nature of the arguments about God existing or not.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jun 24, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> How do you know the universe has no consciousness? One could argue that consciousness exists on every level of physics


Considering that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently advanced brains, then no, one could not argue that without it being a very silly argument. 



brickmii82 said:


> read about infinite concept. Also check out Eulers identity. Both mathematical theories that end in paradox, just like the nature of the arguments about God existing or not


Ah, okay, you just have no idea what you're talking about, got it.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 24, 2016)

Xiphiidae said:


> Considering that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently advanced brains, then no, one could not argue that without it being a very silly argument.
> 
> 
> Ah, okay, you just have no idea what you're talking about, got it.


I find this whole argument silly tbh. It's ultimately the chicken/egg argument.And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, enlighten me?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#


----------



## johnbus (Jun 24, 2016)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> And why? Do you / do you not believe in *a god*! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!



I voted no since I do not believe in the Abrahamic God, as it asks "Do You Believe *In God*?", which implies that specific god, and no others.

Had the question been "Do You Believe In *A God Or Gods*?", I would have voted yes.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jun 24, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> And if I have no idea what I'm talking about, enlighten me?


Euler's Identity simply describes the relationship between i, 1 and pi, it has nothing to do with God or anything like that.



brickmii82 said:


> I find this whole argument silly tbh. It's ultimately the chicken/egg argument.


This isn't "Did God create the universe or did the universe create God", it's about whether belief in the divine is justifiable.

Though I do agree that it is a silly argument; people have their views and it's not like talking with strangers on the internet is going to radically change people's minds.

At the end of the day, people are free to believe whatever they want to believe (or not believe).


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 24, 2016)

It's less impacting to me, that it describes the relationship, as much as it proves that there IS a relationship. That concludes to an order in which the universes natural laws govern. Admittedly, I am a Christian, albeit for moral reasons Not fear of hell or whatever. Although I am continuously finding Pantheism fascinating. It's a very interesting and lively way of theological philosophy.


----------



## Xiphiidae (Jun 24, 2016)

brickmii82 said:


> It's less impacting to me, that it describes the relationship, as much as it proves that there IS a relationship. That concludes to an order in which the universes natural laws govern. Admittedly, I am a Christian, albeit for moral reasons Not fear of hell or whatever. Although I am continuously finding Pantheism fascinating. It's a very interesting and lively way of theological philosophy.


Maybe so, but it's a relationship in the same way that 1+2=3 is a relationship. 

Pantheism and Christianity aren't necessarily incompatible; I have a few friends who are more 'Christian Deists' and hold positions similar to Pantheism.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 24, 2016)

Xiphiidae said:


> Maybe so, but it's a relationship in the same way that 1+2=3 is a relationship.
> 
> Pantheism and Christianity aren't necessarily incompatible; I have a few friends who are more 'Christian Deists' and hold positions similar to Pantheism.


Well ya got 1 more amigo!

Ps. Aliens did build the pyramids, I have a photo of ET with a hard hat and a lunchbox next to the Sphinx.
Pss. "God is a mean kid with a magnifying glass, and I'm an ant."


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 24, 2016)

The is a concept in... philosophy I guess call "god of the gaps". I mentioned it earlier but this last bout of conversation saw something like it possibly return.

The idea runs that people will ascribe things they do not understand to their god(s), something comes along and explains it and that position is abandoned for smaller and smaller gaps in knowledge. That we are now contemplating the start of existence (if indeed it did start and is not cyclical in some way) as a kind of last bastion/ultimate question then it speaks ill of the concept.


----------



## lafleche (Jun 24, 2016)

Religion and their gods is an invention by men.
From the ancient pagan gods to the current ones.
Religion: Ways to hate the other believers,  go to war for, keep the population stupid and poor and gain power for the happy few.

If there is a God... I would like to ask him why he invented cancer in little children (the most innocent creatures), or let men destroy the animal kingdom without him as almighty come to the rescue..... Nope!!!!!! There is no God!!


----------



## XDel (Jun 24, 2016)




----------



## brickmii82 (Jun 24, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> The is a concept in... philosophy I guess call "god of the gaps". I mentioned it earlier but this last bout of conversation saw something like it possibly return.
> 
> The idea runs that people will ascribe things they do not understand to their god(s), something comes along and explains it and that position is abandoned for smaller and smaller gaps in knowledge. That we are now contemplating the start of existence (if indeed it did start and is not cyclical in some way) as a kind of last bastion/ultimate question then it speaks ill of the concept.


The Marvel Comics universe had this cycle theory utilized in its writings. The current universe would be launched through "The Big Bang" after all cosmic bodies were consumed by enlarging black holes, they would start contracting back in on themselves to a "Cosmic Crunch". Then the energy would convert again into another "Big Bang". This is actually the birth origin of Galactus, as he somehow survived the crunch of the previous universe into the current ones Big Bang.


----------



## retrofan_k (Jun 24, 2016)

I believe God would want to you to believe in him in a way that suits you and not how it's spoon feed to people on how they should believe or worship.  I believe there is an existence of a greater power but I don't have to go to church or read a bible to do so.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What do you mean he can't be all mighty?


My assumption would be that he's arguing omnipotence cannot exist because it's self-contradictory. Can, for example, an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it? If so, he can't be omnipotent because now there's something he does not have the power to do. If he can't create the rock, then he's still not omnipotent.

It's an old argument dating back to the 12th century. There's no real answer to the paradox except to say that _true_ omnipotence is impossible, but God is instead _maximally_ omnipotent (i.e. as powerful as logic will allow).

To me, the argument is pointless and doesn't really demonstrate anything. Regardless of how powerful we decide a god is, the problem is that the god has not been demonstrated in any way to exist. However, an argument like the problem of evil is a good one that demonstrates a god who is specifically omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent cannot exist so long as evil acts are allowed to occur.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Jun 24, 2016)

I guess some kind of a God exist 'cause David Camoron resigned from being the British MP and UK's ditching the EU.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> The universe as we know it had a beginning.  It is constantly expanding and because of entropy, losing usable energy.  Scientists have done math and came up with the big bang theory.
> 
> Given this, something must have already existed, that is unless you believe something can come from nothing, which is contradictory to the universe as we know it, and all of science.  You think it's funny that God can be eternal, having always existed, or have come from nothing, but find it perfectly reasonable that the universe, having been proven to have a beginning, always existed or came from nothing.



The universe as we know it had a beginning roughly 13.799 billion years ago, but that doesn't mean the universe hasn't always existed in some form. For all we know, the big bang was a change in state rather than a beginning; we just don't know. You can see my previous post on this and other possibilities, such as the universe having a natural cause or not requiring a cause whatsoever. You say the idea of something coming from nothing is contradictory to the universe as we know it, but the laws of causality you say would be contradicted are a part of the universe and don't necessarily apply to the formation of the universe and those laws.


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A few very quick notes. First, we can agree that whether something is called a scientific _law_ or a scientific _theory_ has no bearing on its truthfulness; both can be considered facts. Second, the term _macroevolution_ is used in scientific circles nearly synonymously with _speciation_, and _microevolution_ is used to refer to evolutionary change that isn't related to speciation. When referring to the idea that we're all descended from a common ancestor, you'll want to use the term _common descent_, not _macroevolution_. It should also be noted that, in addition to the direct observational evidence for microevolution and macroevolution, there is substantial evidence for common descent. Third, I agree it would be absurd to expect modern DNA to form suddenly on its own from natural processes. DNA, like complicated life, likely evolved from more primitive molecules. While we don't know the exact process by which DNA and its precursors formed, we do know numerous ways in which precursors to DNA could have formed, and once we have self-replicating precursors to DNA, evolution can run its course to today. I can talk more about ways in which DNA precursors might have formed, but it's pretty dry for a gaming forum. Lastly, even if we disproved evolution and/or had no explanation for how DNA came into being, absence of an explanation is never evidence for another explanation.
> 
> 
> Might the universe have had a cause? Sure. Is there any reason to think the universe is required to have had a cause? Not really. If causality is a property of the universe, it's a bit silly to talk about causality requiring a cause. It's also possible the universe in some form has always existed. In essence, there's no excuse for a hypothetical god not requiring a cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe. In fact, it might be fair to say the universe has always existed when time as we know it exists a finite amount backwards, but that's a matter of semantics.
> ...



Two things:

1- Is there really a zero point? I think moving towards past pretty much works in an asymptotic/infinitesimal way, or think about in "minus infinity".
2- Causes and consequences. One of the most committed mistake in reasoning is having a unique cause (or set of causes) for a set of consequences, that come to be associated through inductive reasonning, so leaving thousands of other possibilities outside (even the not so "logical" ones that won't go according to the general induced idea, and systems of causes working together). The "principle of cause" is a matter that drives a big debate in both sides of this discussion, but still both sides need more perspectives than the common obvious ones. In fact, it also includes the understanding of the "God phenomenon".... what is it exactly? Because, you know, it really depends on how you understand "what is God".


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> Causes and consequences. One of the most committed mistake in reasoning is having a unique cause (or set of causes) for a set of consequences, that come to be associated through inductive reasonning, so leaving thousands of other possibilities outside (even the not so "logical" ones that won't go according to the general induced idea, and systems of causes working together). The "principle of cause" is a matter that drives a big debate in both sides of this discussion, but still both sides need more perspectives than the common obvious ones. In fact, it also includes the understanding of the "God phenomenon".... what is it exactly? Because, you know, it really depends on how you understand "what is God".


I don't see the point in asking, "What is God?" when there's currently no sound reason to think a god exists and no sound reason to think a god has done anything to affect the natural world.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 24, 2016)

I've honestly just kind of started to believe we all live on a server somewhere


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 24, 2016)

i don't believe in a god, cause none of them showes real love like they say, they hurt people attracted to thier own sex, they hurt people who think different... relegion is making the world a little less nice each day...
each god contradicts itself by the rule: thy shall not kill... the number one reason people kill is still religion! (the second is love)...
if there was a god it's a real crual one that let poeple suffer, some people get born without parts of thier body, people keill and torture each other... there's this slow death called cancer... if there is a god he is creating all these things too...
well thank god for those around me died of cancer, of leukemia, those who were molested as a child by a damn priest (i at least know one person close to me)... i really don't understand how someone even would want a god around them (cause he or she) would be watching your every move, every tiny misstake you made... looking for a reason to keep you from heaven.
god is a fairytale made for those afraid of the dark, afraid of death, afraid of... but in the end, he/she keeps you afraid... like a dictator controlling you all your life, with god you'll never be a real free person...


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 24, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> i don't believe in a god, cause none of them showes real love like they say, they hurt people attracted to thier own sex, they hurt people who think different... relegion is making the world a little less nice each day...
> each god contradicts itself by the rule: thy shall not kill... the number one reason people kill is still religion! (the second is love)...
> if there was a god it's a real crual one that let poeple suffer, some people get born without parts of thier body, people keill and torture each other... there's this slow death called cancer... if there is a god he is creating all these things too...
> well thank god for those around me died of cancer, of leukemia, those who were molested as a child by a damn priest (i at least know one person close to me)... i really don't understand how someone even would want a god around them (cause he or she) would be watching your every move, every tiny misstake you made... looking for a reason to keep you from heaven.
> god is a fairytale made for those afraid of the dark, afraid of death, afraid of... but in the end, he/she keeps you afraid... like a dictator controlling you all your life, with god you'll never be a real free person...



It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.

Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.

Spirit, however, is a bigger phenomenon, and has many explanations for what you are complaining about, and has way different perspectives on how does the "God phenomenon" works. Spirit can only be understood by experience (because normal rationalism would be short and could not conceive the whole thing), or if you are into some badass high level alien science that can explain it into detail, because science and spirit aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

The most usual complaint of atheists is the injustice/impunity/apathy of the "god", but the thing is, as far as I know, a higher level matter. One of the rules that are to give universe stability are about one's will, then talk about the contracts of the soul, the decisions made by your spirit before being conceived, and other stuff, so you have your own and unique challenges and experiences in life (or something like that). And that there is actually action, talk about angels, and probability enhancing for better outcomes, help getting perspective/ information for better decision making, all without going against the rule of will.

Also... most people only focus in the obvious evil distorted stuff of church... WHY THE HELL DON'T YOU GO STUDY WHAT DO OTHER RELIGIONS THINK ABOUT THINGS!? It can give more general ideas of how these phenomena can be really grasped and understood! (Not talking about the "believing in a god thing", but in the convergence point I am refering above, so it can expand to higher perspectives. (Like, like, when in mathematics you understand 2D, and then 3D... and how about 4D? ... ND? )



Lacius said:


> I don't see the point in asking, "What is God?" when there's currently no sound reason to think a god exists and no sound reason to think a god has done anything to affect the natural world.



Well it actually makes sense if you are going to stablish theories of how the cosmos does work logically (talk about computer-science-like theories, like the "computer simulation", information/intelligence/consciousness, systems and recursion, and many others).


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 24, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.
> 
> Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.
> 
> ...


i see no answer of how soever in this, it's the same as my religion teacher would say based on the bible, aliens or anithing els won't change a thing for me, if there's a god, he's not answering anyone, he's not responding to anything he doesn't care about who's his followers cause they all suffer just the same.. not injustice is not the word... it's not being there at all, not hearing, no seeing, no past no future, no nothing there's absolutely nothing it to the here, now past nor future... if alliens excist witch is likely, then who cares? really we will have our lives they thiers, they're not aware of us, and far too far to come here... most likely different, but i don't even think they're equal....
short answer there is no god...
long answer there is no god and there are alliens but most likely just like animals to us.


----------



## Touko White (Jun 24, 2016)

Of course not religion just cause more problems in society like all this shit we had over the last several months with terror threats and arguments.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 24, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> It depends, you are talking about religious "God", and that us supposed to be an alien with an empire of control/authority/order and power humans then took advantage of.
> 
> Religion is just a huge meat of distortions/misrepresentations in a very specific methodology/doctrine to try to follow what they "believe" is right (and set "what is right" for control purposes, e.g. orthodox church). What you must really focus and seek is the convergence point, the thing that all (most) different religions try to achieve... "the right thing", what is it? (and then the golden rule of "do as you will but do not harm others", and "love" and all that stuff.
> 
> ...


I don't think apathy, injustice or impunity are the most usual "complaints" from atheists.  I think it's that there's just no reason to believe in a God. There's zero evidence. It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.


While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, it can be. For example, if I claim to have a cat, but there's nothing at my house that a cat-owner would have, that is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god exists who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then the absence of divine intervention against heinous acts is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god answers prayers, then we would expect prayers to come true at a rate greater than chance, and the fact that prayers don't come true at a rate greater than chance is evidence of absence. These things don't disprove the existence of a god, but for these two specific god claims, they're evidence of absence.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> While absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, it can be. For example, if I claim to have a cat, but there's nothing at my house that a cat-owner would have, that is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god exists who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then the absence of divine intervention against heinous acts is evidence of absence. If one were to claim that a god answers prayers, then we would expect prayers to come true at a rate greater than chance, and the fact that prayers don't come true at a rate greater than chance is evidence of absence. These things don't disprove the existence of a god, but for these two specific god claims, they're evidence of absence.


Yeah, but by God I just mean a being of "higher power", not necessarily a benevolent God that cares about people. For example, the Judeo-Christian God is a big jerk, going by the Bible. I don't think him letting bad stuff happen, or even causing it, is out of character at all.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Yeah, but by God I just mean a being of "higher power", not necessarily a benevolent God that cares about people. For example, the Judeo-Christian God is a big jerk, going by the Bible. I don't think him letting bad stuff happen, or even causing it, is out of character at all.


Then you're right. When the definition of "god" is vague and isn't one that necessarily interacts with the natural world, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because the universe with this god is indistinguishable from one without it.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Then you're right. When the definition of "god" is vague and isn't one that necessarily interacts with the natural world, then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence because the universe with this god is indistinguishable from one without it.


that'd be true than why should i care about this so called god?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jun 24, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> that'd be true than why should i care about this so called god?


You shouldn't. There'd just be no reason to care about him or even believe he exists. That's kinda the point.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 24, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> You shouldn't. There'd just be no reason to care about him or even believe he exists. That's kinda the point.


nice to know that i made the right choice then


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 24, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> nice to know that i made the right choice then



Yeah, you aren't going to hell for not caring. God existing or not is absolutely relative, so there's no 100% way to tell how God is, or is not, unless it is from experience, as I told before.



invaderyoyo said:


> I don't think apathy, injustice or impunity are the most usual "complaints" from atheists.  I think it's that there's just no reason to believe in a God. There's zero evidence. It's true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it definitely isn't evidence of presence either.



I do believe there is proof/evidence, but little concrete detail on it and on how to understand it.

I want to base on the phenomena of spirit, information (in every area, phenomenon and meaning), intelligence, consciousness, paranormal stuff and people who have had experience with spirit/paranormal or other... not trying to base much on philosophy itself, because it is highly relative and could get into an infinite inconclusive loop of yay-nay-yay-...


----------



## Lacius (Jun 24, 2016)

AnonDragon said:


> Yeah, you aren't going to hell for not caring. God existing or not is absolutely relative


Whether or not a god exists is objective, not relative.



AnonDragon said:


> I do believe there is proof/evidence, but little concrete detail on it and on how to understand it.


If you cannot articulate evidence for the existence of a god, then how can you claim there is evidence?


----------



## AnonDragon (Jun 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a god exists is objective, not relative.
> 
> 
> If you cannot articulate evidence for the existence of a god, then how can you claim there is evidence?



The cat is dead or is alive? (What I mean with relative was the subjective perspective, but it is still objectively relative... can both statements be true at the same time? According to mathematics, quantum physics and philosophy they can)

Evidence depends on the definition of God. The whole universe's matter/energy can be god's body, and their spirit is in a purely logical/mental environment (analogy to computer stuff, the software architecture with the graphical layer and the logical layer).

Evidence can be found in those I mentioned, such as information phenomena. Communication, semantics, programmatic phenomena, intelligence, systems of information, systems of systems of information, and so on. [EDIT ... hmm, yes, I should give a more concrete relationship to the point... well, that's a task to do]. Also, for example, testimonials and experiences of thousands along the ages; many experiences that I know are not illusions of mere psychological/psychiatric factors, because there is an independent relationship between things (for example, when people can gather information about events, people, etc., while being absolutely isolated from being able to gather that information from common senses by themselves). Of course there are many other experiences of people who relate it to god and that, but that has nothing to do at all with it (now, really psychological/psychiatric factors and others, for example inference from information obtained in a so subtle and discrete way that your subconscious layer was the only part of your mind aware of it and who processed it to your conscious layer)


----------



## rewrewrew123 (Jun 24, 2016)

i pray Gaben when I have nothing to do:
http://www.gaben.tv/


----------



## CloudStrife1901 (Jun 24, 2016)

No such thing


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jun 25, 2016)

rewrewrew123 said:


> i pray Gaben when I have nothing to do:
> http://www.gaben.tv/


great website.. it's as good as a religion as any to me!


----------



## Bubsy Bobcat (Jun 27, 2016)

I never believed in a god, but I remember my primary schools always crammed christianity down my throat.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jun 27, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not a god exists is objective, not relative.
> 
> 
> If you cannot articulate evidence for the existence of a god, then how can you claim there is evidence?


If god is outside of the observable universe, then it is impossible to prove him. Rather asking how a universe could exist without a fire starter can prove that a god is a possibility.


----------



## Skelletonike (Jun 27, 2016)

Yup, I believe in God, I pray, I go to mass and I love boobs. Nothing wrong with any of them. =3
And yes... Sometimes I pray for boobs too. <3


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jun 27, 2016)

It's rather interesting. I'm by no means an expert on science, but I do have questions. The theory is that the universe was created by what is known as the Big Bang, yet, the components to produce the Big Bang needed to have existed for it to happen. So where did those come from? And what about what's outside of the universe? The universe expanded from the Big Bang, so not only is there a sort of boundary/limit of the universe, but that the universe is expanding into a space that supposedly doesn't exist, unless that space did exist for it to expand into. Maybe I'm not making any sense here, but we know so little about our universe. We use what little knowledge we have to explain things, and it seems validated because it's based on what we understand, not how the universe may actually work. For each time we identify something that we initially thought we understood but didn't until later, we end up rewriting out books to take whatever discovery we find into account. I mean, we even go into depth of how 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 27, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> If god is outside of the observable universe, then it is impossible to prove him.


If a god is defined as being outside the natural universe and having no effect on the observable universe, then it is impossible to prove or disprove that god, which is not any reason to believe in that god's existence, and is every reason to _not_ believe in that god's existence. However, when a god is defined as having effects on the observable universe, those effects can be demonstrated to not exist. See my post from earlier.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Rather asking how a universe could exist without a fire starter can prove that a god is a possibility.


Broadly speaking and from a _philosophical_ point of view, a god's existence is a possibility in that it has not been disproven. However, there is no way to know if a god's existence is actually _physically_ possible. Lots of things are technically possible, but that's no reason to think those things are true, and that doesn't mean it's rational to believe those things.



DiscostewSM said:


> It's rather interesting. I'm by no means an expert on science, but I do have questions. The theory is that the universe was created by what is known as the Big Bang, yet, the components to produce the Big Bang needed to have existed for it to happen. So where did those come from? And what about what's outside of the universe?


We don't know what components, if any, were needed for the universe to come into existence as we know it. See my earlier post on this.



DiscostewSM said:


> The universe expanded from the Big Bang, so not only is there a sort of boundary/limit of the universe, but that the universe is expanding into a space that supposedly doesn't exist, unless that space did exist for it to expand into.


The universe isn't expanding into space; space is expanding.



DiscostewSM said:


> We use what little knowledge we have to explain things, and it seems validated because it's based on what we understand, not how the universe may actually work. For each time we identify something that we initially thought we understood but didn't until later, we end up rewriting out books to take whatever discovery we find into account. I mean, we even go into depth of how 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2.


If we care if our beliefs are true, all we can do is make sure our beliefs comport with the evidence. If the evidence changes, the only intellectually honest thing to do is to change our beliefs accordingly. The rewriting of our books, as you put it, is a positive feature of the scientific method, not a bug.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 27, 2016)

The universe is said to have started with the big bang, depending upon how you want to view certain theories about cyclic universes* anyway, 

*most would meet this when they think about the end of the universe. One of them is heat death -- if energy can not be created or destroyed then eventually it will all be spread out so far that the entire universe reaches a baseline temperature and nothing can happen worth speaking of, another has it that the universal expansion will end and then things will go into a big crunch (possibly to then emerge later in... history? as the second (or whatever iteration this is +1) universe).

The universe expanding into something tends to be from people that want to view it like a balloon which is a kind of limited model. It is not bad for discussing why there is an observable universe* that is smaller than the universe itself but it really does not do well for space-time and things of that nature. The edge of the universe itself is also a topic of note for some as things might well play out quite differently there.

Speaking of observable universes then being outside it is not really a hard line for proof -- you can observe the effects of many things you can't see (the classics being germs, wind, atoms, gravity and so forth).

*for those not familiar the idea runs that every point in the universe is expanding away from each other. Or if you take a point and then two more points opposite each other but the middle of the line connecting them goes through the first point you can say that if both ends are leaving the middle at 1 m/s then looking at the extreme points it is moving away from those at 2m/s. You can then envisage a suitable distance there it is not 2 m/s but actually faster than light travels but still slower than light compared to the middle point.

"and it seems validated because it's based on what we understand, not how the universe may actually work. For each time we identify something that we initially thought we understood but didn't until later, we end up rewriting out books to take whatever discovery we find into account. I mean, we even go into depth of how 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2."

Not quite. Any experiment can indeed disprove another, though most of the time it is not thrown out as much as becoming a useful simplification (Newtonian mechanics is generally considered wrong, however it works in the real world so you do need to learn it). Equally it is indeed based upon repeated observation and testing rather than looking at the universe's source code or something akin to it, however the universe has always acted predictably at present and as far back as we can see so contemplating the existence of a power far outside it is something you could do but is probably not that useful if you are going to play scientist. Also it tends not to be a rewrite for physics (biology can be a different matter but it is an exception there) as much as clarification on an earlier point.
On 1+1=/=2 then know that maths is not a universal truth but a human construct, again a very useful one and if you want to limit it to simple arithmetic using real numbers then it will, it is when you start bringing in other concepts like infinity and its ilk or putting it next to physics* that it starts to break down.

*one atom plus another atom tends to equal two atoms but one or both of said atoms could decay and they do decay at a very small rate for various reasons, to that end it might not and over a long enough time period it almost certainly will not. It is then that such things tend to crop up.


----------



## Engert (Jun 29, 2016)

I do not believe in God because i don't believe that a Jewish carpenter died for my sins and now lives in heaven and he's part of a trio who's equal to one.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 1, 2016)

Never put a question mark where God put a period.


----------



## Kourin (Jul 1, 2016)

I would like to believe there's some sort of higher power out there but I don't know what it might be.
I respect what others want to believe though as long as they don't cram their beliefs down my throat. It does no one any good asserting that others are wrong for believing something.


----------



## bannana2 (Jul 1, 2016)

Silly little bitches, tricks are for kids.


----------



## Yumi (Jul 1, 2016)

I don't know anymore! Lol

On one side, we have science...on the other, we have something that cannot be *disproven (is that correct?)* ...miracles and such and even here we have members that do believe and have felt God...it goes both ways. Much respect in both sides, except radical religious folks. ;P

I mean, I like to lean more towards the science but to be honest, I carry flowers to the Virgin Mary in the basilica of Mexico City because of family tradition/beliefs...it doesn't hurt to do so. I don't pray either though. Lol

So, I guess I'm unsure.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

Yumi said:


> I don't know anymore! Lol
> 
> On one side, we have science...on the other, we have something that cannot be *disproven (is that correct?)* ...miracles and such and even here we have members that do believe and have felt God...it goes both ways. Much respect in both sides, except radical religious folks. ;P
> 
> ...


While each side has just as much a right to their beliefs as the other, it would be inaccurate to characterize both sides as equally reasonable. As far as I'm aware, there is no sound reason to think god(s) exist. The fact that we cannot disprove god(s) is not a reason to believe they're real, and it does not make belief equally reasonable to nonbelief. If one cares whether or not his or her beliefs are true, one requires sound reason and evidence for his or her beliefs. I cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns, but that does not mean it's rational to believe they exist, and it certainly does not mean belief in leprechauns is as reasonable as disbelief.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

This is a pretty subjective topic, and there's no right answer here. My two cents:

If a singular god does exist, he's the ultimate dick. Who else could possibly create such a fsck'd up world? I tend to throw that concept out for the sake of my sanity. The universe is too chaotic for a 'nice' god. Not to mention, if there was only one god, we would all be worshipping the same one.

Religion is a political tool more than a belief system. Always has been, always will be.

There's also no proof of any afterlife or reincarnation, so I find living in the moment to be a better way to approach life. Is an organism sharing 100% of my celluar structure "me", and will it be conscious as "me"? Hell if I know. I do know the very concept of 'heaven' sounds boring. Eternal paradise bathed in god or whatever? No thanks. Sounds bland. I'd rather burn, kthx.

I classify as agnostic leaning towards atheist personally. Give me indisputable proof that a god exists, and I'll believe it. Until then...


----------



## evandixon (Jul 1, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What do you mean he can't be all mighty?


While God has all the power in the universe (and probably more, but I can't really comment on this since I've never been outside the universe), there are some things He cannot do.  He cannot act against His own nature, so questions like "can God make a stone so big he can't hold it" are invalid.



Jack Daniels said:


> each god contradicts itself by the rule: thy shall not kill...


The rule forbids _murder_.  It is distinct from killing because murder is killing without justification.  This is why it's justified to kill certain criminals without becoming murderers ourselves.



Jack Daniels said:


> the number one reason people kill is still religion!


A lot of this is not advocated by God himself.  While some deaths have in fact been mandated by God, many have not been, and those who claim this are misusing His name.  (We'd need specific examples to discuss this further.)



Jack Daniels said:


> i really don't understand how someone even would want a god around them (cause he or she) would be watching your every move, every tiny misstake you made... looking for a reason to keep you from heaven.


That's not it at all.  Quite the opposite really.

We sin.  A lot (unfortunately).  We've disobeyed God, and His standards are perfection.  And the punishment for sin is death.  "But what about all the good I've done?" someone may ask?  Imagine a brownie.  A marvelous, delicous brownie.  Now let's add a _tiny_ amount of dog poop.  Not so appealing anymore, right?  Unfortunately, that's us.

Fortunately, God still loves us, in the way I love my cat even when she makes a mess or bites me, so God has provided a way for us to live, without eternal death.  If the punishment for sin is death... the does it have to be the one who sinned?  Thousands of years ago He told the Jews to sacrifice an animal in their place, to pay for their sin.  This was only a symbol of what would come.  In order for this substitution to work, He sent his Son to save us (who existed from the beginning, the specifics of this are a discussion for another day).  His son entered this world as a baby, concieved by the Holy Spirit and a virgin (Mary).  Jesus was raised from birth as a Jewish carpenter, performed miracles to prove his divine power, gave one of the, if not the most, influential sermons _ever_ (the Sermon on the Mount), and was tempted by the devil to sin in many, if not all, of the ways we are.  Because Jesus wasn't born into a sinful nature like we were, he managed to never sin, and was absolute perfection.  Because reasons (the details of which are in the bible and are again a discussion for another day; basically Jesus denounced their bad practices, and there was some political stuff going on too), the Jewish leaders plotted to kill him.  But this was part of the plan all along.  Jesus willingly confronted his own death by crucifixion (on a cross), in order to pay for our sins.  (To make it worse, he was almost killed by lashes from a whip beforehand, and what many people did to him around that time can easily be simplified as "torture".)  He died in our place so that we can live.

But that's not the end of it.  While not many realized it at the time, Jesus is God's Son.   Three days after Jesus was executed, God brought him back to life.  Not only in this world, but eternal life, which He is offering this as a gift to anyone who wants it.  All you have to do is believe that Jesus did in fact die on the cross to save us, and your sin is paid for.

TLDR
Here's 6 words that summarizes all of this.  I remembered this half way into typing all of this, it may or may not explain it all better.
http://www.lifein6words.com/



Jack Daniels said:


> if there was a god it's a real crual one that let poeple suffer, some people get born without parts of thier body, people keill and torture each other... there's this slow death called cancer... if there is a god he is creating all these things too...
> well thank god for those around me died of cancer, of leukemia, those who were molested as a child by a damn priest (i at least know one person close to me)...


This is a sad side effect of the world being corrupted by sin.



invaderyoyo said:


> You shouldn't. There'd just be no reason to care about him or even believe he exists. That's kinda the point.





DiscostewSM said:


> I'm by no means an expert on science, but I do have questions. The theory is that the universe was created by what is known as the Big Bang,


The Big Bang is an effect, and it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain the cause.  Not only is it outside the nature of the universe as we know it, scientifically, any idea anyone comes up with is just a guess, because the biggest requirement of a hypothesis is that it can be tested.  Any guess about this cannot be tested.

I believe that God is the cause.  While I am not aware of any evidence that can prove this, there is other evidence indicitive of God.
One of these is the question of where languages come from.  Evolutionists believe there is a common ancestor, using this theory, one would think language would be the same, right?  One single language that became the ones we have now?  Wrong!  We have many different languages that are _completely_ different from each other.  To quote wikipedia, "The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language."  The Bible explains this nicely: God told everyone to spread out, to fill the Earth, but we were like "naw, we like it here, let's build a giant tower that will keep us occupied here", so God invented different languages for everyone so that everyone would spread out, since different groups of people couldn't understand each other. 



Lacius said:


> While each side has just as much a right to their beliefs as the other, it would be inaccurate to characterize both sides as equally reasonable. As far as I'm aware, there is no sound reason to think god(s) exist. The fact that we cannot disprove god(s) is not a reason to believe they're real, and it does not make belief equally reasonable to nonbelief. If one cares whether or not his or her beliefs are true, one requires sound reason and evidence for his or her beliefs. I cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns, but that does not mean it's rational to believe they exist, and it certainly does not mean belief in leprechauns is as reasonable as disbelief.



While there might not be hard evidence for God's existence (at least, not to my knowledge), there is are various hints.

The TLDR version (all this typing is making me tired ):
-Intelligent design - all of creation is rather complex.  Athiests like to believe it all happened by chance, but that seems unreasonable to me.
-The story of Jesus - proclaimed as fact by witnesses... who were burned at the stake at parties until they simply said something like "it was all a lie", but no one did.  Christians were murdered, persecuted, many people tried to completely destroy all trace of the bible... and it's still going strong today.  Divine intervention anyone?
-Languages
-God's instructions - The old testament has rules on how to deal with various types of mold.  People back then would have had no clue how it all works, but these instructions are consistent with what we know today.  Also the thing about not eating certain meat?  Back then, people didn't know how to safely cook everything, but now we do.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Jul 1, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> While God has all the power in the universe (and probably more, but I can't really comment on this since I've never been outside the universe), there are some things He cannot do.  He cannot act against His own nature, so questions like "can God make a stone so big he can't hold it" are invalid.
> 
> 
> The rule forbids _murder_.  It is distinct from killing because murder is killing without justification.  This is why it's justified to kill certain criminals without becoming murderers ourselves.
> ...


Athiests do not like to believe it all happened by chance. The other stuff you mentioned isn't real evidence of a God.


----------



## evandixon (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> If a singular god does exist, he's the ultimate dick. Who else could possibly create such a fsck'd up world? I tend to throw that concept out for the sake of my sanity. The universe is too chaotic for a 'nice' god. Not to mention, if there was only one god, we would all be worshipping the same one.



This world is a mess because we made it this way through our own sin.



chaoskagami said:


> Is an organism sharing 100% of my celluar structure "me", and will it be conscious as "me"? Hell if I know.


If God made the universe, then everything else is simple.  Don't try to overthink it.  Compared to God, we're basically like my cat when she's watching me do something with my computer, not having any idea what's going on.



chaoskagami said:


> I do know the very concept of 'heaven' sounds boring. Eternal paradise bathed in god or whatever? No thanks. Sounds bland. I'd rather burn, kthx.


If that's how you really feel, there's nothing I can do for you, but I think you might want to reconsider, since either way, it's eternity we're talking about.



invaderyoyo said:


> Athiests do not like to believe it all happened by chance.


What _do_ they believe caused everything?



invaderyoyo said:


> The other stuff you mentioned isn't real evidence of a God.


I _did_ say it wasn't hard evidence; however, all together, I believe that it's enough to make a leap of faith.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 1, 2016)

If we were to make the claim that there is no evidence of a god, then it would be ridiculous to believe in god because (under those conditions) even though he hasn't been disproven, we believe all kinda of things that haven't been disproven are false, such as the invisible unicorn analogy. It only makes sense to belive anything with no evidence suggesting it is true is false because otherwise we would have to believe goku is fighting the freeza a galaxy over because there the same amount of evidence suggesting that. However if you were to claim there is evidence of god then it is reasonable to believe in him.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> While God has all the power in the universe (and probably more, but I can't really comment on this since I've never been outside the universe), there are some things He cannot do.  He cannot act against His own nature, so questions like "can God make a stone so big he can't hold it" are invalid.











> The rule forbids _murder_.  It is distinct from killing because murder is killing without justification.  This is why it's justified to kill certain criminals without becoming murderers ourselves.
> 
> A lot of this is not advocated by God himself.  While some deaths have in fact been mandated by God, many have not been, and those who claim this are misusing His name.  (We'd need specific examples to discuss this further.)



Are you saying that killing in the name of God is okay? That's how extremism happens. I fail to see what part of killing or murder is okay in any way. There's a reason why the death penalty was abolished in many states.



> We sin.  A lot (unfortunately).  We've disobeyed God, and His standards are perfection.  And the punishment for sin is death.  "But what about all the good I've done?" someone may ask?  Imagine a brownie.  A marvelous, delicous brownie.  Now let's add a _tiny_ amount of dog poop.  Not so appealing anymore, right?  Unfortunately, that's us.



Brownies are inanimate, and don't think nor feel. They are not concsious living things.

Not to even start on the fact that punishment for sin during life is not death - it's either purgatory or damnation, according to your own text. You don't even understand your own teachings.

Oh, and having 'standards' implies god isn't omnipotent. Can't forget that.



> Fortunately, God still loves us, in the way I love my cat even when she makes a mess or bites me, so God has provided a way for us to live, without eternal death.  If the punishment for sin is death... the does it have to be the one who sinned?  Thousands of years ago He told the Jews to sacrifice an animal in their place, to pay for their sin.  This was only a symbol of what would come.  In order for this substitution to work, He sent his Son to save us (who existed from the beginning, the specifics of this are a discussion for another day).  His son entered this world as a baby, concieved by the Holy Spirit and a virgin (Mary).  Jesus was raised from birth as a Jewish carpenter, performed miracles to prove his divine power, gave one of the, if not the most, influential sermons _ever_ (the Sermon on the Mount), and was tempted by the devil to sin in many, if not all, of the ways we are.  Because Jesus wasn't born into a sinful nature like we were, he managed to never sin, and was absolute perfection.  Because reasons (the details of which are in the bible and are again a discussion for another day; basically Jesus denounced their bad practices, and there was some political stuff going on too), the Jewish leaders plotted to kill him.  But this was part of the plan all along.  Jesus willingly confronted his own death by crucifixion (on a cross), in order to pay for our sins.  (To make it worse, he was almost killed by lashes from a whip beforehand, and what many people did to him around that time can easily be simplified as "torture".)  He died in our place so that we can live.



You neglect the fact that Jesus was a very radical Rabbi and Christianity didn't exist until hundreds of years after he died. Not to mention the Romans crucifixed him - that was a Roman method of execution, not Judaic. History texts with factual history will corroborate this. Aside from that, tl;dr too long.



> But that's not the end of it.  While not many realized it at the time, Jesus is God's Son.   Three days after Jesus was executed, God brought him back to life.  Not only in this world, but eternal life, which He is offering this as a gift to anyone who wants it.  All you have to do is believe that Jesus did in fact die on the cross to save us, and your sin is paid for.



Prove Jesus was actually God's son and not Zeus'. Dare ya.



> The Big Bang is an effect, and it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain the cause.  Not only is it outside the nature of the universe as we know it, scientifically, any idea anyone comes up with is just a guess, because the biggest requirement of a hypothesis is that it can be tested.  Any guess about this cannot be tested.



It is not outside scope. It is outside scope with our current level of science. Science is always moving forward. For example, we've proven the existence of dark/inert matter is not only possible but likely.



> I believe that God is the cause.  While I am not aware of any evidence that can prove this, there is other evidence indicitive of God.
> One of these is the question of where languages come from.  Evolutionists believe there is a common ancestor, using this theory, one would think language would be the same, right?  One single language that became the ones we have now?  Wrong!  We have many different languages that are _completely_ different from each other.  To quote wikipedia, "The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language."  The Bible explains this nicely: God told everyone to spread out, to fill the Earth, but we were like "naw, we like it here, let's build a giant tower that will keep us occupied here", so God invented different languages for everyone so that everyone would spread out, since different groups of people couldn't understand each other.



Mistake #1: Taking the bible literally. If you read it, read it like Aesop's Fables.

Language doesn't NEED an origin. We're all monkeys. Different groups of monkeys are going to develop different systems for communication if they're in different places.



> While there might not be hard evidence for God's existence (at least, not to my knowledge), there is are various hints.



Hints are not proof nor hard evidence.



UniqueGeek said:


> This world is a mess because we made it this way through our own sin.



If god truly didn't want sin to exist, it wouldn't. Point stands. He is not omnipotent. It's contradictory, unless god isn't nice and deliberately created a universe with cruelty.



> If God made the universe, then everything else is simple.  Don't try to overthink it.  Compared to God, we're basically like my cat when she's watching me do something with my computer, not having any idea what's going on.



This is called sticking your head in the sand.

You wouldn't have a cat watching your computer if people hadn't experimented to domesticate cats. And she wouldn't be looking over your shoulder at a flashy screen without electromagnetism. Plus - you underestimate animals' intelligence. My cat happens to understand how to use an iPad, and my dog understands full english sentences. If evolution had taken a different path, we might all be Khajits.



> If that's how you really feel, there's nothing I can do for you, but I think you might want to reconsider, since either way, it's eternity we're talking about.



Of nothing but eternal happiness? Bland. Call me a sinner if you like - I'll take my free will any day of the week. The second a human stops thinking, he dies.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> While there might not be hard evidence for God's existence (at least, not to my knowledge), there is are various hints.


No, there is no sound reason to think a god exists, let alone _hard evidence_. People are free to believe in god(s) without reason and call it _faith_, but belief in god(s) does not have a rational basis.



UniqueGeek said:


> We sin.  A lot (unfortunately).  We've disobeyed God, and His standards are perfection.  And the punishment for sin is death.  "But what about all the good I've done?" someone may ask?  Imagine a brownie.  A marvelous, delicous brownie.  Now let's add a tiny amount of dog poop.  Not so appealing anymore, right?  Unfortunately, that's us.
> 
> Fortunately, God still loves us, in the way I love my cat even when she makes a mess or bites me, so God has provided a way for us to live, without eternal death.  If the punishment for sin is death... the does it have to be the one who sinned?  Thousands of years ago He told the Jews to sacrifice an animal in their place, to pay for their sin.  This was only a symbol of what would come.  In order for this substitution to work, He sent his Son to save us (who existed from the beginning, the specifics of this are a discussion for another day).  His son entered this world as a baby, concieved by the Holy Spirit and a virgin (Mary).  Jesus was raised from birth as a Jewish carpenter, performed miracles to prove his divine power, gave one of the, if not the most, influential sermons ever (the Sermon on the Mount), and was tempted by the devil to sin in many, if not all, of the ways we are.  Because Jesus wasn't born into a sinful nature like we were, he managed to never sin, and was absolute perfection.  Because reasons (the details of which are in the bible and are again a discussion for another day; basically Jesus denounced their bad practices, and there was some political stuff going on too), the Jewish leaders plotted to kill him.  But this was part of the plan all along.  Jesus willingly confronted his own death by crucifixion (on a cross), in order to pay for our sins.  (To make it worse, he was almost killed by lashes from a whip beforehand, and what many people did to him around that time can easily be simplified as "torture".)  He died in our place so that we can live.
> 
> ...


The difference between God's alleged love and my love for my cat is I don't condemn my cat to my basement torture chamber when she does something wrong. I would say that it's perhaps a false analogy because the cat doesn't necessarily know the difference between right and wrong each time (which doesn't matter), but a god who would condemn someone to his basement torture chamber due to lack of belief in him despite lack of evidence is probably just as bad if not worse.



UniqueGeek said:


> This is a sad side effect of the world being corrupted by sin.


Whether or not people are sinful doesn't solve God's problem of evil. If a god exists who has the power to stop evil but chooses not to, that god is not benevolent. For example, if you were in a building, knew a child was about to be raped in a bedroom, had the power to stop it and/or attempt to stop it, but you did nothing, you are not benevolent.

This also ignores the fact that God had to have created evil in the first place.



UniqueGeek said:


> The Big Bang is an effect, and it is outside the scope of science to attempt to explain the cause.  Not only is it outside the nature of the universe as we know it, scientifically, any idea anyone comes up with is just a guess, because the biggest requirement of a hypothesis is that it can be tested.  Any guess about this cannot be tested.


We don't know what, if anything, caused the universe. That doesn't mean the idea that a god exists and created the universe is a rational explanation to hold. I've outlined some other possibilities in my previous posts.



UniqueGeek said:


> I believe that God is the cause.  While I am not aware of any evidence that can prove this, there is other evidence indicitive of God.
> One of these is the question of where languages come from.  Evolutionists believe there is a common ancestor, using this theory, one would think language would be the same, right?  One single language that became the ones we have now?  Wrong!  We have many different languages that are completely different from each other.  To quote wikipedia, "The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on the ultimate origin or age of human language."  The Bible explains this nicely: God told everyone to spread out, to fill the Earth, but we were like "naw, we like it here, let's build a giant tower that will keep us occupied here", so God invented different languages for everyone so that everyone would spread out, since different groups of people couldn't understand each other.


There is no evidence _indicative of God_. Even if you didn't know where language came from, absence of an explanation is never evidence for another. If I find a dead body in the woods but cannot figure out cause of death, that doesn't mean I get to assume fairies killed him.

On an unrelated note, the evolution of language is very much related to the biological evolution of humans. In fact, I have a degrees in both biology and linguistics, so this is the kind of topic I could go on and on about. In short, however, primitive precursors to language likely evolved in conjunction with our physiological mechanisms for language. Our ancestors didn't have mouths, vocal cords, brains, etc. conducive to language, but all of these things slowly changed. As our mouths became more complex, so did our ability to communicate. As our brains became more complex, so did our ability to communicate. It was a gradual process, and the line between language and primitive non-language precursor to language is likely very blurred. Much like we can show common ancestry among the species on the Earth using DNA evidence, we have evidence in the aspects of language that demonstrate common ancestry. Just as there's a phylogenetic tree of life that shows groupings and the likely evolution of species from a common ancestry, we have a similar tree for groupings and the evolution of languages. Your confusion about the uncertainty of the origins of language is similar to our confusion on abiogenesis. While we are aware of possibilities regarding the origin of life, we do not know for sure what exactly happened because the necessary evidence just doesn't exist. The uncertainty about origins doesn't cast any doubt on our substantiated understanding of the evolution of species and languages.



UniqueGeek said:


> -Intelligent design - all of creation is rather complex.  Athiests like to believe it all happened by chance, but that seems unreasonable to me.


There's a difference between, for example, evolution by natural selection and _chance_. While there's an element of chance, don't be disingenuous and make our position out to be something it isn't. You don't do yourself or anyone else any favors by building strawmen. Complexity does not equal intelligent design; in fact, evolution is one of many things that proves this concept.



UniqueGeek said:


> -The story of Jesus - proclaimed as fact by witnesses... who were burned at the stake at parties until they simply said something like "it was all a lie", but no one did.  Christians were murdered, persecuted, many people tried to completely destroy all trace of the bible... and it's still going strong today.  Divine intervention anyone?


Ignoring that there's no verified contemporary eyewitness testimony for the Jesus story (and nobody should care even if there were), the persecution of Christians and the prevalence of Christianity is no reason to think there's divine intervention or that the Jesus story is true.



UniqueGeek said:


> -God's instructions - The old testament has rules on how to deal with various types of mold.  People back then would have had no clue how it all works, but these instructions are consistent with what we know today.  Also the thing about not eating certain meat?  Back then, people didn't know how to safely cook everything, but now we do.


Having no clue how things work, such as germs and worms, doesn't mean people can't see their effects. If one notices that certain foods have a high likelihood of making people sick, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, "Don't eat that." In addition, as I alluded to earlier, a lot of the food-related rules in the Bible are related to worms, which were relatively understood at the time.



UniqueGeek said:


> If God made the universe, then everything else is simple.  Don't try to overthink it.


Considering that the idea of a god creating the universe doesn't actually have any explanatory power (i.e. "Why does God exist? Why is his nature one that would cause him to create the universe?"), everything else is _not _simple. More importantly, there's no reason to think a god exists or did anything.



UniqueGeek said:


> What do they believe caused everything?


Absence of an explanation is never evidence for another answer. Saying "I don't know" isn't a bad thing. We don't need to offer an alternative explanation in order for atheism to be the only logically justified position. However, I've referred to a previous post where I outlined several possibilities on the origin of the universe, but you seem to have ignored it each time I've referred to it.



UniqueGeek said:


> I did say it wasn't hard evidence; however, all together, I believe that it's enough to make a leap of faith.


I agree with you that the amount of evidence for a god is enough to make a leap of faith, as defined as belief without reason. There is no evidence for a god's existence, and I cannot see any reason aside from faith for belief.


----------



## MsMidnight (Jul 1, 2016)

I do not believe in god for my own reasons. They say heaven is up in the sky and we've been in space with no sign of them. Plus some parts of the bible is somewhat outdated. If God hates gays, why does he make them look so good ?


plus it lets me enjoy my sundays


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> plus it lets me enjoy my sundays



#1 reason. Not to mention that literally no church has A/C, which is hell (heh) in summer.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> We're all monkeys.


Humans are more closely related to apes, not monkeys.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Humans are more closely related to apes, not monkeys.



If we're being pedantic, the closest relative DNA-wise is the chimpanzee.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

I'm pretty sure there's some kind of intelligent energy in the universe, the beginning of everything, the big bang or any theory out there, I can't just accept that everything that now exists was created by random events, it's just not viable enough for me so I'm pretty sure that any kind of manifestation of god in history is just consequences of this energy on earth, it makes a lot of sense for me to think that people would have felt more comfortable giving this thing a human face, worship it and well, why not writing a book about it as well.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Jul 1, 2016)

I believe Digimons exist. 
Yes,  yes,  I truly do. Why are you laughing ? You can't prove me wrong,  can you ? So please respect my right to annoy the world with it. 

The question would have been far more interesting if it would have been something along the lines of "What do you believe in ?" since "God" is only one of the many myths people believe in. 

I do like the idea of something after death, I like the idea that evolution wasn't completely natural/random. Still, Im not naive, I have no way of knowing for sure, nor will i ever do,  nor will any of us. 

 What I don't understand is how can people still believe in whats written in some books to the point of expecting everyone to act like them,  in the name of their myth, and sometimes killing for it. Science proved you wrong. You know it,  you know "you can't prove me wrong" is a weak defense that don't even make sense anymore.
Now I am perfectly fine with people who live their religion as a way of life, and a guide to behave in society (although I would not agree with everything) but you can't just seriously and honestly and with decent education still believe that God created men out of nowhere, and that because of that you can give us any lesson. 

Try to think of the big picture with a minimum of neutrality. You believe in heaven/hell because you've been told it was a thing, and your parents (or friends or whoever you hang out with) were told as well,  and so were their parents. Science can be explained,  today,  tomorrow,  in 100 years,  a proof can always be provided to you, that's the difference between a myth and reality. 

Again,  it is your choice to follow this guide in your life,  but there's literally no reason why everyone else should have to deal with that. Don't want to believe in my digimons ? don't ask me to give credit to your book. 

PS:I got the digimon idea from a post from. somethingawful,  I don't actually believe in that xD.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> If we're being pedantic, the closest relative DNA-wise is the chimpanzee.


Yes, and chimps are apes.


----------



## Amani (Jul 1, 2016)

Yes.


----------



## MsMidnight (Jul 1, 2016)

anakinvm said:


> I'm pretty sure there's some kind of inteligent energy in the universe, the beggining of everything, the big bang or any theory out there, I can't just accept that everything that now exists was created by random events, it's just not viable enough for me so I'm pretty sure that any kind of manifestation of god in history is just consequences of this energy on earth, it makes a lot of sense for me to think that people would have felt more comfortable giving this thing a human face, worship it and well, why not writing a book about it as well.


you should assume that though. a apple randomly fell on Isaac Newton's head leading to the discovery of gravity. Many random events led to important events


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Yes, and chimps are apes.



Part of the _Hominidae_ family, specifically. Is this really worth arguing over?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> Part of the _Hominidae_ family, specifically. Is this really worth arguing over?


No, because the Hominidae family is the family of great apes. I'm not sure where the disagreement is.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> you should assume that though. a apple randomly fell on Isaac Newton's head leading to the discovery of gravity. Many random events led to important events


That's true but this random event led to the discovery of gravity, not the creation of it, and that's mainly the point in my opinion about god.

I can accept the fact that random events can eventually lead to the creation of things too but it is just hard for me to believe that this can apply to something so massive and perfect as the universe or life itself.


----------



## MsMidnight (Jul 1, 2016)

anakinvm said:


> That's true but this random event led to the discovery of gravity, not the creation of it, and that's mainly the point in my opinion about god.


well we started from bacteria. Dunno how that started


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No, because the Hominidae family is the family of great apes. I'm not sure where the disagreement is.



I'm not really sure either. It seemed like you were pointing out a flaw in my argument or something. I'm just as confused as you. 



anakinvm said:


> That's true but this random event led to the discovery of gravity, not the creation of it, and that's mainly the point in my opinion about god.



And the problem with god is that there's no proof he even exists. Gravity does exist, and I've dropped objects on my toes too many times because of it.



MsMidnight said:


> we'll we started from bacteria. Dunno how that started



Mitosis?


----------



## Seriel (Jul 1, 2016)

Well this is a complicated question.
But i'm gonna go with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
^Thaaaaat's me.


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 1, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> we'll we started from bacteria. Dunno how that started


Aliens
Or we started from a "make your own bacteria kit"


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> And the problem with god is that there's no proof he even exists. Gravity does exist, and I've dropped objects on my toes too many times because of it.


I can't really answer the main question anyway, I don't believe in god as people describe him but I do think it's pretty possible that something intelligent and powerful can exist as I said in my previous post.


----------



## MsMidnight (Jul 1, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> Aliens
> Or we started from a "make your own bacteria kit"


please understand™


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 1, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> please understand™


When you accidentally mix the wrong ingrediants and you create an entire species


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

Jackus said:


> Well this is a complicated question.
> But i'm gonna go with this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> ^Thaaaaat's me.


I'm curious why people identify just as agnostic when it's an entirely different issue. With regard to belief in a god, one is either an atheist or a theist. The topic of belief is separate from the topic of knowledge. With regard to knowledge that a god exists, one is either a gnostic or an agnostic. For example, a Christian can believe in a god and claim to know for sure that a god exists; that would make him or her a gnostic theist. A Christian can believe a god exists but acknowledge that he or she doesn't know for sure; he or she would be an agnostic theist. Many, if not most, atheists lack the belief in a god but acknowledge that they don't know for sure that no gods exist; they would be agnostic atheists. Some atheists, depending on the definition of the god, don't believe a god exists and also claim to know for certain that no gods exist; that would make them gnostic atheists. I personally don't believe in any gods, but I also don't claim to know for sure that a broad definition of god doesn't exist, so I am also an agnostic atheist.


----------



## MsMidnight (Jul 1, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> When you accidentally mix the wrong ingrediants and you create an entire species


*cough*PowerPuff Girls*cough*


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm curious why people identify just as agnostic when it's an entirely different issue. With regard to belief in a god, one is either an atheist or a theist. The topic of belief is separate from the topic of knowledge. With regard to knowledge that a god exists, one is either a gnostic or an agnostic. For example, a Christian can believe in a god and claim to know for sure that a god exists; that would make him or her a gnostic theist. A Christian can believe a god exists but acknowledge that he or she doesn't know for sure; he or she would be an agnostic theist. Many, if not most, atheists lack the belief in a god but acknowledge that they don't know for sure that no gods exist; they would be agnostic atheists. Some atheists, depending on the definition of the god, don't believe a god exists and also claim to know for certain that no gods exist; that would make them gnostic atheists. I personally don't believe in any gods, but I also don't claim to know for sure that a broad definition of god doesn't exist, so I am also an agnostic atheist.



It's just a philosophical difference. Agnosticism is literally weak Athesism, but the general principle is different in that one reserves judgement. tl;dr no difference, just different names for the same thing.



Justinde75 said:


> When you accidentally mix the wrong ingrediants and you create an entire species



Sugar, spice and everything nice plus a secret ingredient...



anakinvm said:


> I can't really answer the main question anyway, I don't believe in god as people describe him but I do think is pretty possible that something intelligent and powerful can exist as I said in my previous post.



Correction - there's no proof that some omnipotent force exists, whether you call that god or not. Your whole energy spiel is also ignoring Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass.


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 1, 2016)

MsMidnight said:


> *cough*PowerPuff Girls*cough*


Ohhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> Correction - there's no proof that some omnipotent force exists, whether you call that god or not. Your whole energy spiel is also ignoring Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass.



I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about what we can't explain, I'm not trying to prove that what I think is absolutely correct anyway, thermodynamics and conservation of mass could have been completely different if things happened some other way, but no, everything happened so things are the way they're now, and you're using that as proof, which is totally ok.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> It's just a philosophical difference. Agnosticism is literally weak Athesism, but the general principle is different in that one reserves judgement. tl;dr no difference, just different names for the same thing.


When a person cannot answer _yes_ to the question, "Do you believe one or more gods exist?" that's atheism by definition. I find that agnostics typically cannot answer yes to the question, and the use of the word _agnostic_ instead of _atheist_ is just an effort to save face due to the negative connotations of the word _atheist_.



chaoskagami said:


> Correction - there's no proof that some omnipotent force exists, whether you call that god or not. Your whole energy spiel is also ignoring Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass.


How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass? These laws refer to the pre-existing matter and energy in a closed system and not necessarily the formation of the system itself (i.e. the universe).



anakinvm said:


> I'm not talking about proof, I'm talking about what we can't explain, I'm not trying to prove that what I think is absolutely correct anyway, thermodynamics and conservation of mass could have been completely different if things happened some other way, but no, everything happened so things are the way they're now, and you're using that as proof, which is totally ok.


Absence of an explanation is never evidence for something else. Hindsight pronouncements of improbability don't actually demonstrate improbability either.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Absence of an explanation is never evidence for something else. Hindsight pronouncements of improbability don't actually demonstrate improbability either.



I agree, I'm just not trying to prove something, I'm just speculating about god so absence of proof is valid for me in this case.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

anakinvm said:


> I agree, I'm just not trying to prove something, I'm just speculating about god so absence of proof is valid for me in this case.


If you care if your beliefs are true, you require sound reason and evidence for your beliefs.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> When a person cannot answer _yes_ to the question, "Do you believe one or more gods exist?" that's atheism by definition. I find that agnostics typically cannot answer yes to the question, and the use of the word _agnostic_ instead of _atheist_ is just an effort to save face due to the negative connotations of the word _atheist_.



If we analyze the roots of the words, yes, they're literally identical. It's a less offensive term in terms of connotations.



> How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass? These laws refer to the pre-existing matter and energy in a closed system and not necessarily the formation of the system itself (i.e. the universe).



I may have made a jump in assumptions here. The way it read along with the username containing 'anakin' may have triggered me. That was a straw man argument, sorry.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you care if your beliefs are true, you require sound reason and evidence for your beliefs.



I don't care, I have better things to think about than god, I just wanted to talk about what I think could be possible.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2016)

anakinvm said:


> I don't care, I have better things to think about than god, I just wanted to talk about what I think could be possible.


You made a claim about what you think is, not just what you think is possible.


----------



## Deleted member 129634 (Jul 1, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> I may have made a jump in assumptions here. The way it read along with the username containing 'anakin' may have triggered me. That was a straw man argument, sorry.



Well I believe there might be planets like tatooine somewhere.



Lacius said:


> You made a claim about what you think is, not just what you think is possible.



My bad.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 2, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> While God has all the power in the universe (and probably more, but I can't really comment on this since I've never been outside the universe), there are some things He cannot do.  He cannot act against His own nature, so questions like "can God make a stone so big he can't hold it" are invalid.
> 
> 
> The rule forbids _murder_.  It is distinct from killing because murder is killing without justification.  This is why it's justified to kill certain criminals without becoming murderers ourselves.
> ...


read the books man, they kill just without reason whole nations for religion... not criminals... what rock were you under?


----------



## mashers (Jul 2, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> If we analyze the roots of the words, yes, they're literally identical.


No they're not. 'Atheism' comes from the Greek 'atheos' which in turn comes from 'a-' (without), and 'theos' (god). It means that you believe there is no god. 'Agnostic' comes from the Greek 'a-' (without) and 'gnostic' (knowledge) and specifically means the believe that we cannot know whether god exists or anything about him/her/it.



chaoskagami said:


> It's a less offensive term in terms of connotations.


'Agnostic' is not just a 'watered down' version of 'atheist'. If you ask someone if they believe in god, this is not a binary question. A religious person would answer 'yes', an atheist would say 'no', _but an agnostic would say 'I don't know'. _The word agnostic literally means 'lack of knowledge' which is completely different to someone saying 'I know for sure that there isn't a god'.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 2, 2016)

mashers said:


> No they're not. 'Atheism' comes from the Greek 'atheos' which in turn comes from 'a-' (without), and 'theos' (god). It means that you believe there is no god. 'Agnostic' comes from the Greek 'a-' (without) and 'gnostic' (knowledge) and specifically means the believe that we cannot know whether god exists or anything about him/her/it.



The greek word for knowledge, but in this context is derived from a class of religious studies. The meaning of -theist and -gnostic is functionally identical. Both refer to the concept of some 'outer' knowlege or existence. If 'agnostic' was intended to be read at face value without subtext in terms of word origin, it wouldn't mean what it does.



> 'Agnostic' is not just a 'watered down' version of 'atheist'. If you ask someone if they believe in god, this is not a binary question. A religious person would answer 'yes', an atheist would say 'no', _but an agnostic would say 'I don't know'. _The word agnostic literally means 'lack of knowledge' which is completely different to someone saying 'I know for sure that there isn't a god'.



If we're going by word definitions, "atheist" - Not of, or relating to the theistic - atheism includes everything outside of 'yes'. This is one of those things scholars have been debating for a while, actually.


----------



## spacelaser (Jul 2, 2016)

Everyone is an agnostic they just wont admit it.


----------



## mashers (Jul 2, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> The greek word for knowledge, but in this context is derived from a class of religious studies. The meaning of -theist and -gnostic is functionally identical. Both refer to the concept of some 'outer' knowlege or existence. If 'agnostic' was intended to be read at face value without subtext in terms of word origin, it wouldn't mean what it does.


Can you provide a reference for this? Every definition I have found of 'agnostic' refers to the belief that we cannot know about the existence of god. This is very different to the definition of atheism.



chaoskagami said:


> If we're going by word definitions, "atheist" - Not of, or relating to the theistic - atheism includes everything outside of 'yes'. This is one of those things scholars have been debating for a while, actually.


Well, the OED defines 'atheism' as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." In turn, it defines 'disbelief' as "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". This is not the same thing as an admission that we cannot know one way or another.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 2, 2016)

mashers said:


> Well, the OED defines 'atheism' as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." In turn, it defines 'disbelief' as "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real". This is not the same thing as an admission that we cannot know one way or another.



I don't have a copy of the OED at the moment, so you'll have to forgive me for using the poor man's dictionary (dictionary.com)

'Inability' is the key word. 'lack of ability; lack of power, capacity, or means'

'Belief' is defined as 'confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof'

Therefore, we can expand the definition of atheism as such with 'inability' to get a subset of the definition: 'Lack of ability, power, means, or capacity to have confidence in the truth or existence of God or gods without immediate rigorous proof.'

The important point when you expand as such is 'Confidence' - 'full trust'.

This subset of atheism's definition sounds suspisciously like Agnosticism, in the whole impossible to know either way facet. This specific subset also never says it doesn't believe in god, either. Does that make sense? It's more a game of semantics than anything.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2016)

mashers said:


> No they're not. 'Atheism' comes from the Greek 'atheos' which in turn comes from 'a-' (without), and 'theos' (god). It means that you believe there is no god. 'Agnostic' comes from the Greek 'a-' (without) and 'gnostic' (knowledge) and specifically means the believe that we cannot know whether god exists or anything about him/her/it.
> 
> 
> 'Agnostic' is not just a 'watered down' version of 'atheist'. If you ask someone if they believe in god, this is not a binary question. A religious person would answer 'yes', an atheist would say 'no', _but an agnostic would say 'I don't know'. _The word agnostic literally means 'lack of knowledge' which is completely different to someone saying 'I know for sure that there isn't a god'.


Asking someone is he or she believes in god(s) is a binary question, actually. A true dichotomy exists when the options are _X_ and _not-X_. In the case of whether or not a person believes god(s) exist, the only possible answers are _yes_ and _not-yes_. There are no other possible answers. It is atheism if a person cannot answer _yes_ to the question, "Do you believe one or more gods exist?"

If a person answers "I don't know if god(s) exists" to the above question, then he or she has actually answered a different question, and I would respond, "I asked what you believed, not what you knew." Agnosticism deals with the question of knowledge, not the question of belief. When a person tells me he or she doesn't know if god(s) exist, he or she hasn't actually told me if he or she believes in god(s). Typically, an agnostic cannot answer yes to the question and is also an atheist. I discussed this at length in a previous post:



Lacius said:


> I'm curious why people identify just as agnostic when it's an entirely different issue. With regard to belief in a god, one is either an atheist or a theist. The topic of belief is separate from the topic of knowledge. With regard to knowledge that a god exists, one is either a gnostic or an agnostic. For example, a Christian can believe in a god and claim to know for sure that a god exists; that would make him or her a gnostic theist. A Christian can believe a god exists but acknowledge that he or she doesn't know for sure; he or she would be an agnostic theist. Many, if not most, atheists lack the belief in a god but acknowledge that they don't know for sure that no gods exist; they would be agnostic atheists. Some atheists, depending on the definition of the god, don't believe a god exists and also claim to know for certain that no gods exist; that would make them gnostic atheists. I personally don't believe in any gods, but I also don't claim to know for sure that a broad definition of god doesn't exist, so I am also an agnostic atheist.


----------



## spacelaser (Jul 2, 2016)

So there is no difference between knowing something doesn't exist vs. knowing its impossible to know whether something does or doesn't exist?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2016)

spacelaser said:


> So there is no difference between knowing something doesn't exist vs. knowing its impossible to know whether something does or doesn't exist?


There is of course a difference between knowing X doesn't exist, and knowing it's impossible to know whether or not X exists. The former would be gnostic, and the latter would be agnostic.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 2, 2016)

I don't believe in the existence of the biblic god, I absolutely do not.

I can't say if God exists though. I have no proof to back up his existence/nonexistence .

Which is why I'm a strong agnostic rather than atheist.

One thing I'll say though - I find the biblic God nonsensical, and absolute bullshit. For most religions.
If anything, God is a being that does not care for us at all, assuming God exists. And, I can't blame that hypothetical God for it, can I? We'd be but ants at its eyes.


Finally - If I had to take a guess, gamble, etc. I'd bet no, God does not exist.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> I don't believe in the existence of the biblic god, I absolutely do not.
> 
> I can't say if God exists though. I have no proof to back up his existence/nonexistence .
> 
> ...


You should see my post at the top of the page regarding atheism vs. agnosticism.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You should see my post at the top of the page regarding atheism vs. agnosticism.


"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[13]"

— Thomas Henry Huxley

Generally, atheists do not believe in God. I, can't say I do not believe in God. Nor can I say I believe in it.

As far as my understanding goes, there are three options when faced with the question "Do you believe in God?". "Yes", "No", and "I don't know/I can't answer that question".  

I don't know if I believe in God, but I don't know if I don't, and I can't answer it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[13]"
> 
> — Thomas Henry Huxley
> 
> ...


If you had read my post, you would have seen the part about how dichotomies work. To believe or not-believe are the only two options regarding the question of belief. A failure to accept a claim as true is failure to accept a claim as true, by definition.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If you had read my post, you would have seen the part about how dichotomies work. To believe or not-believe are the only two options regarding the question of belief. A failure to accept a claim as true is failure to accept a claim as true, by definition.



Still, I refuse to answer "No" to a question I can't answer. I don't "not-believe", but I don't "believe" either. I simply stop. Let's say my brain throws an exception. I can't fully understand the question. I stop. I don't "not-believe". I don't "believe". Fuck. You're making my brain try to find an answer for the question, and it's too much for it to handle. x.x



































Essentially: Fuck this shit, the more I think about it, the more my head hurts.



Honestly, if you only give me those two options, and I absolutely have to answer, or you'll kill me, I'd probably kill myself so I don't have to choose.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 2, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> I don't "not-believe", but I don't "believe" either.


I will let the contradiction in this statement speak for itself.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 2, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I will let the contradiction in this statement speak for itself.


I'm aware of that. In regards to this matter, I contradict myself, and I won't change it. No matter how stupid it may sound or be.


----------



## GhostLatte (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> Aliens
> Or we started from a "make your own bacteria kit"


Where did God come from? He just popped out of nowhere?


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 3, 2016)

Cherry Pie said:


> Where did God come from? He just popped out of nowhere?


He didn't come from anywhere, since he doesn't exist.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> He didn't come from anywhere, since he doesn't exist.


Prove it.


----------



## WilliamLC (Jul 3, 2016)

I don't believe in "God", at least not in the traditional sense. I believe that there are many greater powers out there, some of which might even take some interest in our little wet rock. However, the way many people see god, as a loving being who created us and genuinely cares for us, just simply cannot be true to me. So many atrocities have been allowed to happen throughout history that I don't think such a being would allow. So, the way I see it, the "gods" either simply do not care/have no interest in us or use us as a form of entertainment, like one big global reality show. Either way, they sure as heck aren't doing us any favors.


----------



## Justinde75 (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> Prove it.


Prove that he exists


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Justinde75 said:


> Prove that he exists


I cannot, just as you cannot. Saying "I believe God does not exist is one thing", it is giving your opinion/belief on the matter. Saying "God does not exist" is something you cannot say, as it is not backed up by any facts.


I personally do not know if there is any god, but - without doubt, you cannot say "god exists" or "god does not exist".


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

@chaoskagami and @Lacius 

I believe there is a big difference between 'believing that something definitely does not exist' and 'not knowing whether you believe it exists or not'. One means 'no', and the other means 'I don't know'. Consider a more factual situation: without using a calculator or working it out by hand, tell me if the square root of 15,544,104,976 is 124,676. If you don't know already what the answer is, then you'll have to answer 'I don't know'. You're not telling me that it isn't, but that you don't have sufficient knowledge to tell me one way or another.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

The crux of my point is that Agnosticsm is answering 'I don't care' or 'insufficent data' to the question because there's no way to make a conclusion for true or false. You don't make an incomplete argument for or against and say 'agree with me'. That's like trying to say 'I know X+Y*Z is 5' when X, Y, and Z aren't defined.

And that's not even getting into the nature of whatever this so-called being is if it does exist.


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> The crux of my point is that Agnosticsm is answering 'I don't care' or 'insufficent data' to the question because there's no way to make a conclusion for true or false. You don't make an incomplete argument for or against and say 'agree with me'. That's like trying to say 'I know X+Y*Z is 5' when X, Y, and Z aren't defined.


Actually I think saying whether or not god exists is more akin to saying 'I know X+Y*Z is 5' when X, Y, and Z aren't defined'; a 'yes' or 'no' answer implies that you have some evidence one way or another and use that to come to your answer. An agnostic answer to that question would be, 'I don't know the result of X+Y*Z because I don't know the values of X+Y*Z, and unless someone proves to me what their values are then I can never know the result of that equation'.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> Actually I think saying whether or not god exists is more akin to saying 'I know X+Y*Z is 5' when X, Y, and Z aren't defined'; a 'yes' or 'no' answer implies that you have some evidence one way or another and use that to come to your answer. An agnostic answer to that question would be, 'I don't know the result of X+Y*Z because I don't know the values of X+Y*Z, and unless someone proves to me what their values are then I can never know the result of that equation'.



You explained it perfectly, thanks for correcting. That's what I meant. 

It's kind of like a mental segfault. There's not enough evidence one way or another to come to a conclusion for or against the concept. 

t might be more accurate to say we don't even know the equation to solve for.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> It's kind of like a mental segfault.





gnmmarechal said:


> Let's say my brain throws an exception.




It was pretty much what I meant lol


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Technically faith is one of the (6?) ways of knowing. You can know god exists through faith and therefore not he agnostic or know he doesn't through faith and not be agnostic. That doesn't mean you're right though.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> @chaoskagami and @Lacius
> 
> I believe there is a big difference between 'believing that something definitely does not exist' and 'not knowing whether you believe it exists or not'. One means 'no', and the other means 'I don't know'. Consider a more factual situation: without using a calculator or working it out by hand, tell me if the square root of 15,544,104,976 is 124,676. If you don't know already what the answer is, then you'll have to answer 'I don't know'. You're not telling me that it isn't, but that you don't have sufficient knowledge to tell me one way or another.


I agree with everything you just said. However, believing that something definitely does not exist is not the same thing as saying you don't believe something exists. Let's use an analogy similar to yours. I just flipped a coin and covered the result with my hand. Nobody has seen the result. We will call the belief that the coin landed heads _theism_. If I ask, "Do you believe the coin landed heads?" the correct answer is _no_, since you have no reason to think it actually landed heads. In this example, that would be _atheism_. That does not mean you believe it is not heads, and it definitely doesn't mean you know for a fact that it's not heads. You can still acknowledge that the odds of it being heads are 50%. In this example, that would be _agnostic atheism_; the two terms are never mutually exclusive, since they deal with different questions.

As I've said numerous times before, saying one is _agnostic_ does not answer the question of whether or not that person believes a god exists; it only tells me that the person doesn't know if a god exists, and a person can believe or not believe regardless of whether or not he or she claims knowledge.



bi388 said:


> Technically faith is one of the (6?) ways of knowing. You can know god exists through faith and therefore not he agnostic or know he doesn't through faith and not be agnostic. That doesn't mean you're right though.


Faith is, demonstrably, not viable way to discern between fact and fiction. While one can cite faith is his or her 'reason' for belief, since a person can believe for good or bad reasons, it is not a justification for knowledge, and a person cannot claim to know something on the basis of faith. That's not what knowledge is.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I agree with everything you just said. However, believing that something definitely does not exist is not the same thing as saying you don't believe something exists. Let's use an analogy. I just flipped a coin and covered the result with my hand. Nobody has seen the result. We will call the belief that the coin landed heads _theism_. If I ask, "Do you believe the coin landed heads?" the correct answer is _no_, since you have no reason to think it actually landed heads. In this example, that would be _atheism_. That does not mean you believe it is not heads, and it definitely doesn't mean you know for a fact that it's not heads. You can still acknowledge that the odds of it being heads are 50%. In this example, that would be _agnostic atheism_; the two terms are never mutually exclusive, since they deal with different questions.
> 
> As I've said numerous times before, saying one is _agnostic_ does not answer the question of whether or not that person believes a god exists; it only tells me that the person doesn't know if a god exists, and a person can believe or not believe regardless of whether or not he or she claims knowledge.


However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.


"I don't know if a god exists" does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" because "I don't know if a god exists" answers the question "Do you know if a god exists?" Knowledge is a subsection of belief.

I agree with you completely regarding your point about not-true statements; in fact, it's my point entirely. Since this is a true dichotomy, there are only two possible answers to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" and those answers are _yes_ and _not-yes_. If you had read my post above, you would have seen my explanation about how failure to accept a claim does not necessarily mean a person accepts the claim is false.

Edit: As for the answer "I don't know if I believe a god exists," that's not agnosticism. "I don't know if a god exists" is agnosticism. It is, at least for at time, still a failure to answer _yes_ to the question "Do you believe a god exists?"


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> "I don't know if a god exists" does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" because "I don't know if a god exists" answers the question "Do you know if a god exists?" Knowledge is a subsection of belief.
> 
> I agree with you completely regarding your point about not-true statements; in fact, it's my point entirely. Since this is a true dichotomy, there are only two possible answers to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" and those answers are _yes_ and _not-yes_. If you had read my post above, you would have seen my explanation about how failure to accept a claim does not necessarily mean a person accepts the claim is false.


I did read it. However, I refuse to merge False and Not-True. Also, "I don't know if I believe in God" does answer the question.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> I did read it. However, I refuse to merge False and Not-True. Also, "I don't know if I believe in God" does answer the question.


I also refuse to merge false and not-true.

And as I said in my edit, "I don't know if I believe in a god" does indeed answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" The answer is still _not-yes_.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I also refuse to merge false and not-true.
> 
> And as I said in my edit, "I don't know if I believe in a god" does indeed answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?" The answer is still _not-yes_.



How hard is it to accept 'insufficient data at this point in time to draw a conclusion' as a valid answer? It isn't a third answer, it's abstaining from an answer.

I feel like this is the halting problem in CS.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Faith is, demonstrably, not viable way to discern between fact and fiction. While one can cite faith is his or her 'reason' for belief, since a person can believe for good or bad reasons, it is not a justification for knowledge, and a person cannot claim to know something on the basis of faith. That's not what knowledge is.


I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.


That's... not something I can agree with. I can't accept faith as knowledge.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> How hard is it to accept 'insufficient data at this point in time to draw a conclusion' as a valid answer? It isn't a third answer, it's abstaining from an answer.
> 
> I feel like this is the halting problem in CS.


I think you need to reread my post on how dichotomies work, because I agree that is a valid answer. Not answering _yes_ is still, by definition, not answering _yes_. When _atheism_ is defined as _not answering yes_, then _insufficient data to say yes_ is still atheism. A person who has never even heard of the god concept is still an atheist until he or she a.) becomes aware of the concept, and b.) accepts it as true.



bi388 said:


> I agree faith is not a way to discern fact from fiction. However you can know something from faith. Back when I was in high school I was in the International Bachelorette program which is a large worldwide college level curriculum and in it we had to take a philosophy class. In it we (and everyone else in this program across the world) learned that faith is one of the ways of knowing. Doesn't make you right but the idea of knowledge isn't as simple as "I have proof of something so I know it." People will believe things for various reasons some of which don't make sense.


No, you cannot know something from faith. Faith can (as a bad reason) lead to belief, presupposition, etc., but it cannot lead to knowledge. By definition, knowledge requires justification, and faith is, by definition, a lack of justification.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> That's... not something I can agree with. I can't accept faith as knowledge.





Lacius said:


> No, you cannot know something from faith. Faith can (as a bad reason) lead to belief, presupposition, etc., but it cannot lead to knowledge. By definition, knowledge requires justification, and faith is, by definition, a lack of justification.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.


Not by me, and possibly by many others.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge_(IB_course) faith is one of the accepted ways of knowing.


Then they're redefining _faith_, _knowledge_, or both. A common colloquial definition of _faith_ that comes up a lot in these conversations is _confidence or trust_ that isn't necessarily without justification. When we're defining _faith_ as _belief without sound reason_, which is almost always the definition in a religious context, then it cannot be a source of knowledge.


----------



## TeamScriptKiddies (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> However, why do you insist on there being only two answers? "I don't know" is a valid answer. "I don't know", not as in "I don't know if God exists"; but as in "I don't know if I believe in God". What about that? A not-true statement is not false given there are three options (True, False, and Not-True). While False is Not-True, Not-True isn't necessarily False.


Where inside a computer simulation, only true and false statements are valid, your gbatemp has executed an illegal instruction and must close......

Lol in all seriousness, I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded. IDC what others believe as long as they don't harm themselves or others in th name if their beliefs. That's just plain messed up


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Then they're redefining _faith_, _knowledge_, or both. A common colloquial definition of _faith_ that comes up a lot in these conversations is _confidence or trust_ that isn't necessarily without justification. When we're defining _faith_ as _belief without sound reason_, which is almost always the definition in a religious context, then it cannot be a source of knowledge.


No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

TeamScriptKiddies said:


> I'm a Christian but I'm very open minded. IDC what others believe as long as they don't harm themselves or others in th name if their beliefs. That's just plain messed up


There, we can agree.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



bi388 said:


> No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.


No, they don't know it. Because they won't have the practical understanding or education of the subject if said faith is wrong.
_
Believing_ that something is true it completely different than _knowing_ something is true.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> No they arent. Someone can know their faith is true and be wrong but still know it. The definition of knowledge is "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject" and a religious person can have education or practical understanding and therefore know.


This isn't a matter of whether or not the knowledge is _actually_ true of reality; it's a matter of whether or not it's knowledge. In epistemology, _knowledge_ is defined as _justified true belief_. Colloquial definitions often get in the way of these types of discussions, and it's important we agree what words mean before we can have these kinds of discussions.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> No, they don't know it. Because they won't have the practical understanding or education of the subject if said faith is wrong.
> _
> Believing_ that something is true it completely different than _knowing_ something is true.





Lacius said:


> This isn't a matter of whether or not the knowledge is _actually_ true of reality; it's a matter of whether or not it's knowledge. In epistemology, _knowledge_ is defined as _justified true belief_. Colloquial definitions often get in the way of these types of discussions, and it's important we agree what words mean before we can have these kinds of discussions.


I'm citing sources of people who write world wide college level class curriculums and you're just telling me they're wrong without giving any sources.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> I'm citing sources of people who write world wide college level class curriculums and you're just telling me they're wrong without giving any sources.



So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?

I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?
> 
> I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.


No, you can know gravity doesn't exist but you would be wrong


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?
> 
> I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.


That's because you believe in gravity. Those who don't flew from the Earth, u skrub /s


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> I'm citing sources of people who write world wide college level class curriculums and you're just telling me they're wrong without giving any sources.


As I've already mentioned, there's difference between the colloquial definition of _knowledge_ and the epistemological definition of _knowledge_. There's also a difference between the colloquial definition of _faith_ and the epistemological definition of _faith_.

You have not _cited sources_; you've given me a link to a Wikipedia article that also doesn't tell me which definitions of these words your _sources_ are using, so we cannot even assess your _source_ for whether or not it contradicts anything said in this thread.

Edit: Here's the first Google result I just found. I don't know why I had to do it for you: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html


> _Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of particular aspects of reality. It is the clear, lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality. The traditional approach is that knowledge requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that knowledge can then be defined as "justified true belief."_


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> As I've already mentioned, there's difference between the colloquial definition of _knowledge_ and the epistemological definition of _knowledge_. There's also a difference between the colloquial definition of _faith_ and the epistemological definition of _faith_.
> 
> You have not _cited sources_; you've given me a link to a Wikipedia article that also doesn't tell me which definitions of these words your _sources_ are using, so we cannot even assess your _source_ for whether or not it contradicts anything said in this thread.
> 
> Edit: Here's the first Google result I just found. I don't know why I had to do it for you: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_epistemology.html


Do you know that World War 1 happened?


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Do you know that World War 1 happened?



Unrelated to the topic at hand. Red herring.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> Unrelated to the topic at hand. Red herring.


Lol no. This is very related. You weren't there for ww1. If you believe in it you are using faith (in addition to logic)


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Do you know that World War 1 happened?





bi388 said:


> Lol no. This is very related. You weren't there for ww1. If you believe in it you are using faith (in addition to logic)


I do believe and know that World War I happened. It's justified true belief through *reason* and *evidence*, which means it's not faith as defined as _belief without sound reason and evidence_. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no reason to believe something. I do not need to have witnessed something to have justification for a belief. For example, it takes longer for Pluto to orbit the sun than we've known about its existence, but that doesn't mean I can't know how long it takes for Pluto to orbit the sun. I have reason and evidence.

Also, don't follow-up by conflating _knowledge _or_ maximal knowledge_ with _absolute knowledge_. I predict that's coming.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Lol no. This is very related. You weren't there for ww1. If you believe in it you are using faith (in addition to logic)



Uh...no.

@Lacius, help.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Thank god (or not, heh) for the voice of reason here.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I do believe and know that World War I happened. It's justified true belief through *reason* and *evidence*, which means it's not faith as defined as _belief without sound reason and evidence_. Faith is the excuse people give when they have no reason to believe something. I do not need to have witnessed something to have justification for a belief. For example, it takes longer for Pluto to orbit the sun than we've known about its existence, but that doesn't mean I can't know how long it takes for Pluto to orbit the sun. I have reason and evidence.
> 
> Also, don't follow-up by conflating _knowledge _or_ maximal knowledge_ with _absolute knowledge_. I predict that's coming.


Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
I don't know where you're getting the "without reason" thing


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
> I don't know where you're getting the "without reason" thing



"without needing justification even if contrary to evidence"

Specifically, since the definition does NOT mention evidence, faith does not require it. Facts do. And without evidence, faith != fact


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> "without needing justification even if contrary to evidence"


Yes without needing to. Which is different from saying that it needs to not have evidence to qualify. I think that a world wide major teaching organization probably knows more on this than the average member of a hacking website so I'll let that speak for itself.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

bi388 said:


> Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
> I don't know where you're getting the "without reason" thing


See my many previous posts where I contrasted the colloquial definition of _faith_ with the epistemological and religious definitions of _faith_. I also defined _faith_ numerous times in direct response to your posts.

When I talk about faith, I am talking about it when it's used *solely* as a person's justification for religious belief (i.e. "I believe in God because of faith"). To use the colloquial definition of _confidence or trust_ is irrelevant to the conversation. I've outlined numerous times why.


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> "I don't know if a god exists" does not answer the question "Do you believe a god exists?"


Well that's exactly the point of agnosticism. You can't force someone to make a yes/no decision about something they don't feel able to answer by assuming that "I don't know" means 'no'. I understand that you're saying "I don't know whether god exists" is similar in meaning to "I do not have a belief that god does exist". However, to take the latter as equal to an atheist's definite belief that there is no god is missing a crucial part of the agnostic viewpoint:

Atheist: "I actively believe that there is no god. There is no alternative to this."
Agnostic: "I do not have a belief one way or another about whether or not there is a god. There either may be a god, or may not be a god, but I do not have sufficient evidence to decide either way."


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> See my many previous posts where I contrasted the colloquial definition of _faith_ with the epistemological and religious definitions of _faith_. I also defined _faith_ numerous times in direct response to your posts.
> 
> When I talk about faith, I am talking about it when it's used *solely* as a person's justification for religious belief (i.e. "I believe in God because of faith"). To use the colloquial definition of _confidence or trust_ is irrelevant to the conversation. I've outlined numerous times why.


Maybe if youre using a different definition you should have started an argument with me when what I said is correct using my definition?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> Well that's exactly the point of agnosticism. You can't force someone to make a yes/no decision about something they don't feel able to answer by assuming that "I don't know" means 'no'. I understand that you're saying "I don't know whether god exists" is similar in meaning to "I do not have a belief that god does exist". However, to take the latter as equal to an atheist's definite belief that there is no god is missing a crucial part of the agnostic viewpoint:
> 
> Atheist: "I actively believe that there is no god. There is no alternative to this."
> Agnostic: "I do not have a belief one way or another about whether or not there is a god. There either may be a god, or may not be a god, but I do not have sufficient evidence to decide either way."


Good, we've found the problem. That is not the definition of _atheism_. _Atheism_ is the lack of belief in a god, not necessarily the active belief that there is no god.



bi388 said:


> Maybe if youre using a different definition you should have started an argument with me when what I said is correct using my definition?


You're not reading my posts, because I acknowledged almost immediately that the use of the word _faith_ using the definition _confidence or trust_ does not necessarily mean without reason/evidence, and I explained that it's the epistemological and religious definition of _faith_ that isn't a source of knowledge.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Good, we've found the problem. That is not the definition of _atheism_. _Atheism_ is the lack of belief in a god, not necessarily the active belief that there is no god.


What if I believe I lack lacking the belief in addition to that?

*mind blown*


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Good, we've found the problem. That is not the definition of _atheism_. _Atheism_ is the lack of belief in a god, not necessarily the active belief that there is no god.


No, atheism is _disbelief _in the existence of god. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> What if I believe I lack lacking the belief in addition to that?


If you lack lacking the belief, then you believe, by definition. That's why it's a dichotomy.


----------



## TheGreek Boy (Jul 3, 2016)

*OF COURSE I BELIEVE IN GOD!*


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> No, atheism is _disbelief _in the existence of god. Disbelief is not the same as lack of belief.


That's exactly what _disbelief_ means, actually.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Hum, as per this dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
As per Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> If you lack lacking the belief, then you believe, by definition. That's why it's a dichotomy.


yet, I don't believe either. I'm contradicting myself again, am I not?







x.x


If I lack lacking the belief, and I also lack the belief, what the hell do I believe in x.x


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

We're playing a game of semantics here. There are two options (that require justification):

 * Believe in god (theism)
 * Don't believe in god (atheism)

Agnostic is pointing out that the justification is missing on both and refusing to conclude a flawed argument.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> yet, I don't believe either. I'm contradicting myself again, am I not?
> If I lack lacking the belief, and I also lack the belief, what the hell do I believe in x.x


That's why it is a dichotomy. You either believe, or you do not. It would be a paradox to say you simultaneously don't believe and don't don't believe.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's why it is a dichotomy. You either believe, or you do not. It would be a paradox to say you simultaneously don't believe and don't don't believe.


Yet, that is exactly what I think. That I both don't believe and don't don't believe.


```
throw new System.InvalidOperationException("Mind blown");
```


----------



## mashers (Jul 3, 2016)

Lacius said:


> That's exactly what _disbelief_ means, actually.


I'll quote the OED again:

disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real

Saying "I don't know whether it exists/is real or not" is not the same as being unable or refusing to accept it. It means "I don't know; it might; it might not".


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> I'll quote the OED again:
> 
> disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
> 
> Saying "I don't know whether it exists/is real or not" is not the same as being unable or refusing to accept it. It means "I don't know; it might; it might not".


Actually, it is.

You're unable to accept it as true, per definition. Which doesn't mean it is false.



@Lacius I see your point now, but still, my own beliefs still contradict themselves.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 3, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> Yet, that is exactly what I think. That I both don't believe and don't don't believe.



In a nutshell, Agnosticism is like shouting 'Objection!'


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 3, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> In a nutshell, Agnosticism is like shouting 'Objection!'


woo, that's a pretty good way of putting it.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 3, 2016)

mashers said:


> I'll quote the OED again:
> 
> disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
> 
> Saying "I don't know whether it exists/is real or not" is not the same as being unable or refusing to accept it. It means "I don't know; it might; it might not".


_Disbelief_ literally means _not believing_, as per your definition. You are right that saying "I don't know whether it exists" is not the same thing as being unable to accept the claim; there are agnostic believers, after all. It's your inability to accept the claim that means you do not accept it, by definition.

I am getting tired of saying _by definition_, but we really are dealing with the definitions of words like _disbelief_ that are not controversial.


----------



## bi388 (Jul 3, 2016)

Til this forum is a lot more intelligent than I though lmao


----------



## TrolleyDave (Jul 8, 2016)

Interesting thread.  I'm atheist in the traditional sense of the idea in which not only do I lack a belief in God but I hold an active belief that there is no God.  I feel there are good reasons, philosophically, to believe that there is no creator being and that a creator being, especially of the kind implied by theology, is incredibly unlikely.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

Well.. I understand but why not point to a house ? Who made that house ? Everyone knows that someone had to make it. The house certainly did not make itself! If you want to read your bible then here: Hebrews 3.4

What about a flower ? Who made this ? No man made did. And just as the house did not make itself, so this flower did not make itself either. Someone made it. Who ? You know who.

Oh yeah, Wo made the birds and taught them to sing? See? 

I understand that you can't see it and you don't believe it. Yeah, some people say they don't believe in God because they can't see him. Hey, it is true that we cannot see God. The bible says: "No man can see God." That's why no one should try to make a picture or an image of God. God even tells us not to make an image of him. The bible here: Exodus 20:4, 5; 33:20, John 1:18.

Okay, if you cannot see God, how do you know that there really is a God ? Think about it. Can you see the wind ? You can't but you can see the things the wind does. You can see the leaves move when the wind blows through the branches of a tree. So you believe that there is wind.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Jul 9, 2016)

I'm at my girlfriend's for the weekend, but I'll come back to your points on Monday, @azoreseuropa.


----------



## mashers (Jul 9, 2016)

@azoreseuropa 
I don't think any sane person would dispute that flowers/birds/Earth/the universe was created somehow. The question is not _whether _it was created but _how or by whom_ it was created. Some believe it was god, some believe it was aliens, some believe other things. God is not the only possible explanation, even if it's the one you believe.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

mashers said:


> @azoreseuropa
> I don't think any sane person would dispute that flowers/birds/Earth/the universe was created somehow. The question is not _whether _it was created but _how or by whom_ it was created. Some believe it was god, some believe it was aliens, some believe other things. God is not the only possible explanation, even if it's the one you believe.



Okay, then tell me how flowers/birds/Earth and the universe was created ? From Big Bang, Evolution ? I hope you aren't going to say yes because it doesn't make sense.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 9, 2016)

chaoskagami said:


> If we're being pedantic, the closest relative DNA-wise is the chimpanzee.


wrong it's DNA is pig the closest, in looks and built however we're close to the chimps


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 9, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Well.. I understand but why not point to a house ? Who made that house ? Everyone knows that someone had to make it. The house certainly did not make itself! If you want to read your bible then here: Hebrews 3.4
> 
> What about a flower ? Who made this ? No man made did. And just as the house did not make itself, so this flower did not make itself either. Someone made it. Who ? You know who.
> 
> ...



The flower arguably did make itself from a fertilised seed, or by propagating from another plant. That is besides the point though. So the flower presumably evolved from earlier plants which evolved from older and older types of life as we know it. The start of life on earth is a bit of mystery still but early earth experiments have shown some interesting things with self arranging carbon compounds, which would presumably then turn into RNA and then DNA and then evolution kicks in for real. Equally there are plenty of man made flowers, depending upon how you want to define man made. So now we are going further and further back "some god made the laws of physics which then became" and that is what is known as god of the gaps which we talked about earlier.

Birds presumably followed a similar path into existence, and them singing is a whole field. We could talk about the evolutionary advantages of communication. We could talk about humans only consider it singing maybe because they are taught it is singing, also the one that taught my birds was my mum, and then one bird taught the other.

Yes human sight is quite limited in what is needs to reliably detect things, range of frequencies it can see, zoom capability and update frequency, however as you say you can detect things via other means. Thus far nobody has provided any evidence that stands up to scrutiny for any of the infinite number of gods that have been contemplated throughout human history. Lack of evidence is not proof of absence but with the amount of liars, charlatans, frauds, deluded and those seeking to control that have attempted to use such things throughout history I fail to see how the concept is not seriously damaged and having to be subject to serious scepticism when it comes to claims made by those with such an agenda.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

LOL. No way.. You have no proof either. A Big Bang and Evolution is false. Science can't prove a thing. In science effectively all ideas are “just” theories.

Scientists often use concepts from the philosophy of science to make some semantic distinctions between laws, theories, hypotheses, and the like.

No, I mean before an Earth started and a life started on Earth. That's my point.

In science …


Everything’s a theory.


Proof doesn’t exist.


Nothing is certain.
I rest my case.


----------



## mashers (Jul 9, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Okay, then tell me how flowers/birds/Earth and the universe was created ? From Big Bang, Evolution ? I hope you aren't going to say yes because it doesn't make sense.


I didn't say I have the answer. I just said that not everybody believes what you believe. As for evolution, read this then come back and tell me it doesn't make sense.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1533362955/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



azoreseuropa said:


> Evolution is false.


No disrespect intended, but that's absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 9, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> LOL. No way.. You have no proof either. A Big Bang and Evolution is false. Science can't prove a thing. In science effectively all ideas are “just” theories.
> 
> Scientists often use concepts from the philosophy of science to make some semantic distinctions between laws, theories, hypotheses, and the like.
> 
> ...





chaoskagami said:


> So if I believe gravity doesn't exist, does it not exist?
> 
> I dunno, my feet seem pretty planted on the ground here.



@azoreseuropa. Gravity is not a theory. Nor is electromagnetism, nor are the laws of thermodynamics. Nor is atomic force. Evolution can be proved genetically. If in fact if "Science" was false, you wouldn't be posting here on this forum, you'd probably be dead before you turned 40, and nuclear weapons would have never been invented.

I suggest you take a very critical look at what you just said.

Anyways, exiting this thread now. It's gone on long enough, and nobody is discussing rationally at this point.


----------



## phalk (Jul 9, 2016)

In a superior entity that everything came from, yes.
In the god that churches and religions try to make me believe, no.



mashers said:


> I didn't say I have the answer. I just said that not everybody believes what you believe. As for evolution, read this then come back and tell me it doesn't make sense.
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1533362955/
> 
> ...



Don't even try, mashers. People like that can't have a discussion over anything.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Jul 9, 2016)

Well, many of us have a belief that aliens do exist, if only because of how expansive the universe is, that the Earth can't possibly be the only planet in it that has sentient life as we perceive it. If aliens do exist, and a species of them are superior to us (as we believe we are the superior species on the Earth), then there could be some superior to them, and again, and again, until we reach the pinnacle of superiority, which may very well be God who created all, but instead of just us and God, there's be numerous others in between.

I'm just kinda blabbing off here, lol.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

mashers said:


> I didn't say I have the answer. I just said that not everybody believes what you believe. As for evolution, read this then come back and tell me it doesn't make sense.
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1533362955/
> 
> ...





chaoskagami said:


> @azoreseuropa. Gravity is not a theory. Nor is electromagnetism, nor are the laws of thermodynamics. Nor is atomic force. Evolution can be proved genetically. If in fact if "Science" was false, you wouldn't be posting here on this forum, you'd probably be dead before you turned 40, and nuclear weapons would have never been invented.
> 
> I suggest you take a very critical look at what you just said.
> 
> Anyways, exiting this thread now. It's gone on long enough, and nobody is discussing rationally at this point.



No, you are not correct. By the way, I am over 40 years old. 


I understand. No disrespect intended as well. As for Evolution, it's so ridiculous too. Believe what you want.
Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 9, 2016)

And electricity is a theory that developed even further back, possibly thousands of years depending upon how you view the Baghdad Battery. Does not mean electricity does not exist.

Regarding evolution they did not stop right there after Darwin cooked it up, far from it. Science is not one and done, you do more, refine it further, you may disprove something, you may find out something even greater and you may just generate a bunch more evidence to help things along. Darwin got a bunch of things wrong, mainly as the mechanisms of DNA were yet to be discovered and a bunch of other stuff.
There are a bunch of theories of the time that have since been discredited, some will be of historic interest and logical interest (if you study chemistry for instance the history of the theories behind arene rings, which is the main part of benzene and toluene and a whole host of drugs and important biological chemicals, will be taught) but nobody will use them unless they are a useful simplification (Newton's laws of motion for instance do not work on the very small or very fast but you will still see people using them as they work just fine on the human sized and greater and things that are not nipping at light's heels).

" Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support."
The increasing complexity and refinement of life to suit its surroundings, aka evolution, is not the origin of life which has a variety of things people are looking into but if you want to go looking then abiogenesis is the term in question. They are often studied by the same people and those looking into abiogenesis will almost certainly be highly versed in evolution science.
Evolution itself has a load of evidence going for it, much of which has been covered in the topic already. We could go there again if you want (retroviruses, bacteria, more complex life that has a shorter lifespan, observed environmental stressors, fossils, animals/humans living in harsh conditions, basic extrapolation from laws of inheritance and the list goes on for a while....) but you seem to have made up your mind which is unfortunate.

"They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense."
How is it nonsense? A very large amount of trials, very large numbers and the fact it is possible (the monkey has the dexterity to hit the keys, repeatedly so) means it is quite possible, and if you are throwing infinity into the mix then basically a certainty.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

Sighing... Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. 

This is a pointless thread. By the way, I respect you and you respect me, Ok? I am done.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 9, 2016)

If it is a pointless thread it is only because the forum itself has no point, as that is probably not true there is some debate.

Respect? That seems to be a thing with you (it came up before when we discussed Jehovah's witnesses) but is not for me. Your point of view would be that of a cretin as far as I am concerned, does not make you an invalid person but respect is far from happening here. It is the old free speech thing -- you can spout whatever drivel you like, I would happily fight for the right for said drivel to be spouted but I in no way have to agree with/respect the drivel.

Anyway back to biology I am not sure where you are going. Taxonomy/classification of... everything is what science aims for, biology tending to be about the classification of life. Speciation comes into that but it is not the same thing by any means, it usually goes off the back of chromosomes but there can be more to it. Equally I am not sure how species existing and being created is supposed to disprove evolution when it is usually a nice example of the opposite and the creation of new species being one of the easier to grasp thought experiments for it.

Lack of transitional links? There are loads of them. There is a bit of a gap for humans right now for some periods (still plenty of human fossils showing the development of traits over time) but there are loads for all sorts of animals.

"If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical,"
All things are in a continual state of change, doubly so if you want to consider epigenetics, as meiosis (the reproductive method by which an awful lot of complex life procreates/reproduces) is all about that. Barring twins (though again epigenetics) and clones and some methods of plant reproduction no two creatures are identical (we assume, it is not a statistical impossibility but extraordinarily unlikely), that is how DNA works.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jul 9, 2016)

I said I am done, thanks.


----------



## Flame (Jul 9, 2016)

I love people who are born in to a religion and act like that religion is the right one and best one out of 10,000 religions.

and everything that religion says is right, without question.

okay.

I rise you this :

North Korean people think they are best richest most advanced nation on earth...lol.


----------



## mashers (Jul 9, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.


You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how science works. Science never claims to prove anything false. One of the basic tenets of science is that you cannot prove a negative. You can only formulate a hypothesis and then look for evidence which supports it. 'Proving evolution wrong' is impossible; you have to instead find evidence for a competing theory. Do you have any?



azoreseuropa said:


> Kids and adults are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.


Turtles on the Galápagos Islands. Explain the changes in their neck length by any means other than evolution or 'god did it'.



azoreseuropa said:


> They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Address. This is nonsense.


What does that have to do with evolution? The monkey at a typewriter theorem is about infinitesimal probabilities of events occurring over enormous periods of time. It's a mathematical theory which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2016)

@azoreseuropa
You could disprove evolution, common descent, the big bang, etc. tomorrow, and that would be no reason to believe a god exists. Absence of an explanation is never evidence for another. As I've pointed out earlier in this thread, if I find a dead body in the woods but cannot find a cause of death, the absence of an explanation does not mean I can rationally believe fairies killed him. If you're going to argue that the belief in God is a rational position, you need to provide evidence, and as far as I'm aware, this is a task no one has accomplished.

In reality, however, there is overwhelming evidence for the above scientific theories and none that contradicts them. Things like evolution, common descent, and the big bang are facts as well as scientific theories. To say these substantiated scientific theories are untrue is to say you care more about a presupposed belief than whether or not your beliefs are actually true.



Jack Daniels said:


> wrong it's DNA is pig the closest, in looks and built however we're close to the chimps


No, our closest living DNA relatives are bonobos and chimpanzees.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 10, 2016)

@Lacius The explanation will always be absent. With Muslims, Christians, Jews, you name it, they'll tell you to look at the scientific miracles in their books rather than to try and prove god through scientific means since its basically impossible. E.g in the Quran god calls worker bees with a feminine pretext , or when god says let there be light in the bible in the beginning of creation. Unless the writer got insanely lucky. I agree that @azoreseuropa is wrong in saying that those scientific theories are wrong.


----------



## richardparker (Jul 10, 2016)

non believers,quote my post and gather!


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 10, 2016)

I dont believe anymore.
once I had a feeling that I talk and he answers me, until I realised I was talking to myself and making excuses for it...
I dont need no god in my personal life and I am agnostic- IDK if he exists or not, therefor I disbelieve as the default choice. In my opinion he isn't what the religions say he is, they overpower or underpower him if he do exist. If they arent lying and he is just as religions say- he's an asshole and dont deserve my belief.
(Sorry for bad english)


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 10, 2016)

natanelho said:


> I dont believe anymore.
> once I had a feeling that I talk and he answers me, until I realised I was talking to myself and making excuses for it...
> I dont need no god in my personal life and I am agnostic- IDK if he exists or not, therefor I disbelieve as the default choice. In my opinion he isn't what the religions say he is, they overpower or underpower him if he do exist. If they arent lying and he is just as religions say- he's an asshole and dont deserve my belief.
> (Sorry for bad english)


an asshole?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> an asshole?


The god of the Bible, for example, is an immoral being.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The god of the Bible, for example, is an immoral being.


immoral? im not to well versed in the bible seeing as im muslim, But could you give me a breather?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> immoral? im not to well versed in the bible seeing as im muslim, But could you give me a breather?


The god of the Bible condones slavery, for starters. The god of the Quran also condones slavery and even raping one's slaves, so neither god is particularly moral.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The god of the Bible condones slavery, for starters. The god of the Quran also condones slavery and even raping one's slaves, so neither god is particularly moral.



The Quran allows slavery but still provides them with rights as a human being. Even paying them. I'd like to find out where you saw they were allowed to be raped.
I think this can better summarise it than i can:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The Quran allows slavery but still provides them with rights as a human being. Even paying them. I'd like to find out where you saw they were allowed to be raped.


The ownership of another human being is immoral, regardless. As for raping one's slaves, that's outlined in Surah 4:24.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The ownership of another human being is immoral, regardless. As for raping one's slaves, that's outlined in Surah 4:24.


I've always had this thing about morals. Where do humans get them from? We don't get them from an instinct, of course, so where? Your morals are different to other peoples morals, what you consider evil/bad/disgusting like underage sex/rape/adultery is all based on your thoughts and how you were brought up. What I'm trying to get at is that what you think is bad might be okay elsewhere and that you should look at things with an open mind. about the raping slave girls, even though it allows you to have sex with them, its still haraam to rape someone whether they are a slave or not as they have the basic human rights as I had said earlier


----------



## Lacius (Jul 10, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I've always had this thing about morals. Where do humans get them from? We don't get them from an instinct, of course, so where? Your morals are different to other peoples morals, what you consider evil/bad/disgusting like underage sex/rape/adultery is all based on your thoughts and how you were brought up. What I'm trying to get at is that what you think is bad might be okay elsewhere and that you should look at things with an open mind. about the raping slave girls, even though it allows you to have sex with them, its still haraam to rape someone whether they are a slave or not as they have the basic human rights as I had said earlier


Morality is not actually a complicated issue. Morality comes from:

Our ability to reason what's conducive to well being (this is objective, not subjective)
Our biological predispositions to behaviors and feelings that evolved when we became a social species
Religion likes to pretend it has a monopoly on morality, but it doesn't even have a claim on it. Religious proclamations of morality are not actually where morality comes from, and secular morality is in fact the only kind of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that your moral position on a person having the open ability to have sex with a slave because she's one's property differs from the Quran's position. Many, if not most, religious people have moral positions that differ from their holy book, which is evidence for secular morality as the only morality. Morality also cannot come from a god without morality being completely arbitrary.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 10, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Morality is not actually a complicated issue. Morality comes from:
> 
> Our ability to reason what's conducive to well being (this is objective, not subjective)
> Our biological predispositions to behaviors and feelings that evolved when we became a social species
> Religion likes to pretend it has a monopoly on morality, but it doesn't even have a claim on it. Religious proclamations of morality are not actually where morality comes from, and secular morality is in fact the only kind of morality. This is evidenced by the fact that your moral position on a person having the open ability to have sex with a slave because she's one's property differs from the Quran's position. Many, if not most, religious people have moral positions that differ from their holy book, which is evidence for secular morality as the only morality. Morality also cannot come from a god without morality being completely arbitrary.


the slavee sex is commonly in at least 3 religions, and 2 yewish and christians that i know of for sure say it's okay to mass murder an entire nation if said so by god, this moment in time is not because of sins of this nation, it's because of thier possesion... i don't know if this part of history is also in the islam teachings... so that's why i keep it on at least 2 religions... but i know most of the history is the same in all 3 books... a religion is just there to keep you from asking questions... to have you follow a leader to without thinking for yourself... religion keeps you from fighting for your rights, thinking of those who differ, give higher people easy answers for when there's need for someone to blame...
religion in many countries even here in the west are the main reason for people to not feel accepted because they got feelings for someone with the same sex, religion is most commonly used to scam people, bribing them for thier money...
as long as we have the excuse of it's god's will there will be torture, murder without any reason.
if there's a god who gave you everything, then he should have thought about the possibility to use those tools to find out truth for ourselves, if a god made us he made gay people aswell wich is wierd cause he hates part of his own creation, if god is real then why didn't he prove wich religion was the truth one? did he wanted us to have war over such a thing? if this so called al mighty person excists, he is really the most cruel person to belive in since he made sicknesses, he's responsible for the harm of the innocent cause he doesn't do anything about them... these tools we were given if used for real will eventually get everyone to the point that you can't keep up all in the books as being real... 

how can it be that people keep each other in the name of god keep each other from searching for peace and joy? i've joined chirch for 15 years all versions you could think of, even read other reliogious books... they don't differ much...

please start using the tools you have... for it's not only for yourself, it's for your children, your wife/husband, your brother and your relatives, your neighbors...

the madness needs to stop!


----------



## Foxchild (Jul 10, 2016)

Interesting how our assumptions color our arguments.  Things like "God is immoral" or "If God is the source of morality, it would be arbitrary" are only true if the assumption that there is no god were true.  If there IS a (benevolent, omniscient) God, then, of course, His moral law would not be arbitrary, but would be the most beneficial way to live for the species He created it for.  IF God exists, by definition He could not be immoral because He would determine what was moral and what was not (it wouldn't be up to us) - for instance, the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie.  Now, is that because, if He attempted to, the words would get caught in His throat, or is it because as soon as He uttered them, they would just become true, with history rewriting itself so that it had always been true.  IF God exists, I'd say it's likely the latter, so whatever God did or decided would automatically become  moral.  Further, people disagreeing with their own religion on certain points is just evidence of people being human; it has nothing to do with the origin of morality, as this would surely still occur either way.  Really, it's less about whether or not God exists, and more about whether you decide to serve Him, fight Him, or ignore Him.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 10, 2016)

I notice the OP has been banned.

Since this seems to have turned into a debate on evolution, I'll point out that Christianity and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.  That's creationism, which represents a fairly small portion of the Christian community (unless you restrict yourself to the USA).


----------



## Foxchild (Jul 11, 2016)

A quick google shows a 2014 gallop poll that 42% in US are creationists (of the population, not just Christians).  Couldn't find anything on percentage of Christians worldwide are creationists, but I'd be interested to see.  

Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 11, 2016)

Foxchild said:


> Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).


Darwin's finches were a complete different species.  They couldn't mate with the species of finches that they came from.

Micro and macro evolution are actually the exact same thing.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2016)

Foxchild said:


> Interesting how our assumptions color our arguments.  Things like "God is immoral" or "If God is the source of morality, it would be arbitrary" are only true if the assumption that there is no god were true.  If there IS a (benevolent, omniscient) God, then, of course, His moral law would not be arbitrary, but would be the most beneficial way to live for the species He created it for.  IF God exists, by definition He could not be immoral because He would determine what was moral and what was not (it wouldn't be up to us) - for instance, the Bible says it is impossible for God to lie.  Now, is that because, if He attempted to, the words would get caught in His throat, or is it because as soon as He uttered them, they would just become true, with history rewriting itself so that it had always been true.  IF God exists, I'd say it's likely the latter, so whatever God did or decided would automatically become  moral.  Further, people disagreeing with their own religion on certain points is just evidence of people being human; it has nothing to do with the origin of morality, as this would surely still occur either way.  Really, it's less about whether or not God exists, and more about whether you decide to serve Him, fight Him, or ignore Him.


If you're going to define _morality_ as _that which God says is moral_, then you're right. However, that's not what _morality_ is. _Morality_ actually refers to behavior that is conducive to well being, and what a god allegedly says on the topic is irrelevant. Earlier, I linked to information on the Euthyphro dilemma. It asks if something is moral because God says it is, or does God say something is moral because it is? If it's the former, then that necessarily means that a god could say murder is moral, and that's objectively untrue. If it's the latter, then a god is not the source of morality.

Regardless, there is no reason to think a god exists, and as I already explained, secular morality more than accounts for morality, and it is the only morality that can exist.



JoostinOnline said:


> I notice the OP has been banned.
> 
> Since this seems to have turned into a debate on evolution, I'll point out that Christianity and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive.  That's creationism, which represents a fairly small portion of the Christian community (unless you restrict yourself to the USA).


I agree with you that the debate about evolution is pointless because a.) A person can believe in evolution and also be Christian, and b.) Disproving evolution has no bearing on whether or not it's rational to believe a god exists. However, one could argue that if evolution is true and the fall of man didn't occur, then the resurrection and the rest of Christianity falls apart.



Foxchild said:


> A quick google shows a 2014 gallop poll that 42% in US are creationists (of the population, not just Christians).  Couldn't find anything on percentage of Christians worldwide are creationists, but I'd be interested to see.
> 
> Also in this debate it's important to remember the distinction between micro evolution (evolution within a species) that is observable and accepted by creationists (at least the ones that know what they're talking about) and macro evolution (evolution between or from one species to another) which is not observable (because it takes too long) and therefore still unproven by scientific method (by definition).


We have plenty of scientific evidence for speciation. Something does not need to be observed for there to be scientific evidence for it. To use an example I used earlier, we have evidence of how long it takes Pluto to orbit the Sun even though it takes longer for it to orbit the Sun than we've known about Pluto's existence. Regardless, we also have plenty of observational evidence for speciation. Rates of speciation vary.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> However, one could argue that if evolution is true and the fall of man didn't occur, then the resurrection and the rest of Christianity falls apart.


The general consensus outside of the US is that the first part of Genesis is allegorical.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2016)

Well that particular god type sounds like a bollocks job if you can't speak in metaphor, let alone anything more fun. On the other had if the god with a capital G is the programmer of the universe then the inability to have comments is why certain things have some very iffy logic. Fortunately there are infinite versions of the deity concept out there. That is not just me playing with logic either -- the fact the idea of words is so important within that is of considerable interest to all sorts of fields, go look at some of the tribal religions that might not have had written word until somewhat recently and words are not he thing the lord spoke and magic and religion and superstition have a somewhat different basis.

Also speciation not proven? Did all those fossils, genetic analysis with retroviruses, genetic analysis with certain sequences, chromosomal analysis of plants, isolated life form studies and so forth all vanish?

As for the source of morality I would say it is a nice survival trait to help with group/herd living (sharing is good and also rather nice for not dying if you happen to get an epic case of the squirts and can't go hunter gathering for a week, sharing also means you can specialise which is definitely helpful in the civilisation bit, not having to worry about being killed all the time is nice, not having your tools go walkabout is something I enjoy to this day, being fairly sure your offspring are yours is kind of helpful if the sex drive is going to be as high as it is, equally while coughs and sneezes spread diseases crotch rot is also not pleasant so best to contain that, is it well known that a lot of dietary restrictions in the various Abrahamic religions (and many minor ones too) tends to be a nice way to dodge Maslow's hierarchy of needs when you are poor in a hot desert that does not have fridges and I could probably continue this for a while). It got a bit more codified and strange as societies/empires grew but for my money still started as a survival trait and continues along those lines.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> The general consensus outside of the US is that the first part of Genesis is allegorical.


One could argue that if some parts of the Bible are allegory, others are literal, and the distinction between the two is arbitrary, then there's no reason to think any of the Bible is literally true.

To be clear, this isn't my argument. There are as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 11, 2016)

Lacius said:


> One could argue that if some parts of the Bible are allegory, others are literal, and the distinction between the two is arbitrary, then there's no reason to think any of the Bible is literally true.
> 
> To be clear, this isn't my argument. There are as many forms of Christianity as there are Christians.


True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.


----------



## evandixon (Jul 11, 2016)

Looks like evolution has come up again.  First I'll point out that it doesn't matter how life formed, all that matters is that God is the cause.

Now about micro vs. macro evolution:  micro evolution has been confirmed by observation.  Macro evolution has not.  There has never been any observation of a change in kind by evolution.  Note that I said "kind".  When the finches evolved into a different species, they're still finches, and they're still birds, and are still of the same "kind".  Evolutionists like to say all life formed from a common ancestor, a single cell organism.  However, there is no direct evidence for this.  To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.


JoostinOnline said:


> True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.


By the standards of other books and sources, events in the Bible can be treated as historic fact.  Even athiests recognize this (when they ignore the parts God).


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.


Whether or not the Bible includes some history is irrelevant to whether or not any of the rest of the Bible is true. Plenty of mythologies include some history. Spider-Man comics include some contemporary people, places, and events. But I don't think that's what you're arguing here. You do, however, still appear to be describing a situation in which the Bible itself cannot be distinguished between fact and allegory. What you described as the method of distinguishing between fact and allegory is the historical verification, not the Bible. If you're going to discuss the importance of historical verification, then what's the point of the Bible with regard to figuring out what's true? If the fall was allegory, was the resurrection? Was the entire concept of a god?



UniqueGeek said:


> Looks like evolution has come up again.  First I'll point out that it doesn't matter how life formed, all that matters is that God is the cause.


I will agree that, concerning whether or not it's rational to believe in a god, it doesn't matter how life formed. Evolution also has no bearing on the topic of how life formed since it concerns itself with the diversification of life _after_ life formed. However, there is no reason to think a god exists or caused anything. We do not know for sure how abiogenesis occurred because all evidence from that time has likely been lost, but we're aware of plenty of ways it could have happened naturally. Even if we weren't aware of how life could have formed, the absence of a possible explanation is not evidence for another.



UniqueGeek said:


> Now about micro vs. macro evolution:  micro evolution has been confirmed by observation.  Macro evolution has not.  There has never been any observation of a change in kind by evolution.  Note that I said "kind".  When the finches evolved into a different species, they're still finches, and they're still birds, and are still of the same "kind".  Evolutionists like to say all life formed from a common ancestor, a single cell organism.  However, there is no direct evidence for this.  To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.


First, both micro-evolution and speciation (i.e. macro-evolution) have been confirmed through direct observation. Even if we didn't have direct observation of speciation, it wouldn't matter; evidence does not need to come in the form of direct observation. I have numerous times in this thread used the example of Pluto's orbit around the Sun: We know it takes Pluto 248 years to orbit the Sun, but that's longer than we've even known about the existence of Pluto. We also sometimes know how murders occurred because of forensic evidence, even if there are no witnesses to the murder.

Second, we actually have evidence of the common descent of all life on Earth. It does not matter that nobody has been around 4 billion years to directly witness it. Nobody can claim with absolute certainty (i.e. 100%) that this is the case, but we can be maximally certain (i.e. around 99.9%) that all life on Earth is descended from a common ancestor given the evidence. A belief does not require absolute certainty, and since the belief in common descent is evidence-based, it has nothing to do with faith. By definition, it is only absurd to believe something without or contrary to evidence.



UniqueGeek said:


> By the standards of other books and sources, events in the Bible can be treated as historic fact.  Even athiests recognize this (when they ignore the parts God).


I'm not aware of any standard for historical evidence that would include the Bible. The authorship of the Gospels is anonymous, and the Bible is not a primary source, for starters.


----------



## mashers (Jul 11, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> To say that it did and treat it 100% as fact requires faith, while many evolutionists think it's obsurd to have faith that God exists, despite the lack of direct evidence.


Ahh, 'faith'. The great swindle of religion which basically says:

Only true believers escape hell
To be a true believer you have to have faith
If you question your beliefs you don't have faith
Ergo anybody who questions their beliefs is damned to hell

What better way to keep the 'believers' in check than to threaten them with eternal torture if they dare to demand evidence for the existence of the god they are told exists and which demands to control every aspect of their thought and behaviour?

Faith is an excellent scam. Science does not operate on faith. It works on hypotheses. The difference is that religious faith DEMANDS that you DO NOT search for evidence for your beliefs as that would show lack of faith, while science REQUIRES that you search for evidence to either support or refute your hypotheses. To conflate religious faith with scientific hypothesising shows a lack of understanding of one or the other (or both).


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2016)

Choice video




mashers said:


> Ergo anybody who questions their beliefs is damned to hell



I mentioned it elsewhere and wish I got a picture but ergo is a bit too indirect for some of the things I have seen. We found a bunch of my grandma's old mormon books and one of the lines in it was something like "when people question the church leadship they lose sight of the faith", and this was bolded and quote styled as well.


----------



## mashers (Jul 11, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> ergo is a bit too indirect for some of the things I have seen.


Well I intended it to mean 'therefore' which I think is quite direct unless I have misunderstood.



FAST6191 said:


> We found a bunch of my grandma's old mormon books and one of the lines in it was something like "when people question the church leadship they lose sight of the faith", and this was bolded and quote styled as well.


The hilarious thing about religion's attitude to faith, and use of it to suppress free thought, is that the same attitude in any other context would be considered ridiculous, untenable, outdated or even illegal.

_If you question a management decision you will be fired immediately.
If you question the government you will be imprisoned indefinitely.
If you question a teacher you will be disciplined.
If you speak against the monarch you will be hanged.
_
These are all things which used to happen, and still do in some less fortunate cultures. They are all examples of attempts to control the population by making expression of doubt and free thought illicit. We recognise these as despicable now, but for some reason it still seems to be seen as OK within the context of religion.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2016)

Indeed most are indirect or constructed or inferred, or the semi informal "why are you questioning the word?" said off the record, but that was a nice case of direct which I saw.

On the government thing I was watching that containment show the other day and a line in it went "Remember when you were a kid and you thought grown-ups knew everything and the President was the smartest man on the planet?".
I was stunned, never thought or even conceived that people thought that about presidents at all. Certainly never met the logic anywhere else in the world I have been. I imagine it could have been possible before journalists adopted the adversarial position to politicos (arguably happened somewhat after the introduction of TV). There is weak writing and that show is hardly top notch but damn. Realising the fallibility and/or lack of omnipotence of your parents is an important part of life and I feel sorry for those that never get there, that said the last prime minister of the UK that have ended with reasonably popular support/approval is probably a bit before my time -- give or take Gordon Brown (which was hardly great) you are back to what 1976 and Harold Wilson?
That said it would make sense of some of that Jesus camp film I saw and the whole Dixie Chicks thing.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 11, 2016)

No, and I don't really care about religion. I chose to not get myself into any religion. I guess the closest thing I am is a Agnostic. I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age (and the people my age trying to get into a "muh belief is atheism" or "muh god exists because" debates turns into a shitshow because they don't know anything and trying to sound edgy/all knowing) so I'll just stay outta this one.

tl;dr No


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age



That might fly in real life but this is the internet -- the ability to present a rational and cogent argument counts for basically everything, indeed age would probably be a cop out excuse rather than a valid one. It might be that you have not had enough time to read everything and learn the basis for the science or something (it took me years to read all the major religious books and compared to what else I know my knowledge of biology is really quite limited) but that some of those lacking years seem to be able to, and those some are not all composed of people with rare and hard to come by abilities, so it is not really an excuse.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 11, 2016)

mashers said:


> Well I intended it to mean 'therefore' which I think is quite direct unless I have misunderstood.
> 
> 
> The hilarious thing about religion's attitude to faith, and use of it to suppress free thought, is that the same attitude in any other context would be considered ridiculous, untenable, outdated or even illegal.
> ...



I don't know where it says in the Torah or Quran where you can't have doubts about god. Rather that if you have doubts you should research further and come to a conclusion.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 11, 2016)

VinLark said:


> No, and I don't really care about religion. I chose to not get myself into any religion. I guess the closest thing I am is a Agnostic. I really have no business getting into religious debate because of my age (and the people my age trying to get into a "muh belief is atheism" or "muh god exists because" debates turns into a shitshow because they don't know anything and trying to sound edgy/all knowing) so I'll just stay outta this one.
> 
> tl;dr No


If you don't believe god(s) exist, then it sounds like you're an atheist in addition to being an agnostic. The two are never mutually exclusive.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 11, 2016)

well have you ever considered reading books fr


TheDarkGreninja said:


> I don't know where it says in the Torah or Quran where you can't have doubts about god. Rather that if you have doubts you should research further and come to a conclusion.


the all books say you can search, the bible says, the thora says, but the 10 comment, the foundation says no matter what you'll should believe and respect my god! that basic fact is followed by the tirade of doom, if one of your fellow members is not following these 10 commands thy should have a meeting with the eldest, if at least 2 persons acuse another of loosing the respect towards god, the love for god or however you wanna tell it says the only answer is to stone this person within 24 hours.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 11, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> an asshole?


You see, both muslim and cristians believe that the jews are god's chosen people, or used to be, and they (we) believe that they still are. The ammount of jewish blood everywhere, at any time of the history, is very surprising when you say that. Another thing is that he killed 400(!) False masiachs in the carmel mt. Just because they didnt believe in him. I see it as immoral, but I know some1 will say marality isnt objective, but to me it doesent matter, cause those dids to me are seen as being an asshole.
according to mosta religions, some god made the world and humanbeings. In that sense, all of the people are sons of the god. So saying "were chosen, thats why you should be slaughtered" is being worse then asshole by me.think of a man with some children. His youngest boy was his favorite. He gave him good things and that boy kept shitting on him. One day that father said -"enough!" And since then he has some other child as the new favorite. As it is the father is asshole. But it doesnt end here. The new favorite kid started kicking the little kid, and the little kid repeatedly asks his father for help. The father doesnt do anything to protect the little one, and the bad kid continus to kick and harm the little one, saying father told him to do so. We know that the father watches anything happening and does nothing. At any rate, even if he didnt tell his favorite kid to hit the little one, he still didnt stop him, which is seen as being part of the crime to many ppl. So the father is an asshole. The thing is that the favourite kid cut the little one in half a few times and someiow the little guy continued to act as hes the favorite boy and that the remaining half *remained* thanks to the father. So whats the thing we learn here?
1. The little kid is stupid by not understanding that...
2. The father is an asshole by letting...
3. The favorite boy continue his bad dids unpunished.

The jews were slaughtered in ammounts that cant be counted and even imagined. They remain stupidly relying on the god to protect em. Muslims and mostly Cristians both killed big ammounts of jews, by the name of their belief (inquisition, jihad and much more...). Maybe not all of the religious ppl are killing, and also jews kill alot of muslims(with good or bad excuss, not to this thread) but we can say that alotta ppl believe on the bible, right?
so,Elijah and carmel mt., Bears killing little children who laughed at Elisha... there are many of examples..
IDK the kuran too well, but Iassume there are some problems too...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 12, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> well have you ever considered reading books fr
> 
> the all books say you can search, the bible says, the thora says, but the 10 comment, the foundation says no matter what you'll should believe and respect my god! that basic fact is followed by the tirade of doom, if one of your fellow members is not following these 10 commands thy should have a meeting with the eldest, if at least 2 persons acuse another of loosing the respect towards god, the love for god or however you wanna tell it says the only answer is to stone this person within 24 hours.


? I guess im really misinformed about christianity and judaism.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 12, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> ? I guess im really misinformed about christianity and judaism.


most people don't read the old tesamony closely... but the base of booth books, it terrefied me to read it and see how no one ever question the terrors god gave to human kind in his word... if that's god, than i don't want him... killing children for thier laugh, killing 2 nations for they god the perfect ground for his socalled prefered people... say a cheater, murdereing bastard is the one he loves... well i could go on... but that is a god of destruction and hate, though jesus spoke about peace it doesn't fit the violent history... and even today.. he's the main reason for fights killings and evenfor rapes...


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 12, 2016)

So I was in a shop that sells lots of old second hand books (fortunately it seems I had purchased all the science and engineering and old cooking books last time I was there so my wallet was mostly intact) and with this thread once again fresh in my mind I spot a lovely book
1942 US anti communist (though not quite as almost to the point of parody that the 1950s are often imagined to be) screed against religion being less taught in schools than it was, and schools moving to a more secular curriculum. I have only read a few samples thus far but it is wonderful. It is also proving to be quite fascinating as a bit of history, obviously it is biased as you like but I thought a lot of what I have read thus far happened a lot later than it apparently did.
Our National Enemy Number One: Education Without Religion by John Francis Noll


----------



## mashers (Jul 12, 2016)

@FAST6191 
Interesting find! Personally I hope education becomes completely secular without exception. If people want their children to follow a religion then that's fine, but I don't see why taxpayers should fund it.


----------



## Yil (Jul 13, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> most people don't read the old tesamony closely... but the base of booth books, it terrefied me to read it and see how no one ever question the terrors god gave to human kind in his word... if that's god, than i don't want him... killing children for thier laugh, killing 2 nations for they god the perfect ground for his socalled prefered people... say a cheater, murdereing bastard is the one he loves... well i could go on... but that is a god of destruction and hate, though jesus spoke about peace it doesn't fit the violent history... and even today.. he's the main reason for fights killings and evenfor rapes...


Well maybe we should get rid of this deity before he can claim the rest of us (he will truly be omnipotent or at least unstoppable once he absorb every single intelligent being on the planet) if he is that evil. If he really send an army where nuke cannot even scratch a single one of them, we are practically dead.
Religion that put lusty, arrogant, masculine man on top of all else is evil.


----------



## Johnatan Mnemonikus (Jul 13, 2016)

It's a wrong question.
Do you believe in the conventional gods like jewish muslim buddha "gods"?
Of course no I don't.
Do you believe in such a conception as God (from scientific point of view)? Maybe. It does make some sense.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2016)

Johnatan Mnemonikus said:


> It's a wrong question.
> Do you believe in the conventional gods like jewish muslim buddha "gods"?
> Of course no I don't.
> Do you believe in such a conception as God (from scientific point of view)? Maybe. It does make some sense.


I'm curious: What do you mean by "such a conception as God from [a] scientific point of view"?


----------



## Yil (Jul 13, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I'm curious: What do you mean by "such a conception as God from [a] scientific point of view"?


Is occult scientific?
And most advance experiments cannot have perfect control over variables. The more fundamental you get, the more chaotic it gets.


----------



## vinipeix (Jul 13, 2016)

I never believed 
Not even when I was little

Both my parents are catholic, I went to church for a long time (I guess up until I was 12) but never really understood the god idea people have
After this I got to knew better other religions but still can't believe


----------



## Johnatan Mnemonikus (Jul 13, 2016)

If I would know I would write what I meant but unfortunately I don't know. Sorry.
It's a kind of premonition not knowledge.

Anyway what I wanted to say: jewish muslim heathen and other old tales are crap. It's too easy to understand even for a smart child.
I know that the answers are wrong but I don't know what answer is right.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 13, 2016)

Yil said:


> Is occult scientific?


No, occultism is unscientific.



Johnatan Mnemonikus said:


> If I would know I would write what I meant but unfortunately I don't know. Sorry.
> It's a kind of premonition not knowledge.


That doesn't sound like any kind of scientific perspective I'm aware of.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 13, 2016)

I spent the morning reading the book mentioned in my previous post. It is going to take me a while to fully consider this one, what I will say is if the guy had read Sun Tzu (assuming it worked as well for his desire to have religion be a key part of schools* as it did for the Japanese when they went up against US businesses a few decades later), maybe made less/fewer emotional arguments** and knew is fallacies/not to try leading arguments, or, worse still, had more notions of the things underpinning http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm (they were not absent, far from it in fact) then things might have played out quite differently. He also has a strange relationship with the word infidel (I guess it was something of a faux pas at the time), and indeed I don't think I have ever heard someone claiming some flavour of Christianity use it outside of a historical quote. The chapter on the non religious failings of schools was also fascinating, all the stuff people talk about today of being taught to tests and methods rather than concepts was apparently going on in the 1940s too. I would have loved a frothing at the mouth rant from someone we imagine today would be found dead in their house with a lot of guns and family tree that would appear to be testing the idea of recursion but this is probably better. The analysis of how religion played out as time went on from the point it was stripped from schools is also of considerable interest. Equally as this would probably be before soundbite culture really took off he would probably appear somewhat more rational, give or take the fear of communism and socialism bit which may or may not have been understandable, than a lot of the shouty one line mantra types we and enjoy see today. Also good was the mention of "natural laws" as well as the more divine ones, though at the same time there was a clear line of thought that morality stems from religion, which I guess would be the less soundbite like/simple mantra version of the idea of objective morality which we discussed earlier.

*again I don't know US schools but looking at this then it seems it is all but absent, UK wise it is taught much the same as sex education which is to say a thing and somewhat clinical and as far divorced as pornography is from a video of things in a biology textbook. The condensed version being something like "this is Christianity, there are many types, here are some of their beliefs, here are some moral issues and how they argue them and what might be used to argue against them (pro abortion arguments using biblical passages was fun), this is Islam, there are also quite a few types, here are some of their beliefs, here is Hinduism..., here is Sihkism...., here is... actually it kind of stopped there (no Judaism beyond it is a thing, no flavour of paganism outside of history, Buddhism sort of but not in any kind of detail and that was probably it).

**with the book seemingly being to galvanise people into doing something, and thus not having to convert anybody I guess they can start from the assumption the bible is good shit.

That said I think my favourite bit thus far was when he described those wanting to get rid of religion as "inhuman potentates", granted somewhere around that was mentioned some Hitler and Stalin types which were not good dudes and were rulers (potentate is a word for ruler of a country, especially if they have great power that might be unchecked in a lot of cases) of countries.

It is not like a comedy CD or (unintentionally) funny film or something where I will say "go out and get this" but it has been fascinating to read. Certainly don't regret the £2 I dropped on it.



Johnatan Mnemonikus said:


> It's a wrong question.
> Do you believe in the conventional gods like jewish muslim buddha "gods"?
> Of course no I don't.
> Do you believe in such a conception as God (from scientific point of view)? Maybe. It does make some sense.



If you are going to frame it like that then the question becomes tricky. I am going to struggle to word it so I will go an example.

Alchemy. The pursuit of changing common materials, most popularly things like lead, into gold.

Today I could probably get a nuclear reactor and some hard to come by material and a load of energy and actually turn some other metal into gold, at orders of magnitude more expense than digging it up.

To call the first style a science would be a stretch, though it did give us some nice chemistry equipment. I would then argue that the difference between the gods of ancient religions (including those still with us today/having existed more or less continuously since their inception) and the theoretical/non random creator of the universe is greater than that of alchemy and modern nuclear physics.


----------



## Johnatan Mnemonikus (Jul 13, 2016)

I cannot speak this language well enough to describe the conception with more details. Sorry. If I could I would.


----------



## Yil (Jul 13, 2016)

Does anyone have any proof that the main deities of any religion actually is the creator of say anything?


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 13, 2016)

Okay lets sum it up:

Why to believe in a god if he's not really caring for any of you guys?
What reason is there to believe there's a without any history, a new god not ever been written about in at least 4000 years?
How will a god that kills because of laughter, wrong color, wrong attractions, wrong religion, wrong education, etc. ever bring peace?
How will a god that kills because of laughter, wrong color, wrong attractions, wrong religion, wrong education, etc. ever bring justice?

How will a god that kills because of laughter, wrong color, wrong attractions, wrong religion, wrong education, etc. ever bring love?

Did you know that seeing, hearing and dreaming are all questionabale as being a fact? a personal experience is just that much, you can experience things as being real by just repeating the idea dayly by speaking them out loud for yourself, this is practiced by millitary and shrinks...
So what's the question again? i can't believe we still try to ignore these facts...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

mashers said:


> @FAST6191
> Interesting find! Personally, I hope education becomes completely secular without exception. If people want their children to follow a religion then that's fine, but I don't see why taxpayers should fund it.


I'd want religious studies to stay since it broadens and opens the mind of people, understanding and tolerating others is the first step to making friends.


Jack Daniels said:


> Okay lets sum it up:
> 
> Why believe in a god if he's not really caring for any of you guys?
> What reason is there to believe there's a without any history, a new god not ever been written about in at least 4000 years?
> ...


If only I were Christian, maybe then I could come up with a counter-argument, most of these things are allowed under sharia law, since everyone is educated the same, you have the choice of whatever religion. sodomy, however, that's the issue here. It says you can be gay and openly but can't have gay sex as that's haraam. So gay relationships are allowed I guess. (Islam has a thing about cleanliness)

Also, I'd like to make the point of how people can't doubt god. Just because it says you shouldn't. Does not mean that you can't and it obviously means after you've come to a conclusion and researched. After all Abraham needed reassurances of gods existence so why can't we?


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 13, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'd want religious studies to stay since it broadens and opens the mind of people, understanding and tolerating others is the first step to making friends.
> 
> If only I were Christian, maybe then I could come up with a counter-argument, most of these things are allowed under sharia law, since everyone is educated the same, you have the choice of whatever religion. sodomy, however, that's the issue here. It says you can be gay and openly but can't have gay sex as that's haraam. So gay relationships are allowed I guess. (Islam has a thing about cleanliness)
> 
> Also, I'd like to make the point of how people can't doubt god. Just because it says you shouldn't. Does not mean that you can't and it obviously means after you've come to a conclusion and researched. After all Abraham needed reassurances of gods existence so why can't we?


I'd want religious studies to stay since it broadens and opens the mind of people, understanding and tolerating others is the first step to making friends? no it doesn't! it keeps people to avoid other thinkers, it creates people who think i'm better cause i believe, it creates feelings of left behind if god does have different plans...
god in school keeps you from your full potential!
believing shouldn't damage young child's brain, it preoccupies free thinking which is the basic of being able to find new ideas...


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 13, 2016)

"Do you believe in a god?"
If I wanted to, how could I choose one of them? I should just go for one that fits the bill (in this particular case, my needs), but that would be only the fruit of my imagination, an "occasional" god, that answers my questions, that makes my life easy and meaningful. 
I cannot lie to myself: there's no such thing in the entire Universe (and out of it) and, most important, there's no such thing *before* the Universe, as that would imply something that created it, a second god, and so on. 
There's no answer to the initial question, as the self-same question is pointless: if there are more gods, no-one of them can be choosen. If there is only one, we can't know.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> I'd want religious studies to stay since it broadens and opens the mind of people, understanding and tolerating others is the first step to making friends? no it doesn't! it keeps people to avoid other thinkers, it creates people who think i'm better cause i believe, it creates feelings of left behind if god does have different plans...
> god in school keeps you from your full potential!
> believing shouldn't damage young child's brain, it preoccupies free thinking which is the basic of being able to find new ideas...


You do know what I mean by religious studies, right? Religious studies doesn't force you to be religious, it asks you to understand and think about other peoples views, rather than to think only about your own views and be ignorant of the outside world, that doesnt think like you. Yes, there are negatives but, at least here in England, we learn about the negatives and debate them. My little brother is a lot more open-minded than a lot of people I meet on the street. After all, it was ignorance that made us brits leave the EU.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 13, 2016)

too bad i know exactly what you mean have been kept in religious school, church, later muslims around...it didn't change a thing what religious group it was, it's not as open minded as they make you believe... but then again it took me almost 30 years to see it for myself... i thought the same way and always tried to defend religions as making me and others better people towards those around me... but it doesn't for real... when i really got to talk to those that needed talking they showed me how the words i said and were teached me to tell in difficult times hurted them even more than the situations they were in... telling someone it's okay to be gay for example but not to practice is impossible for one to be gay... how would it be for you? to be said you can be hetero sexual have feelings and love towards a female and all, but you can't practice? i mean this means no holding hands in the park, not kissing, not touching... try andthink free for just a moment... cause you say they are free, but serously what is this freedom you talk about?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> too bad i know exactly what you mean have been kept in religious school, church, later muslims around...it didn't change a thing what religious group it was, it's not as open minded as they make you believe... but then again it took me almost 30 years to see it for myself... i thought the same way and always tried to defend religions as making me and others better people towards those around me... but it doesn't for real... when i really got to talk to those that needed talking they showed me how the words i said and were teached me to tell in difficult times hurted them even more than the situations they were in... telling someone it's okay to be gay for example but not to practice is impossible for one to be gay... how would it be for you? to be said you can be hetero sexual have feelings and love towards a female and all, but you can't practice? i mean this means no holding hands in the park, not kissing, not touching... try andthink free for just a moment... cause you say they are free, but serously what is this freedom you talk about?


I went to a public school, with no religious bias, I could link the website if you want. I dont understand what youre getting at. As i had said you cant practice sodomy because it is believed to be unatural. You talk about "seeing the truth" yet you fail to point out what this "truth" is.


----------



## mashers (Jul 13, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> you cant practice sodomy


Wanna bet?




TheDarkGreninja said:


> because it is believed to be unatural.


Says who?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

mashers said:


> Wanna bet?
> 
> 
> 
> Says who?


I was talking about the Islamic viewpoint.


----------



## mashers (Jul 13, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I was talking about the Islamic viewpoint.


Ok, but to say that somebody can't do something because of that viewpoint is illogical. The Islamic viewpoint on sexuality is not relevant to me whatsoever.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

mashers said:


> Ok, but to say that somebody can't do something because of that viewpoint is illogical. The Islamic viewpoint on sexuality is not relevant to me whatsoever.


I dont think you undertsand, if you look further back, I was always talking about the islamic viewpoint, I wasnt commanding him lol.


----------



## mashers (Jul 13, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I dont think you undertsand, if you look further back, I was always talking about the islamic viewpoint, I wasnt commanding him lol.


Yes I know  I simply meant that a viewpoint isn't sufficient to sway my view, and it shouldn't be that way for anybody really. Unless it's a logical or moral argument of course (not just because it's written in some book...)


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 13, 2016)

mashers said:


> Yes I know  I simply meant that a viewpoint isn't sufficient to sway my view, and it shouldn't be that way for anybody really. Unless it's a logical or moral argument of course (not just because it's written in some book...)


? IMO its logical enough, I dont believe it is natural and theres no scientific evidence or use for it that would make me think that sodomy is an evolutionary trait, needed for humanities survival.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 13, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> True, but plenty of the Bible's history is backed up by other sources.


And plenty of it is also denied by other sources.

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## mashers (Jul 13, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I dont believe it is natural and theres no scientific evidence or use for it that would make me think that sodomy is an evolutionary trait, needed for humanities survival.


Of course it is. It's a method of population control. Think how much more overpopulated Earth would be if practicing homosexuals were reproducing instead.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Of course it is. It's a method of population control. Think how much more overpopulated Earth would be if practicing homosexuals were reproducing instead.


Lol that sounds like people just "take on for the team" and choose to be gay to help population.

I read this recently.  Obviously homosexuality isn't the result of DNA because then identical siblings would _all_ have the same sexual orientation, but it would appear that there is an effect because they usually are the same.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Of course it is. It's a method of population control. *Think how much more overpopulated Earth would be if practicing homosexuals were reproducing instead.*



Sounds like fun, at least ballparking it/back of envelope.
Ignoring socio-economic pressures (people from developing countries having more kids and such, or perhaps the thing where military types have more daughters) and ignoring lesbians playing with a turkey baster or those crossing swords using donor eggs/surrogates as (spoiler) it seems the number of kids being "raised" is maybe 2 million at most which is almost insignificant in the face of what is to come and that is raised and not created via... non conventional? means. Also being generous and assuming 5% practising (one of your chosen constraints) LGBT[extra letters as appropriate] population ( http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.e...bt-demographics-studies/lgbt-demogs-sep-2014/ reckons a bit lower but for the sake of argument can we have a bump there to assume that the fertility rate is offset a bit*?
Now this is just one generation and 5% compound interest grows quite quickly ( http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php ) so we have to decide how that plays out if we apply recursively, do we assume bad old days and underground means practising numbers are then a statistical anomaly or back rooms and alleys or do we have to figure further things into this? What about the old maid thing where women over mid 20s would be over the hill and all that? Now the link I have says it is a youth skewing result as well which I might wish to consider if I was being more accurate.
*"who has fewer abortions than gay people?" and all that.

Anyway Total fertility rate:
1.87 children born/woman (2015 est.) in https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
This would be less than replacement (slightly over 2) so I might also have to consider immigration later as "Population growth rate: 0.78%".
Total population
321,368,864 (July 2015 est.)
x0.05 =  16,068,443
/2 = 8034221.6 (assuming 50/50 sex split, probably should check that somewhere)
x 1.87 ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html#us if you fancy trying it out for other countries with other rates)
15,023,994 extra for the US.

Net migration rate:
3.86 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2015 est.)
1,240,484 rounded up I think.

Overpopulation was mentioned. Food production then becomes my metric as there is probably plenty of land to house everybody. I will assume the next Norman Borlaug ( http://www.worldfoodprize.org/en/dr_norman_e_borlaug/about_norman_borlaug/ ) is not among the number of hypothetical magic new kids, or that one of the parents is not the same . Can I also assume the US continues to be a greedy and wasteful place with a nice bit of overproduction?
Perhaps not the best source but http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/890/the-consequences-of-food-waste reckons "it was discovered that the US alone produces enough food to sustain roughly 860 million hungry people," Depending upon how that is broken down that could be even higher -- all that perfectly edible grain fed to cows is remarkably inefficient when it comes to getting calories in my gob, tasty though.

Anyway as a simple means of population control I am not sure. I would be curious to see what goes as far as "it takes a village" allowing any genetic component that might exist to survive, and indeed what might happen in the future if more don't suppress things (not sure what goes with the fraternal birth order effect). I suppose it is more an example of evolution is not a force towards "perfection" but a minimum viable product and it is not something that is going to end a population, despite what some might have us believe, so it stuck around.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> "Do you believe in a god?"
> If I wanted to, how could I choose one of them? I should just go for one that fits the bill (in this particular case, my needs), but that would be only the fruit of my imagination, an "occasional" god, that answers my questions, that makes my life easy and meaningful.
> I cannot lie to myself: there's no such thing in the entire Universe (and out of it) and, most important, there's no such thing *before* the Universe, as that would imply something that created it, a second god, and so on.
> There's no answer to the initial question, as the self-same question is pointless: if there are more gods, no-one of them can be choosen. If there is only one, we can't know.


There is more than one way a more stable and pattern-ful macro structure from something more fundamental.
If you look hard enough, the creator in other myth greatly surpass the current gods that's being worshipped, while the god of the three main religions have never demonstrated the capability beyond the likes of Zeus or Odin, who while powerful, is noted to be weaker than their parents, who came after the creator deity.


----------



## corbs132 (Jul 14, 2016)

Yep. Non-denominational Christian


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> Lol that sounds like people just "take on for the team" and choose to be gay to help population.
> 
> I read this recently.  Obviously homosexuality isn't the result of DNA because then identical siblings would _all_ have the same sexual orientation, but it would appear that there is an effect because they usually are the same.


The article you posted claimed both that homosexuality has a genetic component and also is not a choice. As for twins, well for a start even 'identical' twins have subtly different DNA, and there are also environmental factors which affect both genotype and phenotype.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> The article you posted claimed both that homosexuality has a genetic component and also is not a choice. As for twins, well for a start even 'identical' twins have subtly different DNA, and there are also environmental factors which affect both genotype and phenotype.


Pretty sure identical twins are from the same fertalized egg. Or the odds would nit allow that.
My first sex experience was when another guy lure me into the washroom and have gay sex though I am completely clueless. That might be one reason I hate the male population so much.
Is phenotype gay really a thing considering boys most likely grow up playing with boys?
Anyway why are churches so desprate to regain followers?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> The article you posted claimed both that homosexuality has a genetic component and also is not a choice.


What's your point?  Neither of those statements mean there is an evolutionary development to homosexuality.  That's not how evolution works.  There are theories as to why it hasn't "died out", for a lack of a better term.  It's clear that there are links to genetics (or the patterns are just the biggest coincidence ever), but there is no question that it isn't entirely genetic.  I didn't choose my fingerprints, but they weren't the result of DNA.



mashers said:


> As for twins, well for a start even 'identical' twins have subtly different DNA, and there are also environmental factors which affect both genotype and phenotype.


No, they have identical DNA.  Fraternal twins have different DNA.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 14, 2016)

The DNA is the same, other things determined later (fingerprints for example) and the expression of those genes (see epigenetics) will vary. It makes for interesting science but I am content to leave it at "even if it is a pure choice (it is probably not) then what problem is it?". Answer being none of any great merit, at least as far as discounting it as an option, so carry on, none of the old philosophy books provide anything like a good reason either.



Yil said:


> Anyway why are churches so desprate to regain followers?


The same reason any group that once earned a lot of money and had a lot of power and has since lost an awful awful lot of it, equally if they genuinely believe eternal salvation is basically only from following their path and things to do I guess there is that too.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

@JoostinOnline 
My point is that the things you seemed to be suggesting (homosexuality as as 'sacrifice for the population', and homosexuality is not genetic) were disputed by the very article you cited.

As for it not being advantageous - it doesn't need to be. It will only be selected out of the gene pool of it is detrimental, like any other trait.

WRT twins, actually resent evidence suggests that even monozygotic twins differ in their DNA. Cell division begins some time after the zygote has separated into two separate embryos and during this time the zygote can undergo hundreds of mutations meaning that so-called identical twins are not actually identical, just very similar.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> @JoostinOnline
> My point is that the things you seemed to be suggesting (homosexuality as as 'sacrifice for the population', and homosexuality is not genetic) were disputed by the very article you cited.


Did you even read my post?


> Lol that sounds like people just "take on for the team" and choose to be gay to help population.


I said your wording made it sound like those things were true, and that DNA alone does not determine your sexual orientation.



mashers said:


> As for it not being advantageous - it doesn't need to be. It will only be selected out of the gene pool of it is detrimental, like any other trait.


You can't pass something along if you don't reproduce.  Given that you started an argument based on a post you clearly didn't read, I'm questioning how much of the article you actually read.



mashers said:


> WRT twins, actually resent evidence suggests that even monozygotic twins differ in their DNA. Cell division begins some time after the zygote has separated into two separate embryos and during this time the zygote can undergo hundreds of mutations meaning that so-called identical twins are not actually identical, just very similar.


Source?


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> Did you even read my post?


Yes.



JoostinOnline said:


> I said your wording made it sound like those things were true, and that DNA alone does not determine your sexual orientation.


Perhaps I misunderstood. It happens you know.



JoostinOnline said:


> You can't pass something along if you don't reproduce.  Given that you started an argument based on a post you clearly didn't read, I'm questioning how much of the article you actually read.


Not everything which is genetic is inherited that way. There's the gay uncle theory, which suggests that genes for homosexuality are passed down recessively from heterosexual parents whose siblings have the gene on both alleles and thus express the trait. There's also mutation which doesn't require the gene to be inherited at all.



JoostinOnline said:


> Source?


This is just one article I found on the matter:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...identical-twins-are-not-genetically-identical


----------



## Windowlicker (Jul 14, 2016)

Threads like this are always bound to cause drama.


----------



## th3joker (Jul 14, 2016)

I voted no. Never believed.  Always thought it was all bullshit and a scar tactic to get people to conform. Like the idea of heven or hell. How would a soul feel pain in hell without a physical body?


----------



## dorayaki95 (Jul 14, 2016)

nope,not a fan of god.

History has repeatedly shown time and time again that god is an imaginary tool used to control a bunch of blokes, in the name of religion


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> There is more than one way a more stable and pattern-ful macro structure from something more fundamental.
> If you look hard enough, the creator in other myth greatly surpass the current gods that's being worshipped, while the god of the three main religions have never demonstrated the capability beyond the likes of Zeus or Odin, who while powerful, is noted to be weaker than their parents, who came after the creator deity.


Didn't get completely what you mean to suggest with that. Could you explain in a better way?


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Didn't get completely what you mean to suggest with that. Could you explain in a better way?


When you split an object into more fundamemtal units which we called particle, it can be reconstructed into an alternative form. The more it is splited the more chaotic its form can be, but at a certain level which things become more energitic, it can be further splited into lesser unit with identical structure as the previous bigger unit, but of smaller size, which allow more complicated structure with limited amount of material.
And creator deity in other myth easily own the Christian deity. Just search about the creation myth of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and you will know how pathetic the christian god is.
Further you can find certain impact of mortal belief on gods, say in Greek myth.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

JoostinOnline said:


> You can't pass something along if you don't reproduce.


Evolution is a lot more complicated than this. Genes that are beneficial with evolutionary selective pressures can simultaneously hinder an individual's ability to survive and/or reproduce. For example, biological predispositions to altruism, by definition, can cause self-sacrificing behavior. One might then argue that altruism can't have an evolutionary component since it makes it less likely for one to survive and reproduce, but these genes allow for the protection of other individuals with those same genes (e.g. daughters, nephews, siblings, etc.). The meerkat has evolved to scream when it sees a predator in order to alert the other meerkats of danger. The screaming meerkat has put itself at risk because a.) it has alerted the predator to its own presence, and b.) the escaping meerkats make it more likely that the screaming one will be the one targeted, but it has actually increased the survival and reproduction odds of other meerkats with those same genes. The family of humans who have genes that will predispose them to jumping into a river to save a child is more likely to do well than the family of humans without those genes. This is one of the harder aspects of evolution to understand, and it's complicated when we're dealing with social species.

In the case of homosexuality and evolution, it is likely that biological predispositions to high fertility and immune response on the part of the mother also lead to higher predispositions to homosexuality in her later-born male offspring. While a specific male offspring might not reproduce, those genes have increased her odds of survival and fertility, leading to other offspring that also have those genes. This is all ignoring that sexual fluidity in males could have led to a type of social bonding with other males that led to increased survival rates and wasn't mutually exclusive with reproduction with females.

The evolution or lack thereof of homosexuality is also irrelevant to whether or not it's natural and/or moral.

With regard to your points on identical twin studies and how homosexuality is not genetic, homosexuality can have a genetic predisposition without it being certain. A person's sexuality is the product of a combination of genetics, other biological and epigenetic factors, environment, and experiences. There is no gay gene that we're aware of, but it is likely we will later become aware of a "you have a 50% chance of being gay" set of genes. Most phenotypes are a combination of factors and aren't as simple as the Mendelian inheritance we learn about in middle school.


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> When you split an object into more fundamemtal units which we called particle, it can be reconstructed into an alternative form. The more it is splited the more chaotic its form can be, but at a certain level which things become more energitic, it can be further splited into lesser unit with identical structure as the previous bigger unit, but of smaller size, which allow more complicated structure with limited amount of material.
> And creator deity in other myth easily own the Christian deity. Just search about the creation myth of Greek, Roman and Norse mythology and you will know how pathetic the christian god is.
> Further you can find certain impact of mortal belief on gods, say in Greek myth.


Still, I can't get what it has to do with my point: that creator deity could be derived from another deity and so on; thus, saying "there's a god who created everything" is just pointless. It's not only God to be pathetic, but the concept of god itself. Nothing is created and nothing is destroyed: all things evolve.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> ? IMO its logical enough, I dont believe it is natural and theres no scientific evidence or use for it that would make me think that sodomy is an evolutionary trait, needed for humanities survival.


at least 20 birds allah created are mostly gay, take the rose one standing on one leg for example.... a lot of animals practise sodomy, some bears do, snails don't even know what they are, some fish don't know either, sodomy and gay feelings are not something you can live without if you have feelings.. not if it's written, not if it's wrong... one out of 5 people are gay! they feel raped by normal sex! being gay is like having the wrong brains in your body...
like i said try for this year to not touch a girl, not kiss a girl... or if you allready got maried... don't hold hands for a year, don't kiss for a year... then you'll understand how silly it is to say such cruel words to 20% of your fam., to 20% of your friends, to 20% of your classmates... it's cruel to do so! you can't just do as if you are not gay! it's not an option if you feel that way.
what you say is: god created all humans, all birds, all monkeys, bud he hates 20% of his creation? really? what a glorious god you must have... how can you be proud of a god that is such cruel... if i make more than 3% failures of elecronic boards at my work a year i get fired! but your perfect god makes 20% and you still see him as a great god when he's such a crued?
sorry guy you completely lost me, you're most cruel towards at least 20% of the population... and i'm certain this is just the top of the iceberg you're not seeing because you don't feel gay you feel like you can judge them?
... it's your book that made it sound like wierd... wel it's not your book to be more accurate... first i know for sure of the jews wrote the thora and the book of profets... when over time there were made to many holes in that idea of religion there came Jesus, trying to correct the story so it would still fit and made sence... just Jesus didn't really follow the whole jewish base, he changed a minor few detailes to be able to say we got the wrong idea of god... he told us about god's changing to like us humans and is willing to talk about forgiveness... just Jesus took a too short corner with this forgiveness so it failed to make sence with the old books... the puzzle peices don't really fit when you read all the books of the bible... the same counts for islam it tried to restore the story of god, but still it looks to be based on the bible/juwish believe... yes i know this for sure since i've read all  4 books, though i read the bible most narrow. 
i really hope that someday there come people who start to use thier own brain! really! i beg you...
i miself am straight, always was.. but what you say is cruel.
if you're gay you, it's possible to show on the brain before even been born... okay, not on a living brain though...
you don't learn to love, that's what's been givem pre birth... the hormone level of your mother plays a big role in it when you are growing...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> at least 20 birds allah created are mostly gay, take the rose one standing on one leg for example.... a lot of animals practise sodomy, some bears do, snails don't even know what they are, some fish don't know either, sodomy and gay feelings are not something you can live without if you have feelings.. not if it's written, not if it's wrong... one out of 5 people are gay! they feel raped by normal sex! being gay is like having the wrong brains in your body...
> like i said try for this year to not touch a girl, not kiss a girl... or if you allready got maried... don't hold hands for a year, don't kiss for a year... then you'll understand how silly it is to say such cruel words to 20% of your fam., to 20% of your friends, to 20% of your classmates... it's cruel to do so! you can't just do as if you are not gay! it's not an option if you feel that way.
> what you say is: god created all humans, all birds, all monkeys, bud he hates 20% of his creation? really? what a glorious god you must have... how can you be proud of a god that is such cruel... if i make more than 3% failures of elecronic boards at my work a year i get fired! but your perfect god makes 20% and you still see him as a great god when he's such a crued?
> sorry guy you completely lost me, you're most cruel towards at least 20% of the population... and i'm certain this is just the top of the iceberg you're not seeing because you don't feel gay you feel like you can judge them?
> ...


Citation needed.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> ? IMO its logical enough, I dont believe it is natural and theres no scientific evidence or use for it that would make me think that sodomy is an evolutionary trait, needed for humanities survival.


See my post above about the possible evolution of homosexuality. Regardless, many forms of sodomy are as much viable methods of social bonding as any other.


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> at least 20 birds allah created are mostly gay, take the rose one standing on one leg for example.... a lot of animals practise sodomy, some bears do, snails don't even know what they are, some fish don't know either, sodomy and gay feelings are not something you can live without if you have feelings.. not if it's written, not if it's wrong... one out of 5 people are gay! they feel raped by normal sex! being gay is like having the wrong brains in your body...
> like i said try for this year to not touch a girl, not kiss a girl... or if you allready got maried... don't hold hands for a year, don't kiss for a year... then you'll understand how silly it is to say such cruel words to 20% of your fam., to 20% of your friends, to 20% of your classmates... it's cruel to do so! you can't just do as if you are not gay! it's not an option if you feel that way.
> *what you say is: god created all humans, all birds, all monkeys, bud he hates 20% of his creation? really? what a glorious god you must have... how can you be proud of a god that is such cruel... if i make more than 3% failures of elecronic boards at my work a year i get fired! but your perfect god makes 20% and you still see him as a great god when he's such a crued?*
> sorry guy you completely lost me, you're most cruel towards at least 20% of the population... and i'm certain this is just the top of the iceberg you're not seeing because you don't feel gay you feel like you can judge them?
> ...





TheDarkGreninja said:


> Citation needed.



Do you really need citation after that? Such a huge contradiction and you still need to refer to your contradictions-laden book?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Do you really need citation after that? Such a huge contradiction and you still need to refer to your contradictions-laden book?


He hasnt cited anything doesnt show where he gets his info from nor shows how the book has anything to do with animals just humanity.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> He hasnt cited anything doesnt show where he gets his info from nor shows how the book has anything to do with animals just humanity.


it's about if it's natural to have gays... the guy i responded to says that being gay is un natural. if bird, monkeys and so on have gays among, why is it unnatural, if you dig deeper in to the idea, you find that no is made gay, they are born that way... knowing that the koran, hope it's spelled the same way as in dutch, says all people are built as a reflexion of thier god: Allah, that means all gay people about 20% of the total people are also in his reflexion made... what citation do you mean? i just respond to what's been said as being logic and free to this TheDarkGreninja?
really, 20% is unnatural? really it's okay to judge because a book tells you they're unnatural? what did i do wrong? i just tell what's in at least 3 religions as a contradiction... and this is not the one that made me change my idea of god.


----------



## evandixon (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> it's about if it's natural to have gays... the guy i responded to says that being gay is un natural. if bird, monkeys and so on have gays among, why is it unnatural


I'm not looking to get into this particular debate, but you're basically saying "if the animals are doing it, then it's ok".


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I'm not looking to get into this particular debate, but you're basically saying "if the animals are doing it, then it's ok".


Sexual appeal/attraction is part of those instincts we cannot control, that make us similar to animals. 
Yeah, if animals do it, and our primordial instincts are inherited from animals, then it's ok. Why not?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I'm not looking to get into this particular debate, but you're basically saying "if the animals are doing it, then it's ok".


No, he's saying that if animals are doing it in nature, then it's natural by definition. Whether or not something is natural has no bearing on whether or not it's moral. Rape is natural among some animals, but it's not moral. This computer isn't natural, but responding to you isn't immoral.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I'm not looking to get into this particular debate, but you're basically saying "if the animals are doing it, then it's ok".


no:

if it's proven your gay before you are born it's natural
if it's proven that 20% of the total population is gay it's natural
if animals are also about 20% gay it's natural
if a perfect god created all beings, with 20% being gay... then where the hell do you think it's normal to judge his 20%
other way to say if this 20% is unnatural then god failed by 20% to create his perfect reflexion, that my friend is more than 6 times what i'm allowed to fail as a minor human technician at work!
so what did you miss?


Lacius said:


> No, he's saying that if animals are doing it in nature, then it's natural by definition. Whether or not something is natural has no bearing on whether or not it's moral. Rape is natural among some animals, but it's not moral. This computer isn't natural, but responding to you isn't immoral.


no, i wasn't taLking about moral when it comes to annimals...
the moral is in the 20% of creation the 3 reliogons sweep under the carped. it's immoral to say you better than another being if he hasn't done anything wrong to start with...
however if there's some one to blame for this, if you keep calling it wrong, then go do as you should! file a claim to the fabric it came from! that's what i said...


----------



## evandixon (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Yeah, if animals do it, and our primordial instincts are inherited from animals, then it's ok. Why not?


While I'm hesitant to apply this to the current debate, keep in mind that animals steal and murder, while it's not OK for us to do it.

We're supposed to be better than animals, so take care to not look to them as an example when questioning morality.

(Again I'm not participating in this particular debate, so any replies to this post about applying my argument above to the current topic will be ignored, so save yourselves the time.)


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> No, he's saying that if animals are doing it in nature, then it's natural by definition. Whether or not something is natural has no bearing on whether or not it's moral. Rape is natural among some animals, but it's not moral. This computer isn't natural, but responding to you isn't immoral.





UniqueGeek said:


> While I'm hesitant to apply this to the current debate, keep in mind that animals steal and murder, while it's not OK for us to do it.
> 
> We're supposed to be better than animals, so take care to not look to them as an example when questioning morality.
> 
> (Again I'm not participating in this particular debate, so any replies to this post about applying my argument above to the current topic will be ignored, so save yourselves the time.)



you ever ate chicken you murderous bastard?
you are an animal, nothing more than an advanced monkey
and you are participating to my understanding so i take it you read the whole post of mine, not only the animal part.


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> While I'm hesitant to apply this to the current debate, keep in mind that animals steal and murder, while it's not OK for us to do it.
> 
> We're supposed to be better than animals, so take care to not look to them as an example when questioning morality.
> 
> (Again I'm not participating in this particular debate, so any replies to this post about applying my argument above to the current topic will be ignored, so save yourselves the time.)


Actually, it's OK for us to do it. We've just choosen not to do it to live in a "safe" society (the so-called social contract: I don't kill you; you don't kill me).
However, being gay does not harm anyone. Why not letting our non-harmful instincts out for a better life?
Sodomy is absolutely natural and, in a world where soon there will be no room for anyone else, something to be promoted. I wonder how you can't get it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> it's about if it's natural to have gays... the guy i responded to says that being gay is un natural. if bird, monkeys and so on have gays among, why is it unnatural, if you dig deeper in to the idea, you find that no is made gay, they are born that way... knowing that the koran, hope it's spelled the same way as in dutch, says all people are built as a reflexion of thier god: Allah, that means all gay people about 20% of the total people are also in his reflexion made... what citation do you mean? i just respond to what's been said as being logic and free to this TheDarkGreninja?
> really, 20% is unnatural? really it's okay to judge because a book tells you they're unnatural? what did i do wrong? i just tell what's in at least 3 religions as a contradiction... and this is not the one that made me change my idea of god.


As in a peer reviewed study.


----------



## mammastuffing (Jul 14, 2016)

Raylight said:


> ...Christianity says reincarnation and evolution isn't real yet there is clear evidence of it...


 I don't think there's evidence for reincarnation though...


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> As in a peer reviewed study.


as in 30 years study to religion! so mind your words and really read backwards, kind sir.
i was born a christian, been that for about 20 years without any doubts, tried other religions to find out if there's one that is really able to give me a moral god, to give me a superior god.. but after 10 years of search i found out that all religions fail to these standards they claim to have... i just took out the part of being gay to prove my point, i can give you about 30 reasons all 3 major religions fail the standard given you can't answer different when you know all facts around it... so you can argue with me if you like... but i warn you it won't get any prettier than it already is... and i know a lot of people will be offended by the words i will use...
i really don't think that will do you nor me any good.
but if you wanna try me, go try...
to give you a hint about how it goes read a few pages back in this thread what i already said...
you can choose history, creation, other religions, perfect god, the future, the differences between the 3 religions, commons between the 3 religions, morals of sex, morals of food, morals of killing...
on all these subjects all 3 religions fail, they all contradict themselves one way or another...
just defending at least 20% of the people to easy answers given bay a book that's at least 1400 years old:koran. or 2007 years old: bible, or at least 4000 years: thora and the profets about 2300 years if i'm not mistaken.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> as in 30 years study to religion! so mind your words and really read backwards, kind sir.
> i was born a christian, been that for about 20 years without any doubts, tried other religions to find out if there's one that is really able to give me a moral god, to give me a superior god.. but after 10 years of search i found out that all religions fail to these standards they claim to have... i just took out the part of being gay to prove my point, i can give you about 30 reasons all 3 major religions fail the standard given you can't answer different when you know all facts around it... so you can argue with me if you like... but i warn you it won't get any prettier than it already is... and i know a lot of people will be offended by the words i will use...
> i really don't think that will do you nor me any good.
> but if you wanna try me, go try...
> ...


A peer reviewed study. For your claims on sodomy in nature.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> A peer reviewed study. For your claims on sodomy in nature.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


looking through all the citations, none of them were from a scientific journal of any sort. So why should I trust wikipedia?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> looking through all the citations, none of them were from a scientific journal of any sort. So why should I trust wikipedia?


I can see how you missed the scientific journals and otherwise peer-reviewed sources, given you only took literally two minutes to look through them.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> looking through all the citations, none of them were from a scientific journal of any sort. So why should I trust wikipedia?



do these video's count for you as proof?


----------



## mammastuffing (Jul 14, 2016)

Why does religion always have to go on hating the gays? Seriously, mind your own f-cking business.


Jack Daniels said:


> tried other religions to find out if there's one that is really able to give me a moral god, to give me a superior god.. but after 10 years of search i found out that all religions fail to these standards they claim to have...


 Why do you even need a god in that case? If you can try a few, find one that fits your moral values, then you obviously don't need anyone to tell you what's right and wrong...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> thoese these video's count for you as proof?



their proof, just no scientific explanation.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I can see how you missed the scientific journals and otherwise peer-reviewed sources, given you only took literally two minutes to look through them.


a good 90% were the same source thats why.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

mammastuffing said:


> Why does religion always have to go on hating the gays? Seriously, mind your own f-cking business.
> Why do you even need a god in that case? If you can try a few, find one that fits your moral values, then you obviously don't need anyone to tell you what's right and wrong...


because it's not that easy to quit a religion since your parents see it as failing! so you try to find a way to balance in life...



TheDarkGreninja said:


> their proof, just no scientific explanation.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality.aspx


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> their proof, just no scientific explanation.


How much explanation do you want? They're primates fucking primates of the same sex. It's quite straightforward really.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> How much explanation do you want? They're primates fucking primates of the same sex. It's quite straightforward really.


I mean, is it becuase of a mental issue or is it an actual evolutionary trait? Its like a male parrot only having a father, due to this they turn out gay.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> their proof, just no scientific explanation.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





TheDarkGreninja said:


> I mean, is it becuase of a mental issue or is it an actual evolutionary trait? Its like a male parrot only having a father, due to this they turn out gay.


did you have proper biology lessons?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> did you have proper biology lessons?


yes. Whats the problem?


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> yes. Whats the problem?


since when do gay pairs get a biological child?


----------



## Lacius (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> a good 90% were the same source thats why.


Last time I checked, "all the citations" wasn't the same thing as "90% of the citations." If you looked at the other 10%, the bibliography above the references, or the actual source that's 90%, you would have found plenty of peer-reviewed sources and sources from scientific journals. It has been very much demonstrated that humans are far from the only species to engage in homosexual behavior. This isn't even controversial. Homosexual behavior is very much natural.

It should also be noted that it doesn't matter whether or not humans are the only species to engage in homosexual behavior. Whether or not it's natural and/or exhibited by other animal species is irrelevant to the morality of it. If one is going to argue that homosexuality is immoral or _wrong_, he or she needs to provide reasoning other than "it's unnatural."



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I mean, is it becuase of a mental issue or is it an actual evolutionary trait? Its like a male parrot only having a father, due to this they turn out gay.


You can see my post above about some possibilities with regard to biological predispositions to homosexual behavior in humans. However, the mechanisms behind how a human or non-human animal becomes homosexual has no bearing on whether or not it's moral.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> since when do gay pairs get a biological child?


You obvously didnt understand my post. It has been studied that if a parrot/macaw who lost their mother, grows up with their father, they are likely to be gay.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You obvously didnt understand my post. It has been studied that if a parrot/macaw who lost their mother, grows up with their father, they are likely to be gay.


scientific proof! come on you treated me the same way!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Last time I checked, "all the citations" wasn't the same thing as "90% of the citations." If you looked at the other 10%, the bibliography above the references, or the actual source that's 90%, you would have found plenty of peer-reviewed sources and sources from scientific journals. It has been very much demonstrated that humans are far from the only species to engage in homosexual behavior. This isn't even controversial. Homosexual behavior is very much natural.
> 
> It should also be noted that it doesn't matter whether or not humans are the only species to engage in homosexual behavior. Whether or not it's natural and/or exhibited by other animal species is irrelevant to the morality of it. If one is going to argue that homosexuality is immoral or _wrong_, he or she needs to provide reasoning other than "it's unnatural."
> 
> ...


Im not the one to ask about moral arguments. I dont have the time to research.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Im not the one to ask about moral arguments. I dont have the time to research.


what gives? why do i have to prove and you got no time?
two standards?
really that eans heard from, so it's not real to me


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> what gives? why do i have to prove and you got no time?
> two standards?
> really that eans heard from, so it's not real to me


I dont have the time to research moral arguments, i have the time to do a quick search on a scientific journal. Sadly I cant find the study I was referring to so you can call me a liar if you want.


----------



## amoulton (Jul 14, 2016)

nope i have a functioning brain


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I dont have the time to research moral arguments, i have the time to do a quick search on a scientific journal. Sadly I cant find the study I was referring to so you can call me a liar if you want.


then it's most likely no science... scientivic reasearch of this kind is public, and if thruthfull should swarm around the internet as proof for the argument of gay is teached...
so again, no proof, and i mean real proof scientivicly profen by more than a self claimed dr.
reason is it's not true... you use fabricated lies by religious groeps as proof.. which is just like whitchcraft to me...


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Still, I can't get what it has to do with my point: that creator deity could be derived from another deity and so on; thus, saying "there's a god who created everything" is just pointless. It's not only God to be pathetic, but the concept of god itself. Nothing is created and nothing is destroyed: all things evolve.


Yes, but how do suppose particles ever take their current form? How do different form of potential create force?
Consider the creator to be the first sentient form to ever appear that metaphysics was at its current form where particles share same strcture instead of individually different. But yes further structures are a product of evolution. Also humans are product of evolution but the body is even more complicated than biogist know. However it requires use of equipment current found in physics lab, which are only to be handled by phycists.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> Yes, but how do suppose particles ever take their current form? How do different form of potential create force?
> Consider the creator to be the first sentient form to ever appear that metaphysics was at its current form where particles share same strcture instead of individually different. But yes further structures are a product of evolution. Also humans are product of evolution but the body is even more complicated than biogist know. However it requires use of equipment current found in physics lab, which are only to be handled by phycists.


science needs proof, so we base our findings on what we can prove to excist, there can be creation, just read my previous posts on that matter to assure you for once and for all it is impossible for a god to excist... if god created all as selfreflect, as being perfect he can't deny 20% of his creation, if we were ever perfect why do we make war, why is there hunger, why is there slavery? and don't tell me we did so, we are a reflexion of the perfect god.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> then it's most likely no science... scientivic reasearch of this kind is public, and if thruthfull should swarm around the internet as proof for the argument of gay is teached...
> so again, no proof, and i mean real proof scientivicly profen by more than a self claimed dr.
> reason is it's not true... you use fabricated lies by religious groeps as proof.. which is just like whitchcraft to me...


I only find witchcraft to be lazy, and techically everything that Christians do are witchcraft.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I mean, is it becuase of a mental issue or is it an actual evolutionary trait? Its like a male parrot only having a father, due to this they turn out gay.


I don't believe animals in the wild experience "mental issues", unless you can provide evidence that they do. Parrots 'turning out gay' isn't enough (being homosexual isn't a 'mental issue' after all) - unless in the evidence you have the parrot somehow communicated that it was depressed following the lack of its mother and this lead to an attachment issue to females, stronger attachments to males, and ultimately sexual feeling towards them. To be honest though, I'd be surprised if a parrot were able to experience such emotions. Perhaps they just like cockatoo?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> if god created all as selfreflect, as being perfect he can't deny 20% of his creation, if we were ever perfect why do we make war, why is there hunger, why is there slavery?


I think it's because someone ate an apple from the wrong tree one time, and that made god really angry for some reason, and that somehow justifies god having a tantrum and completely fucking everything up for everyone. Seems pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> science needs proof, so we base our findings on what we can prove to excist, there can be creation, just read my previous posts on that matter to assure you for once and for all it is impossible for a god to excist... if god created all as selfreflect, as being perfect he can't deny 20% of his creation, if we were ever perfect why do we make war, why is there hunger, why is there slavery? and don't tell me we did so, we are a reflexion of the perfect god.


No the creator never directly create the humans. Humans are indeed a product of evolution, but evolution in itself is more complicated than juat genes when animals gain the ability to think. I am talking about the diety that let metaphysics take a less chaotic form.
Humans are just some random species that are smarter than every other spiecies we know. But even much smaller animals have the capability to do crazy things. But Christians cannot accpect that humans are not special.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> science needs proof, so we base our findings on what we can prove to excist, there can be creation, just read my previous posts on that matter to assure you for once and for all it is impossible for a god to excist... if god created all as selfreflect, as being perfect he can't deny 20% of his creation, if we were ever perfect why do we make war, why is there hunger, why is there slavery? and don't tell me we did so, we are a reflexion of the perfect god.


I don't find war, hunger, etc as something unnatural or even wrong to some extent. In fact, it happens to pretty much every species as well. It's only natural, as unfortunate as it is.

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> No the creator never directly create the humans. Humans are indeed a product of evolution, but evolution in itself is more complicated than juat genes when animals gain the ability to think. I am talking about the diety that let metaphysics take a less chaotic form.
> Humans are just some random species that are smarter than every other spiecies we know. But even much smaller animals have the capability to do crazy things. But Christians cannot accpect that humans are not special.


less chaotic forms, what, running whit a spear after tigers was far less complicated then the electronics of today!


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

L


Jack Daniels said:


> less chaotic forms, what, running whit a spear after tigers was far less complicated then the electronics of today!


How do you think atoms exist when more fundamental particles are just like string theory described.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gnmmarechal said:


> I don't find war, hunger, etc as something unnatural or even wrong to some extent. In fact, it happens to pretty much every species as well. It's only natural, as unfortunate as it is.
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


Nature is both beautiful and threatening.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

Well this entire conversation is extremely toxic.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well this entire conversation is extremely toxic.


Why? It's just people having a debate. I don't see anything wrong here.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well this entire conversation is extremely toxic.


what toxic? it's just talking about the fundaments of life... i think everyone should have the freedom to see all ideas before they make up thier mind.
i might use some rude tactics to make a point though... but well that's just because i still feel the stress it took me to get out of all religions


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well this entire conversation is extremely toxic.


Metaphysics (which we call theoritical physics) and biology do not mix.


----------



## Pikm (Jul 14, 2016)

mashers said:


> Why? It's just people having a debate. I don't see anything wrong here.


I wouldn't call saying that being gay is a mental issue "having a debate". It's more close to being straight up ignorant.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> what toxic? it's just talking about the fundaments of life... i think everyone should have the freedom to see all ideas before they make up thier mind.


You are talking about things that are clearly not made of atoms using the interpretation of biology.


----------



## mashers (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> I wouldn't call saying that being gay is a mental issue "having a debate". It's more close to being straight up ignorant.


I agree. But that one comment doesn't reflect the entire conversation.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> You are talking about things that are clearly not made of atoms using the interpretation of biology.


read further my dear sir, there are already 1 pages, so try not to judge too fast... ohh by the way my english is far from perfect so forgive me.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

dorayaki95 said:


> nope,not a fan of god.
> 
> History has repeatedly shown time and time again that god is an imaginary tool used to control a bunch of blokes, in the name of religion


There is also the thing that imaginary gods become real with thousand of believers.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> There is also the thing that imaginary gods become real with thousand of believers.


no, just no... a god can't get real believe can get real though.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> There is also the thing that imaginary gods become real with thousand of believers.


That's an anime

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> no, just no... a god can't get real believe can get real though.


Belief is more complicated. If you study Greek mythology you will find that gods become more powerful with more believers.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> Belief is more complicated. If you study Greek mythology you will find that gods become more powerful with more believers.


if i what? that's not even english... god's dont.. god's don't grow in power, just the believers are.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> if i what? that's not even english... god's dont.. god's don't grow in power, just the believers are.


Chruches do get benefit from believers, but belief can also do other things. Just search a bit about greek mythology.
If god is really the creator, then yes believers are pointless. But the Christian god a more likely an evil deity who try to screw us for over 2000 years. And when he invades us this little life of ours will be lost, along with everything else. And with that, this deity will achieve greater forms. At this rate, I cannot afford not to care any more. Even the death of the human race is much more preferable than letting this deity claim everything.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> Chruches do get benefit from believers, but belief can also do other things. Just search a bit about greek mythology.
> If god is really the creator, then yes believers are pointless. But the Christian god a more likely an evil deity who try to screw us for over 2000 years. And when he invades us this little life of ours will be lost, along with everything else. And with that, this deity will achieve greater forms. At this rate, I cannot afford not to care any more. Even the death of the human race is much more preferable than letting this deity claim everything.


you need to be more clear to me, cause i don't understand this argument... every god is ultimate the same god, he created, then saw sin, then comes the judgement... but if god creates, then he creates the sin also... wich gets into a loop of impossiblities


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> you need to be more clear to me, cause i don't understand this argument... every god is ultimate the same god, he created, then saw sin, then comes the judgement... but if god creates, then he creates the sin also... wich gets into a loop of impossiblities


Nah, gods like zeus and odin is not really too different from humans, and zeus even have children with mortal women. In their corresponding myth both of them have demonstrated capability no less than the christian god, but their parents are much stringer.
Just because religion are used to control does not mean belief won't create deities out of nowhere.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> Nah, gods like zeus and odin is not really too different from humans, and zeus even have children with mortal women. In their corresponding myth both of them have demonstrated capability no less than the christian god, but their parents are much stringer.
> Just because religion are used to control does not mean belief won't create deities out of nowhere.


you know what myth means right... greek myths were meant to get the army stronger, to get more control over thier people...
but for you specially:


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

Answering to your(@Yil) reply to my post:
You're saying that we move to a less chaotic universe from a chaotic one thanks to a "metaphysical creator", did I get it right?
In such case, you're not getting farther from my point: who gave "order" to the creator? A second creator, and a third one, and so on. Thus, no creator can exist.
Simply, we can't explain how things were before the Planck time. That's it, as of now.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Answering to your(@Yil) reply to my post:
> You're saying that we move to a less chaotic universe from a chaotic one thanks to a "metaphysical creator", did I get it right?
> In such case, you're not getting farther from my point: who gave "order" to the creator? A second creator, and a third one, and so on. Thus, no creator can exist.
> Simply, we can't explain how things were before the Planck time. That's it, as of now.


we can explain, though the proof is inperfect, so not scientivic yet... only the start of life... that's vague, but the beginning o universe, mut positives and negatives... creating friction starting to form the basic ingredients of the big bang... that's happening over and over in the universe.


----------



## Earth97 (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> we can explain, though the proof is inperfect, so not scientivic yet...


Of course, conjectures are numerous, but we know nothing for sure. Big Bang is the most straightforward explanation, yet we can't say what was before that bunch of condensed matter and why it spread all around.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Of course, conjectures are numerous, but we know nothing for sure. Big Bang is the most straightforward explanation, yet we can't say what was before that bunch of condensed matter and why it spread all around.


because there's always a beforthat and an after that... it's silly like the question about the chicken...


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 14, 2016)

Pikm said:


> Well this entire conversation is extremely toxic.


Rather than using the Internets favourite buzzword of the month, try responding to the conversation with your own point of view.

If you don't approve of what someone is saying give a reason for it rather than complaining meaninglessly like most teenagers do these days.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Earth97 said:


> Answering to your(@Yil) reply to my post:
> You're saying that we move to a less chaotic universe from a chaotic one thanks to a "metaphysical creator", did I get it right?
> In such case, you're not getting farther from my point: who gave "order" to the creator? A second creator, and a third one, and so on. Thus, no creator can exist.
> Simply, we can't explain how things were before the Planck time. That's it, as of now.


No. Stable form can only be achieved if it is less chaotic. There is no us really back then, and there is not really a alternative chaotic realm. It simply is what the universe is before pattern and logic exist. The creator is most likely the first thing to achieve sentience, which with that capability a large sum of identical particals are formed, which only then our universe can achieve its current form.
Plank time is the smallest unit of time. Things are more complicated than just timelines and actually time is an illusion when changes happen on a dimension we cannot observe.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> No. Stable form can only be achieved if it is less chaotic. There is no us really back then, and there is not really a alternative chaotic realm. It simply is what the universe is before pattern and logic exist. The creator is most likely the first thing to achieve sentience, which with that capability a large sum of identical particals are formed, which only then our universe can achieve its current form.
> Plank time is the smallest unit of time. Things are more complicated than just timelines and actually time is an illusion when changes happen on a dimension we cannot observe.


theory not proven as for yet... though indeed, also possible, but still creatism is not the most probable thing.


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> because there's always a beforthat and an after that... it's silly like the question about the chicken...


Of course egg comes first. Back then primative life form only grow a new individuals out of their body. Only mutated ones lay egg.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> theory not proven as for yet... though indeed, also possible, but still creatism is not the most probable thing.


That deity too is a thing born out of the universe when it is still chaotic.
Just think about exdeath in ff5, only way more twisted.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

not if the bible was right: god created all animals, and it was right... so that's why i say... what happened before is not really ever gonna be really answered except in: https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjk_4ON-fPNAhVMK8AKHWbDBLAQtwIIQDAH&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlbAmjl-KVU&usg=AFQjCNEZiLhBR0q92wI6R80Ifd1yihuHxg&bvm=bv.127178174,d.ZGg
after that is the same thing we don't know for sure unles we could go back in time


----------



## Yil (Jul 14, 2016)

Should I look into that too when I investigate Jesus?


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 14, 2016)

Yil said:


> Should I look into that too when I investigate Jesus?


Jesus is a man that lived i thought though correct me if i'm wrong from 7 bc to 25 ac, talked a lot made 12 friends all male by the way, very importand, all his friends were man... and that's about all to say, ohh he died by death penalty... i almost forgot that part... about maria's story: did you know that centaurs were called gods if they became heroes? so there's no man beside her, and a god came over her in the shadows... boy she must feel proud.


----------



## Pluupy (Jul 14, 2016)

I would never use a 5-year-old iPhone, but I would definitely allow a 2000-year-old book containing series of short stories to control my life.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 15, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> then it's most likely no science... scientivic reasearch of this kind is public, and if thruthfull should swarm around the internet as proof for the argument of gay is teached...
> so again, no proof, and i mean real proof scientivicly profen by more than a self claimed dr.
> reason is it's not true... you use fabricated lies by religious groeps as proof.. which is just like whitchcraft to me...


What? These are moral arguments you cant prove them lol.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



mashers said:


> I don't believe animals in the wild experience "mental issues", unless you can provide evidence that they do. Parrots 'turning out gay' isn't enough (being homosexual isn't a 'mental issue' after all) - unless in the evidence you have the parrot somehow communicated that it was depressed following the lack of its mother and this lead to an attachment issue to females, stronger attachments to males, and ultimately sexual feeling towards them. To be honest though, I'd be surprised if a parrot were able to experience such emotions. Perhaps they just like cockatoo?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Firstly, What i meant is that I had read that when a male parrot at a very young age only has a father, they are more imprintable mating with animals that they had loved with aka loving something that looks like their parent.

Next, the apple signifies humanity's disobedience to a higher being, it showed how imperfect humans are.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> Jesus is a man that lived i thought though correct me if i'm wrong from 7 bc to 25 ac, talked a lot made 12 friends all male by the way, very importand, all his friends were man... and that's about all to say, ohh he died by death penalty... i almost forgot that part... about maria's story: did you know that centaurs were called gods if they became heroes? so there's no man beside her, and a god came over her in the shadows... boy she must feel proud.


Jesus died during 0 ad he couldnt live after Ad since that was when he died.


----------



## koim (Jul 15, 2016)

Cavemen used to attack each other with little to no reason, then they invented religion to organize their acts.
Lately... god feels like an internet troll watching the world with a bowl of popcorn.


----------



## chaoskagami (Jul 15, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Firstly, What i meant is that I had read that when a male parrot at a very young age only has a father, they are more imprintable mating with animals that they had loved with aka loving something that looks like their parent.



I have no clue what you're getting at here.



> Next, the apple signifies humanity's disobedience to a higher being, it showed how imperfect humans are.



Snark mode: It was very delicious. 



> Jesus died during 0 ad he couldnt live after Ad since that was when he died.



Sounds like you need a refresher on how your calendar works, since 0 A.D. doesn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

EDIT: Also, A.D. stands for _anno domini _not "after death". That means "in the year of our lord" so that's NOT when he died, actually, regardless of whether this Rabbi was god's son or not.


----------



## mashers (Jul 15, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Firstly, What i meant is that I had read that when a male parrot at a very young age only has a father, they are more imprintable mating with animals that they had loved with aka loving something that looks like their parent.


What does that have to do with human sexuality?



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Next, the apple signifies humanity's disobedience to a higher being, it showed how imperfect humans are.


Well, 'perfect' and 'imperfect' are objective terms. Furthermore, if you believe that god created humans then you must also believe that he created them how he wanted them. And if you believe that then you must also believe that if they are imperfect, he intended for them to be imperfect. I realise what the apple on the tree symbolises. Eve (and later Adam) were tempted by the serpent to eat from the tree of knowledge or whatever; ergo, they were created, according to the bible, by a god who not only created within them the possibility to be tempted, but also put something there knowing that they would be tempted by it (he's omniscient, right?) and then damned his whole creation to hell when they fell for his hilarious prank by eating the apple. That's like putting a delicious steak in front of a dog and then kicking it when it goes to eat it. Pretty perverse if you ask me, and certainly not the actions of a loving and benevolent god - more like someone akin to the person kicking the dog (an abusive control freak).


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> What does that have to do with human sexuality?
> 
> 
> Well, 'perfect' and 'imperfect' are objective terms. Furthermore, if you believe that god created humans then you must also believe that he created them how he wanted them. And if you believe that then you must also believe that if they are imperfect, he intended for them to be imperfect. I realise what the apple on the tree symbolises. Eve (and later Adam) were tempted by the serpent to eat from the tree of knowledge or whatever; ergo, they were created, according to the bible, by a god who not only created within them the possibility to be tempted, but also put something there knowing that they would be tempted by it (he's omniscient, right?) and then damned his whole creation to hell when they fell for his hilarious prank by eating the apple. That's like putting a delicious steak in front of a dog and then kicking it when it goes to eat it. Pretty perverse if you ask me, and certainly not the actions of a loving and benevolent god - more like someone akin to the person kicking the dog (an abusive control freak).


nothing much. other than the possibility of it happening in humans but i dont think thats been studied yet.

With muslims, life is considered a test, god knew that this would happen so he could teach us a lesson, he didnt damn us to hell he damned us to earth. God loves us but that doesn't mean he wants to spoil us. Would you let your child continually eat sweets because theyre nice? no. You told them not to eat sweets and they shouldve listened, otherwise they get punished. or are you telling me parents are also not loving people? Thats your logic in a real life situation...


----------



## mashers (Jul 15, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> nothing much. other than the possibility of it happening in humans but i dont think thats been studied yet.


So why mention it? It doesn't seem to add anything but distraction to the conversation



TheDarkGreninja said:


> With muslims, life is considered a test, god knew that this would happen so he could teach us a lesson, he didnt damn us to hell he damned us to earth. God loves us but that doesn't mean he wants to spoil us. Would you let your child continually eat sweets because theyre nice? no. You told them not to eat sweets and they shouldve listened, otherwise they get punished. or are you telling me parents are also not loving people? Thats your logic in a real life situation...


Except that's not what happens according to christians. Christian belief says, "you have inherited sin from Adam and Eve; it therefore doesn't matter what you do in your own life, however good you are, if you don't believe in god/Jesus/holy spirit, then you go to hell for all eternity". To use your example of children eating too many sweets, that's like saying to your own child, "I know you don't even like sweets, but because your great great grandfather ate too many sweets, I'm going to have to punish you." Where's the sense in that?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> So why mention it? It doesn't seem to add anything but distraction to the conversation
> 
> 
> Except that's not what happens according to christians. Christian belief says, "you have inherited sin from Adam and Eve; it therefore doesn't matter what you do in your own life, however good you are, if you don't believe in god/Jesus/holy spirit, then you go to hell for all eternity". To use your example of children eating too many sweets, that's like saying to your own child, "I know you don't even like sweets, but because your great great grandfather ate too many sweets, I'm going to have to punish you." Where's the sense in that?


there is none lol. Im not here to fight for Christianity.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 15, 2016)

Though there is a certain logic to not reasoning with your spawn as they are at once very stupid, or at least lacking forethought, and generally without conscience (children are bastards) if the only reason for not eating sweets is because you will be punished it is not a good logic.


----------



## mashers (Jul 15, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> there is none lol. Im not here to fight for Christianity.


Ok, so what does Islam say on the matter? Can a non-believer escape punishment in the afterlife?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> Ok, so what does Islam say on the matter? Can a non-believer escape punishment in the afterlife?


nope otherwise whats the point of this life?


----------



## mashers (Jul 15, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> nope otherwise whats the point of this life?


So their stance is the same as Christianity - believe in our god or go to hell. Still seems pretty perverse for a distant and aloof god to condemn his children to eternal torment if they don't believe in him. That's like someone who doesn't know they have a long lost brother being punished for not knowing who he is. If the brother turns up and says, "hi I'm your brother, here's a DNA test to prove it" and they tell him to fuck off, then the brother might be justifiably upset and maybe trash him on FaceBook. But if he doesn't even make himself known then he has no right to have a tantrum when his brother doesn't get in touch.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> So their stance is the same as Christianity - believe in our god or go to hell. Still seems pretty perverse for a distant and aloof god to condemn his children to eternal torment if they don't believe in him. That's like someone who doesn't know they have a long lost brother being punished for not knowing who he is. If the brother turns up and says, "hi I'm your brother, here's a DNA test to prove it" and they tell him to fuck off, then the brother might be justifiably upset and maybe trash him on FaceBook. But if he doesn't even make himself known then he has no right to have a tantrum when his brother doesn't get in touch.


A god that would condemn someone to eternal punishment because of lack of belief is an infinitely immoral god, regardless of how much evidence there is for a god's existence.


----------



## mashers (Jul 15, 2016)

Lacius said:


> A god that would condemn someone to eternal punishment because of lack of belief is an infinitely immoral god, regardless of how much evidence there is for a god's existence.


And yet that is what the major religions would have us believe.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Jul 15, 2016)

The real problem here is belief.



> belief
> _noun
> _
> 1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
> 2. trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).




It's funny how the little things like what are in the "Big Books", a few claims, and a whole billions of people to support you since they think the same way, can get you to trust, put faith, confidence, acceptance, in something that isn't proven to exist, or at least something that is easily counter-argued upon. Those little things are just made so well that they support each other enough for one to never question his belief. (literally question I mean).


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 15, 2016)

mashers said:


> So their stance is the same as Christianity - believe in our god or go to hell. Still seems pretty perverse for a distant and aloof god to condemn his children to eternal torment if they don't believe in him. That's like someone who doesn't know they have a long lost brother being punished for not knowing who he is. If the brother turns up and says, "hi I'm your brother, here's a DNA test to prove it" and they tell him to fuck off, then the brother might be justifiably upset and maybe trash him on FaceBook. But if he doesn't even make himself known then he has no right to have a tantrum when his brother doesn't get in touch.


You should talk to someone who is more learned on the religion. But, in the quran it does say that he who helps in humanities advancement goes to heaven. The only time you will never be forgiven, is when you are a polytheist or deal in interest but even these are forgivable in the right circumstances.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 16, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What? These are moral arguments you cant prove them lol.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



not moral, common logic arguments, and you still got no proof.. you got just empty words.
we didn't have bc and ac till at least 100 years after Jesus died...
there's never been a paper found with proof of the day he got born, nor when he died...
calulation of time was messy those days, the ruler of a country made the calculation based on his birth time... since these days get messed up quite easy...
so time standard for ac and bc is at least 7 years wrong, since we can't be sure wich day he really was born... and since we still are not 100% sure what grave was his we're not 100% sure when he died...
the catholic church gave us the birth and death date  not based on Jesus life, but based on the strategy for succes...
christianety wasn't brought by christians but by politicians, these politicians wanted to kill the greek and roman gods... they succeded.
proof for this can be found by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Maria_della_Concezione_dei_Cappuccini this was previous not a christian church i think we both know what god was praised here.

Jesus most likely was half roman half jewish unlike his brothers who were full jewish. the original scrips didn't ever talk about a virgin maria... that Jesus lived we do know for sure, since the romans and the eldest of the jews politicians hated him much we got a lot of times reported that they falsely claimed him of crimes. he, his jewish father and maria were in the calculation of the population... too bad there's no time stamp on that calculation, and jesus was already born for some time.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 16, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> not moral, common logic arguments, and you still got no proof.. you got just empty words.
> we didn't have bc and ac till at least 100 years after Jesus died...
> there's never been a paper found with proof of the day he got born, nor when he died...
> calulation of time was messy those days, the ruler of a country made the calculation based on his birth time... since these days get messed up quite easy...
> ...


oh sorry. also that is a moral argument how about explaining how it was not?


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 17, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> oh sorry. also that is a moral argument how about explaining how it was not?


moral is when i talk about when it's okay to kill or not, about about when we're talking about what's right and wrong in sence of proper responce to a situation... we can all talk about such things and we can differ about those forever... i didn't talk about such a thing.
but i won't reply you anymore when you still live by dubble standards.
when i tell being gay and having sex as being gay is natural and moral you wanted proof, now i ask proof of this so called parrot getting more chances to be gay when he only has a father and you had 3 full days now! come on guy! i did give you all the proof there is in 5 minutes.
i understand it hurts to see you've been teached wrong, but i can't help about that.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 17, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> moral is when i talk about when it's okay to kill or not, about about when we're talking about what's right and wrong in sence of proper responce to a situation... we can all talk about such things and we can differ about those forever... i didn't talk about such a thing.
> but i won't reply you anymore when you still live by dubble standards.
> when i tell being gay and having sex as being gay is natural and moral you wanted proof, now i ask proof of this so called parrot getting more chances to be gay when he only has a father and you had 3 full days now! come on guy! i did give you all the proof there is in 5 minutes.
> i understand it hurts to see you've been teached wrong, but i can't help about that.


Youre really annoying me now. maybe its because english isnt a language you dont understand well. I could find the proof, i have a life i dont have the time to search through google for something to win an internet debate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation
This was as close as i could get.


----------



## mashers (Jul 17, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> i have a life i dont have the time to search through google for something to win an internet debate.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation
> This was as close as i could get.


But you demanded "peer reviewed" evidence from others, and sneered at Wikipedia articles when cited. Why do you think it's ok to demand such evidence from others but then get annoyed and assume others have misunderstood you when they demand the same level of evidence of you?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 17, 2016)

mashers said:


> But you demanded "peer reviewed" evidence from others, and sneered at Wikipedia articles when cited. Why do you think it's ok to demand such evidence from others but then get annoyed and assume others have misunderstood you when they demand the same level of evidence of you?


I had looked at the citations and they were peer-reviewed studies. I didnt say wikipedia cant have them... It seems anyone who disagrees with me loves to misunderstand and misinterpret everything i say so that they get their own way. Yet im not doing the same, shows a very different level of respect there.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 17, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I had looked at the citations and they were peer-reviewed studies. I didnt say wikipedia cant have them... It seems anyone who disagrees with me loves to misunderstand and misinterpret everything i say so that they get their own way. Yet im not doing the same, shows a very different level of respect there.


there's no misunderstaning you know that, you just can't stand loosing a conversation. not only should the study proofing sexualorientian is thought that religious man have a point of banning it for immoral/unnatural, there is another reason i doubt the study to be anything but a hoax: it's almost impossible to get numbers since there are not that much fathers in nature educating thier child at all, still also these animals have gays within them.. see the cats for example, there is no way the father stays to do anything in the life of these kittens of his... so the parrot could be, but the numbers gathered can never count as proof of concept.
reading the wiki, it's inconsistant, the theories are not really clear on the facts for example they found out a lot of gey people felt less love from thier parents, but were unclear if this was because of the son/daughter was already different or not.
for other parts they've got ideas of childeren grow up liking the things as for examples toys the other sex would normaly like, well that one was already proven wrong since the numbers don't match... most of these childeren turn out to be just as hetero sexual as any other kid... i do try to take the idea serious...
thirst it wouldn't make sence since all gay friends i've met, there are a lot, have had just as much love as i did as long as thier parents were not religious. those who had religious parents had hard time telling and not all these parents could accept thier child the way he is.
one of my brothers really was into barbi dolls and dressings and princesses when he was young, but never even had a thought about being gay...
in fact they did a study on kids by testing thier brains with pictures when they were young once of girls and of boys to see if there were differences between those who're hetero sexual later or those who're gay later... they could proof the reaction in the brain was there already really early... though i forgot the age they tested...
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html for some information, could not find the one about the test with children though so that might take time, or be just a hoax i remembered...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 17, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> there's no misunderstaning you know that, you just can't stand loosing a conversation. not only should the study proofing sexualorientian is thought that religious man have a point of banning it for immoral/unnatural, there is another reason i doubt the study to be anything but a hoax: it's almost impossible to get numbers since there are not that much fathers in nature educating thier child at all, still also these animals have gays within them.. see the cats for example, there is no way the father stays to do anything in the life of these kittens of his... so the parrot could be, but the numbers gathered can never count as proof of concept.
> reading the wiki, it's inconsistant, the theories are not really clear on the facts for example they found out a lot of gey people felt less love from thier parents, but were unclear if this was because of the son/daughter was already different or not.
> for other parts they've got ideas of childeren grow up liking the things as for examples toys the other sex would normaly like, well that one was already proven wrong since the numbers don't match... most of these childeren turn out to be just as hetero sexual as any other kid... i do try to take the idea serious...
> thirst it wouldn't make sence since all gay friends i've met, there are a lot, have had just as much love as i did as long as thier parents were not religious. those who had religious parents had hard time telling and not all these parents could accept thier child the way he is.
> ...


i dont understand what youre getting at. Ok that about hoaxes in the last sentence really annoys me. It seems you too are indulging in double standards as you write that it couldve been a hoax/ you couldnt find it yet you tell me to find it (the parrot study) even if i cant and use that against me? The wiki is obviously inconsistent as it is multiple different studies not just one.http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/homosexuality.htm pretty interesting read. also this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ly-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


----------



## DutchyDutch (Jul 18, 2016)

Page 1: Civilized discussion about each others beliefs and respecting them.
Page 63: Two people going back and forth about something that isn't even related to the thread topic.

Ah, well, it's expected in a thread about such a controversial topic.

EDIT: Also, I do believe in God... but sometimes I'm very doubtful. It may sound weird, but sometimes I fear that my life is all just a dream. Or that our life is a computer simulation created by higher beings. It may sound stupid to some, but in my opinion it's possible. But I try to not focus much on how it all started, I try to focus more on how it is now.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 18, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Page 1: Civilized discussion about each others beliefs and respecting them.
> Page 63: Two people going back and forth about something that isn't even related to the thread topic.
> 
> Ah, well, it's expected in a thread about such a controversial topic.
> ...


Sorry, i guess this went from a theism arguement to a religion based one. (both of which are extremely seperate of each other.) and i totally get what you go through, ive always had doubts and still do, being someone who often puts science before religion its really hard when 80% of your family think your views on life are radical which is pretty ironic.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 18, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Sorry, i guess this went from a theism arguement to a religion based one. (both of which are extremely seperate of each other.) and i totally get what you go through, ive always had doubts and still do, being someone who often put science before religion its really hard when 80% of your familt think your views on life are radical which is pretty ironic.


I assume living with people who don't accept that you can have your own personal view is harsh whenever those views come up x.x

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 18, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> I assume living with people who don't accept that you can have your own personal view is harsh whenever those views come up x.x
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


mmhmm. My family think im not "muslim" enough.  They just expect me to blindly follow which annoys me, my uncle and parents are the only ones who let me think for myself.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 18, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> mmhmm. My family think im not "muslim" enough.  They just expect me to blindly follow which annoys me, my uncle and parents are the only ones who let me think for myself.


That must be kinda hard. As far as I remember, only my grandparents think I should go to the church, pray to God before meals, etc. Fortunately, my parents allow me to think whatever I want to and don't force me to believe and follow anything I don't personally believe in.

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 18, 2016)

gnmmarechal said:


> That must be kinda hard. As far as I remember, only my grandparents think I should go to the church, pray to God before meals, etc. Fortunately, my parents allow me to think whatever I want to and don't force me to believe and follow anything I don't personally believe in.
> 
> Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


Its the older generation that are the most stubborn.
Edit: This doesnt mean you should hate your grandparents.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> i dont understand what youre getting at. Ok that about hoaxes in the last sentence really annoys me. It seems you too are indulging in double standards as you write that it couldve been a hoax/ you couldnt find it yet you tell me to find it (the parrot study) even if i cant and use that against me? The wiki is obviously inconsistent as it is multiple different studies not just one.http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/homosexuality.htm pretty interesting read. also this, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ly-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html


i can see your consfusement but, i was trying to be honest to myself, since i couldn't find proof of part of my argument i already said i could've been wrong about that part, since i see no page refering to the child testing anymore... since i said to you that i don't see how something is a fact without proof i thought to put myself on the same level.
as for this discussian got out of hand though i think it's best i stop trying to find aruments.
 i did not really meant to be as cruel in words as i got... just as i've been teached that soft words don't land. ahh well.
i wished sometimes i could make religions fit again, but i can't... by traveling the places of origin i found out most scripts had possible double meanings. then hearing how i hurted friends of mine while i talked about my religion got me to study it deeper. then when i found too many contrdictions in all three main religions where there's a creating god that cares for his people... i couldn't just continu ignoring my findings.
 that doesn't mean it's wrong to believe though... and most people i know who're religious still are trying to be the best persons in life they could be...
though i still differ in viewpoint, it's best to stop here...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 18, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> i can see your consfusement but, i was trying to be honest to myself, since i couldn't find proof of part of my argument i already said i could've been wrong about that part, since i see no page refering to the child testing anymore... since i said to you that i don't see how something is a fact without proof i thought to put myself on the same level.
> as for this discussian got out of hand though i think it's best i stop trying to find aruments.
> i did not really meant to be as cruel in words as i got... just as i've been teached that soft words don't land. ahh well.
> i wished sometimes i could make religions fit again, but i can't... by traveling the places of origin i found out most scripts had possible double meanings. then hearing how i hurted friends of mine while i talked about my religion got me to study it deeper. then when i found too many contrdictions in all three main religions where there's a creating god that cares for his people... i couldn't just continu ignoring my findings.
> ...


Im glad you feel that way. Im logically minded meaning ive always researched i feel like the texts are misinterpreted.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 18, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Im glad you feel that way. Im logically minded meaning ive always researched i feel like the texts are misinterpreted.


no, i'm most sure my findings are correct... though, i know i hurt my parents when i tell them. i can't accept religion as a base of life or even as being correct, thats why i wished i could make it fit... specially my mom is really into her religion, she's even afraid of casper the friendly ghost might be occult and infiltrate young souls... for me i'm logically minded also, i've got asperger syndrome...


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 18, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> no, i'm most sure my findings are correct... though, i know i hurt my parents when i tell them. i can't accept religion as a base of life or even as being correct, thats why i wished i could make it fit... specially my mom is really into her religion, she's even afraid of casper the friendly ghost might be occult and infiltrate young souls... for me i'm logically minded also, i've got asperger syndrome...


The thing is though you only really know about christianity as far as im aware. I'd rather not go into this again. i always remember this quote "your proofs and facts are only what you want them to be, look into life as you would look into a book, with an open mind" You've obviously only searched for the bad and how things could be interpreted that way, rather than take things at face value then looking at what makes most sense, not to you but logically. at this point this argument is turning into ignorance of anything against your own views.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 19, 2016)

like i said this discussion already got out of hand, but i can assure you i counted all 3 religions jewish since they created the base for christian religion, christian since that's the religion of my parents protestands to be preceise... since i couldn't make it fit i tried all, i wasn't looking for anything in particular, when making my decisions, i don't use statistics when it comes to proof, i take science first, then history and all 3 failed those 2 tests. then i dismissed the dino's for anyone thinking... jewish was the only one enduring the longest since it doesn't talk about a god who loves you and history could still be... just jewish alike christian religion have double standards if it's about killing... so jewish just failed me moral, christian religian failed me as the extra to jewish religion is a piece of the puzzle that doesn't really fit, and if you visit the places of origin you'll see why... rome has some dark secrets in it's past... muslims, and the koran, sorry for misspelling the name that's the way the book is spelled in dutch... is really different in built-uo, it doesn't start the way the other 2 start, and it doesn't end the same alike... still the history is mostly the same history, wich brings me to the same moral standard. muslim comes close to the jewish religion actually... the thing the muslim religion failed me is the heart towards outsiders, and those who differ in view, so also this religion is mostly moral a problem to me.
it's not just moral though, just like i talked about is the statics of nature versus verdict of humans feeling they don't fit... there are nice things in all 3 religions, just that can't ever possibly make the wrongs disapear, following half a book is like not believing at all.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 19, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> like i said this discussion already got out of hand, but i can assure you i counted all 3 religions jewish since they created the base for christian religion, christian since that's the religion of my parents protestands to be preceise... since i couldn't make it fit i tried all, i wasn't looking for anything in particular, when making my decisions, i don't use statistics when it comes to proof, i take science first, then history and all 3 failed those 2 tests. then i dismissed the dino's for anyone thinking... jewish was the only one enduring the longest since it doesn't talk about a god who loves you and history could still be... just jewish alike christian religion have double standards if it's about killing... so jewish just failed me moral, christian religian failed me as the extra to jewish religion is a piece of the puzzle that doesn't really fit, and if you visit the places of origin you'll see why... rome has some dark secrets in it's past... muslims, and the koran, sorry for misspelling the name that's the way the book is spelled in dutch... is really different in built-uo, it doesn't start the way the other 2 start, and it doesn't end the same alike... still the history is mostly the same history, wich brings me to the same moral standard. muslim comes close to the jewish religion actually... the thing the muslim religion failed me is the heart towards outsiders, and those who differ in view, so also this religion is mostly moral a problem to me.
> it's not just moral though, just like i talked about is the statics of nature versus verdict of humans feeling they don't fit... there are nice things in all 3 religions, just that can't ever possibly make the wrongs disapear, following half a book is like not believing at all.


quick thing, the qurans history very much differs from christianities and judaism. For example, the adam and eve story, it wasnt eve who decevied adam, both  did so of their own accord. Next is the qurans miracles in writing as i like to call them, stuff like how the world was formed in a nebula with the sun first and then the planets. Also calling bees with a female ending long before we knew worker bees were female. Thats what really made me think. if you want some quotes ill bring them up tommorrow.


----------



## Bingo (Jul 19, 2016)

I don't believe in God. I have too many questions, and God isn't the answer to them.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 20, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> quick thing, the qurans history very much differs from christianities and judaism. For example, the adam and eve story, it wasnt eve who decevied adam, both  did so of their own accord. Next is the qurans miracles in writing as i like to call them, stuff like how the world was formed in a nebula with the sun first and then the planets. Also calling bees with a female ending long before we knew worker bees were female. Thats what really made me think. if you want some quotes ill bring them up tommorrow.


you know adam and eve are not the first human's right, just that adam was royal and eve was not... that took adam's royal placement... yes there are diffences, in bloodline, and in blame quest when god was angry, just the teaching is the same... the food you eat has almost the same ritual as for juwish people, for christians not that much, they don't ask for a ritual to be performed when killing an animal, though it's also written in thier book, just like most christans will eat pork while there's reason to doubt if that's allowed in thier book. the difference is the unconditional loving god factor jesus talked about...
butthe things failing me in religion is the factor of a creator that says he loves al humans but then comes with a list of human behaving that he should've known about when he made these humans to set them apart from the rest of creation... read noah's story for example, there is only one human around the earth out of milions that the lord created good enough, just how perfect do you think you'll need to be, cause that never changed... it's not just gay people he's up against, there's a list where there is no way a human can approve, no one can be as perfect as descriped... it's random lateron when a sin is forgiven or not...
to come back to the gay part for example: the rule applied to gay man, it's okay to be gay, just not to act has already taken the life of a close friend of mine... he was gay, but thought he was not good, he tried all sorts of ideas to be normal, but when he tried all options and still couldn't be himself and good at the same time he didn't see any other option to take his own life when he was 18...
though there are differences in detailes in the 3 religions, it doesn't change the superior thinking which is the reason people kill might be killing themselves might be killing others... the reason i take them all 3 together is also because others might say after reading: see my religion is much better we don't do these things, the main problem is not the religion you choose, it's telling eachother that there's reason to believe you are somehow superior to others, that you are in position to judge others way of life...


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> you know adam and eve are not the first human's right, just that adam was royal and eve was not... that took adam's royal placement... yes there are diffences, in bloodline, and in blame quest when god was angry, just the teaching is the same... the food you eat has almost the same ritual as for juwish people, for christians not that much, they don't ask for a ritual to be performed when killing an animal, though it's also written in thier book, just like most christans will eat pork while there's reason to doubt if that's allowed in thier book. the difference is the unconditional loving god factor jesus talked about...
> butthe things failing me in religion is the factor of a creator that says he loves al humans but then comes with a list of human behaving that he should've known about when he made these humans to set them apart from the rest of creation... read noah's story for example, there is only one human around the earth out of milions that the lord created good enough, just how perfect do you think you'll need to be, cause that never changed... it's not just gay people he's up against, there's a list where there is no way a human can approve, no one can be as perfect as descriped... it's random lateron when a sin is forgiven or not...
> to come back to the gay part for example: the rule applied to gay man, it's okay to be gay, just not to act has already taken the life of a close friend of mine... he was gay, but thought he was not good, he tried all sorts of ideas to be normal, but when he tried all options and still couldn't be himself and good at the same time he didn't see any other option to take his own life when he was 18...
> though there are differences in detailes in the 3 religions, it doesn't change the superior thinking which is the reason people kill might be killing themselves might be killing others... the reason i take them all 3 together is also because others might say after reading: see my religion is much better we don't do these things, the main problem is not the religion you choose, it's telling eachother that there's reason to believe you are somehow superior to others, that you are in position to judge others way of life...


I would kill god before he have a chance to screw us. All maybe I should let him take all his believers before some guy get angry at me for wiping out his god. Just need to get really prepared.


----------



## richardparker (Jul 20, 2016)

Non believers here?
Non beliebers here?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 20, 2016)

Let me pray to Costello that Yil hasn't derailed this thread.


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

richardparker said:


> Non believers here?
> Non beliebers here?


I believe god exist.
I believe he is not the creator of anything.
I believe I should not trust him.
I believe he is trying to screw us and when christian apocalypse strike he will take away everything, by which I mean absorb everthing on this planet so he can become more powerful, even opmipotent, which he deserves non.
I am not a Satanist.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Deck of Noobs said:


> Let me pray to Costello that Yil hasn't derailed this thread.


I came here much earlier than you think. Actually more than 20 pages ago.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 20, 2016)

oh, thank god.


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

Deck of Noobs said:


> Let me pray to Costello that Yil hasn't derailed this thread.





Deck of Noobs said:


> oh, thank god.


I literally post above you. I am talking about mythitheism but the post somehow shifted to gay rights.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 20, 2016)

ah. well, see ya


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 20, 2016)

Jack Daniels said:


> you know adam and eve are not the first human's right, just that adam was royal and eve was not... that took adam's royal placement... yes there are diffences, in bloodline, and in blame quest when god was angry, just the teaching is the same... the food you eat has almost the same ritual as for juwish people, for christians not that much, they don't ask for a ritual to be performed when killing an animal, though it's also written in thier book, just like most christans will eat pork while there's reason to doubt if that's allowed in thier book. the difference is the unconditional loving god factor jesus talked about...
> butthe things failing me in religion is the factor of a creator that says he loves al humans but then comes with a list of human behaving that he should've known about when he made these humans to set them apart from the rest of creation... read noah's story for example, there is only one human around the earth out of milions that the lord created good enough, just how perfect do you think you'll need to be, cause that never changed... it's not just gay people he's up against, there's a list where there is no way a human can approve, no one can be as perfect as descriped... it's random lateron when a sin is forgiven or not...
> to come back to the gay part for example: the rule applied to gay man, it's okay to be gay, just not to act has already taken the life of a close friend of mine... he was gay, but thought he was not good, he tried all sorts of ideas to be normal, but when he tried all options and still couldn't be himself and good at the same time he didn't see any other option to take his own life when he was 18...
> though there are differences in detailes in the 3 religions, it doesn't change the superior thinking which is the reason people kill might be killing themselves might be killing others... the reason i take them all 3 together is also because others might say after reading: see my religion is much better we don't do these things, the main problem is not the religion you choose, it's telling eachother that there's reason to believe you are somehow superior to others, that you are in position to judge others way of life...


In islam, adam is the first human, so youre wrong their. I didnt understand the rest of your reply sorry.


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> In islam, adam is the first human, so youre wrong their. I didnt understand the rest of your reply sorry.


Yeah a religion earlier than Judaism also said that but no one believes it.


----------



## Jack Daniels (Jul 20, 2016)

in all 3 religions adam is the first human, then eve made out of adam... only the two are before writing existed already been carved out in picture story... almost every aspect of adam and eve's story fit's though adam is not the first human, he's the first prince in royal line... wich would explain how there were other cities when the sons of adam explored the earth.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 20, 2016)

Yil said:


> Yeah a religion earlier than Judaism also said that but no one believes it.


Could you elaborate? Im a little confused, its really hot in London cant think straight.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Jack Daniels said:


> in all 3 religions adam is the first human, then eve made out of adam... only the two are before writing excisted already been carved out in picture story... almost every aspect of adam and eve's story fit's though adam is not the first human, he's the first prince in royal line... wich would explain hw there were other cities when the sons of adam explored the earth.


? Where did you get this info from, since ive never heard of it, is it on a site i can find?


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Could you elaborate? Im a little confused, its really hot in London cant think straight.


It is one of the older myth in middle east, but back then middle east have more than one religion that are have more than one god, like with Greek/ Roman.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 20, 2016)

Yil said:


> It is one of the older myth in middle east, but back then middle east have more than one religion that are have more than one god, like with Greek/ Roman.


so polytheists? interesting. do you know the name?


----------



## Yil (Jul 20, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> so polytheists? interesting. do you know the name?


Nah. But there are many pagan that are specifically familiar with middle east religions or even some historians. Most of wiccans decide which gods to worship before start praying so they do lots of research, pagan is similar but also have lineage related. And in those movements some middle east religions are also dug up. Just to mind that the concept of meseiah can be found in earlier religions under a goddess of light, who is wise and feminine, and Christmas is practically stolen from Pagans, which is why Judaism have a slighty different date. But it is alway good to celebrate during winter and demand money and toys from parents.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Jul 20, 2016)

Yil said:


> Nah. But there are many pagan that are specifically familiar with middle east religions or even some historians. Most of wiccans decide which gods to worship before start praying so they do lots of research, pagan is similar but also have lineage related. And in those movements some middle east religions are also dug up. Just to mind that the concept of meseiah can be found in earlier religions under a goddess of light, who is wise and feminine, and Christmas is practically stolen from Pagans, which is why Judaism have a slighty different date. But it is alway good to celebrate during winter and demand money and toys from parents.


lol. It seems gods changed forms for different occasions...


----------



## Iamapirate (Jul 24, 2016)

No, I don't believe in a god. There is simply not enough evidence for me.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

While Christians constantly mix up health problem and spiritual attack. I assure you the latter is much worse, you would get at least several month of sleeping problems and nightmares non stop without any external stress and pills will not do a bit. Things only quite when I showed my aggression against them (no amount of praying can be as effective, and prayer are definitely not efficient in terms of time when you do it yourself). Health problems can be of many causes but spiritual attack is one of the worst.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2016)

Is that like flying saucer attack?

audio only version.

How does it play out for religions that have no concept of spirituality?


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that like flying saucer attack?
> 
> audio only version.
> 
> How does it play out for religions that have no concept of spirituality?



You mean how christianity is bad for your spirituality and many other religions in general where you seek oneness with a deity that by no means is your creator/ affected anything good of you?
Or else it is more of belief of certain than religion,and there are definitely no priest that charge believers, or if you are talking about certain political structures.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2016)

Actually I find the notion of a spiritual attack as you framed it to be truly laughable, however rather than play IR science boy, let's point and laugh at the freak I thought I would ask about something that could be a logical inconsistency within that. I guess you can say those religions are wrong but that is just as good from where I sit as you now have to prove another is right.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Actually I find the notion of a spiritual attack as you framed it to be truly laughable, however rather than play IR science boy, let's point and laugh at the freak I thought I would ask about something that could be a logical inconsistency within that. I guess you can say those religions are wrong but that is just as good from where I sit as you now have to prove another is right.


Well you don't have the experience first hand. Most of the things in this world are intangible to us. I also find your assumption that only what you see is real and there is no possibility what cannot see can be real more laughable than me chasing ghosts.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2016)

Assuming you meant see as in demonstrate -- I struggle to see air but can infer its presence, gravity too. Equally I have never been below the equator, pretty sure it exists though as people have been and shown it to be the case.

On the other hand I have never seen any evidence of a spiritual attack. Seen people attacked with spirits (fortunately no fire was involved), seen attacks on the spirit of people (usually by myself being rather negative about things) and even saw someone hurt from a falling spirit level once but an attack on metaphysical concept somewhat aligned with certain popular religions (yet absent entirely in many others) having manifestations in the physical realm is pretty laughable. I don't doubt someone felt like shit and blamed it on spirits but I can no more blame it on spirits than someone farting 10 times zones away... except actually chaos theory at least allows for that to be a possibility.


----------



## exdeath255 (Jul 25, 2016)

People accept science as fact just like any other religion. Science is only what we know right now with our current understanding. It doesnt mean it couldnt be totally abolished the next day, say if demons or aliens decided to drop in and stop being in a wavelength that we cant see with eyes or tech for example. We dont know all that there is to know, so to think that there cant be something ever just because theres no proof right now is pretty dumb if you ask me.

also nothingness or the void, is god afaik.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

exdeath255 said:


> People accept science as fact just like any other religion. Science is only what we know right now with our current understanding. It doesnt mean it couldnt be totally abolished the next day, say if demons or aliens decided to drop in and stop being in a wavelength that we cant see with eyes or tech for example. We dont know all that there is to know, so to think that there cant be something ever just because theres no proof right now is pretty dumb if you ask me.
> 
> also nothingness or the void, is god afaik


I think it is more of intangibility than simply invisibility. And it is most certain that it is unadvisible to drop guard against them.
I am convinced that the forbid of study of magic and so called peace of the Christian god is to one day invade the earth, and they wanted the planet devisated so nature will be weakened. Simply said god is a wicked deity who want to absorb everything on the planet who by no means is our creator and definitely not from earth. Peace will only come when he is gone, which this god is by no means 'redeemable'.


----------



## OrGoN3 (Jul 25, 2016)

Yes. How else do you explain BootMii, A9LH, and Loadiine?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2016)

exdeath255 said:


> People accept science as fact just like any other religion. Science is only what we know right now with our current understanding. It doesnt mean it couldnt be totally abolished the next day, say if demons or aliens decided to drop in and stop being in a wavelength that we cant see with eyes or tech for example. We dont know all that there is to know, so to think that there cant be something ever just because theres no proof right now is pretty dumb if you ask me.
> 
> also nothingness or the void, is god afaik.


Then they are doing science wrong. Any experiment by anybody can prove anything "known" to be wrong, something you kind of head towards there but miss in the end. I should also say the knowledge of science is all what we know, the goal of science is to know it all and figure out how things work along the way which is a rather large and important difference.
Absence of proof is indeed not proof of absence but however many thousands of years and not a smidgen of evidence would mean scepticism is the more logical path -- though above I said anybody can prove something wrong it would take some serious juice to go up against various theories and laws in science, sometimes this can be bad but most times it is a fairly good way to set about things. At the same time my feeble meat body and brain can't learn it all so I have to accept that someone that went through broadly similar training (baseline what we know, now observe, experiment, repeat, faking results is the worst) for another area will work to the same standards.

Equally "nothingness or the void". I mentioned it a few times already but assuming that the gods are in the bits you don't know is a concept called god of the gaps. It is widely panned as a philosophy really. If instead you meant it more literally and want the void/nothingness/notions of the universe cooling to a uniform temperature to be your god then fair enough.

Beyond that you are teetering somewhat close to the "atheism is another religion" pointlessness.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Then they are doing science wrong. Any experiment by anybody can prove anything "known" to be wrong, something you kind of head towards there but miss in the end. I should also say the knowledge of science is all what we know, the goal of science is to know it all and figure out how things work along the way which is a rather large and important difference.
> Absence of proof is indeed not proof of absence but however many thousands of years and not a smidgen of evidence would mean scepticism is the more logical path -- though above I said anybody can prove something wrong it would take some serious juice to go up against various theories and laws in science, sometimes this can be bad but most times it is a fairly good way to set about things. At the same time my feeble meat body and brain can't learn it all so I have to accept that someone that went through broadly similar training (baseline what we know, now observe, experiment, repeat, faking results is the worst) for another area will work to the same standards.
> 
> Equally "nothingness or the void". I mentioned it a few times already but assuming that the gods are in the bits you don't know is a concept called god of the gaps. It is widely panned as a philosophy really. If instead you meant it more literally and want the void/nothingness/notions of the universe cooling to a uniform temperature to be your god then fair enough.
> ...


Physics experiments are not as easy to control as Biology (actually it is a false statement because the environment is much more complicated than Biologist like to believe) and that many factors are completely unknown. And during an experiment you are more likely to get results you wanted.
Biologists don't even know math beyond year one in university.
You should know that temperature is irrelevant that it is just a representation of movements of internal components in a large system, which even an atom can be ridiculously huge and complex if you dive into smaller particles.
You know I could ask someone to arrange a spirit attack if you want to feel what it is like.


----------



## haipro2001 (Jul 25, 2016)

The person who made us called himself "god"  does exist. However he is just little better than normal human beings. He made up  the whole story in order to keep human living in harmony by accepting his lies. But now the religions kept causing trouble and it doesn't work well anymore...


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 25, 2016)

Difficulty with controls/controlling for alternative variables varies with experiment, however at present I would say that biology is harder to control for first (what does this simple to make chemical do to a human body) where physics (neutrino sensors down that mine or something) probably get harder at the top end. On the other hand I can fairly easily make a weak vacuum or use an alternative gas and drop a large weight in it to see what goes for air resistance. I am not sure where you were going with that though.

That would depend upon where you find your biologist. Equally how necessary would it be for the average straight up biologist to know much more than first year maths (which seems to typically be a refresher course for 16-18 year old maths, so statistics as far as modelling and distributions, basic equations for growth and what have you, simple mechanics, complex numbers and a bit more pure maths to understand some of the concepts underpinning all the things mentioned). I am sure you could find someone in the field that needs the good stuff, protein folding for example, but edges and crossover are always where the fun is at for that sort of thing.

The temperature thing was shorthand and alluding to an end of the universe concept (universe expands so much that entropy becomes meaningless and thus everything is the same temperature), something that I often see linked to void based philosophies.

Spirit attack me or whomever you like. In fact don't tell me you are doing it and I will come back here and say if I feel something out of the ordinary.


----------



## BlokeyBloke (Jul 25, 2016)

No I don't belive in god or satan.
It's wrong for me.
Also I don't belive in hell or heaven
for me I find it all fake I dont belive in anything
like that.

Ps: This is what I think.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

BlokeyBloke said:


> No I don't belive in god or satan.
> It's wrong for me.
> Also I don't belive in hell or heaven
> for me I find it all fake I dont belive in anything
> ...


Consider this, if you do not die by the hand of a believer and not a believer yourself, neither heaven nor hell is relevant to you. Only religious people goes there.


----------



## Fabax01 (Jul 25, 2016)

I believe in the Wii U reincarnation cycle
I don't know, actually. If there is a God except the wii u  i'm indifferent. Either way i'll die, believing or not believing.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Looking over this thread I am semi upset people confuse anti-theism with atheism


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Looking over this thread I am semi upset people confuse anti-theism with atheism


But which one are you? I am anti-theism because gods just like messing with our pointless little life.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> But which one are you? I am anti-theism because gods just like messing with our pointless little life.


Personally I am actually a thiest (John Spong type of Christian although I do find the jesus myth theory interesting) but i just do not like it when people use those terms interchangeably when they are different.


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Personally I am actually a thiest (John Spong type of Christian although I do find the jesus myth theory interesting) but i just do not like it when people use those terms interchangeably when they are different.


Jesus is kind of out of the system but I am still convinced that god will eventually make an invasion which he directly state in the bible and people think letting god absorb everything is good.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RevPokemon said:


> Personally I am actually a thiest (John Spong type of Christian although I do find the jesus myth theory interesting) but i just do not like it when people use those terms interchangeably when they are different.


I do have some sort of peek into the future ecperience of christian apocalypse. I trust neither god nor satan


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Jesus is kind of out of the system but I am still convinced that god will eventually make an invasion which he directly state in the bible and people think letting god absorb everything is good.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


So you are anti- thiest in the sense you believe in a sort of higher power yet do not care for him/her/zir? I took your original post as if you were an anti-thiest in the sense you believe that there is no God.

Edit: didn't see that second part


----------



## LittleFlame (Jul 25, 2016)

I don't think there's any deity out there, if there is they're an asshole


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> So you are anti- thiest in the sense you believe in a sort of higher power yet do not care for him/her/zir? I took your original post as if you were an anti-thiest in the sense you believe that there is no God.
> 
> Edit: didn't see that second part


I believe in their existence and I take the majority as a threat. They never cared about you being kind to others, but if you worship them which makes them more powerful and if they can claim your soul after you die, which going to heaven or hell is not the natural process but due to a interference of deities. Good luck having your concious fading into god, though he will become closer to omnipotence with everything on this planet.
Being forced into oneness with a deity is neither justified nor desirable.
To quote @LittleFlame Deities are assholes.
(Judgement: (damage * (1 + EXP * 10)) ^ LOVE)


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> I believe in their existence and I take the majority as a threat. They never cared about you being kind to others, but if you worship them which makes them more powerful and if they can claim your soul after you die, which going to heaven or hell is not the natural process but due to a interference of deities. Good luck having your concious fading into god, though he will become closer to omnipotence with everything on this planet.
> Being forced into oneness with a deity is neither justified nor desirable.
> To quote @LittleFlame Deities are assholes.
> (Judgement: (damage * (1 + EXP * 10)) ^ LOVE)


So you are not a antitheist but a believer in Misotheism.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> While Christians constantly mix up health problem and spiritual attack. I assure you the latter is much worse, you would get at least several month of sleeping problems and nightmares non stop without any external stress and pills will not do a bit. Things only quite when I showed my aggression against them (no amount of praying can be as effective, and prayer are definitely not efficient in terms of time when you do it yourself). Health problems can be of many causes but spiritual attack is one of the worst.


What

Sent from my Nokia 3310 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> So you are not a antitheist but a believer in Misotheism.


In addition that I do not believe Christian God nor anything in the system to be the actual creator.
And assholes fight each other all the time.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> In addition that I do not believe Christian God nor anything in the system to be the actual creator.
> And assholes fight each other all the time.


But that leads me to ask of the non-abrahamic religions do you then find most believable?  Likewise i assume you believe God ≠ Creator?


----------



## Yil (Jul 25, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> But that leads me to ask of the non-abrahamic religions do you then find most believable?  Likewise i assume you believe God ≠ Creator?


The first sentient being born out of a formless world which all after assume a similar construst. Though I do not know how something came to being when particle and primative form of metaphysics do not exist yet. However this does not desclude an alternative. Name was of little relevence. It is sometimes despicted as the ansector of sky fathers. I do not know of the origin of this exact myth, but in Chinese mythology a cosmic giant called pangu was born out of a formless Universe who then split the universe into two opposing forms that one becomes the fundamental of our world. He then died, like many other creators depicted in various polytheism religions, and the Only one I know of to be dispicted as alive are Ra and Vishnu. Since sentience and patterns exist, it is impossible for us to comprehand What it means to not exist.


----------



## exdeath255 (Jul 26, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Then they are doing science wrong. Any experiment by anybody can prove anything "known" to be wrong, something you kind of head towards there but miss in the end. I should also say the knowledge of science is all what we know, the goal of science is to know it all and figure out how things work along the way which is a rather large and important difference.
> Absence of proof is indeed not proof of absence but however many thousands of years and not a smidgen of evidence would mean scepticism is the more logical path -- though above I said anybody can prove something wrong it would take some serious juice to go up against various theories and laws in science, sometimes this can be bad but most times it is a fairly good way to set about things. At the same time my feeble meat body and brain can't learn it all so I have to accept that someone that went through broadly similar training (baseline what we know, now observe, experiment, repeat, faking results is the worst) for another area will work to the same standards.
> 
> Equally "nothingness or the void". I mentioned it a few times already but assuming that the gods are in the bits you don't know is a concept called god of the gaps. It is widely panned as a philosophy really. If instead you meant it more literally and want the void/nothingness/notions of the universe cooling to a uniform temperature to be your god then fair enough.
> ...




my understanding of the void [the spirit] comes before the universe [the mind] and the body [...the body]

Our current understanding of reality makes this topic unintelligible anyway.

i also believe there is no absolute truth.

People just like to pretend that they know about reality so then they feel secure and safe.
This is why religion exists, to control people.


----------



## Yil (Jul 26, 2016)

exdeath255 said:


> my understanding of the void [the spirit] comes before the universe [the mind] and the body [...the body]
> 
> Our current understanding of reality makes this topic unintelligible anyway.
> 
> ...


The Only reason I am not too convinced about this is that physical brain and alternative structure can process information and even with limited size and mass it is possible to achieve infinite provessing, kind of like nanotech. It does not take us to be in another mental world for the mind to be powerful.


----------



## haipro2001 (Jul 26, 2016)

I am extremely confused here! WHo are anti-theism here? 
_By_ the ways i'm strongly anti-atheist.  However i work for the church. I make people believe in God so that they will sacrifice their live for me and i can do whatever i want


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

haipro2001 said:


> I am extremely confused here! WHo are anti-theism here?
> _By_ the ways i'm strongly anti-atheist.  However i work for the church. I make people believe in God so that they will sacrifice their live for me and i can do whatever i want


Antitheism is believing that there is no God, Gods or deity. 
Athiesm is not believing in God,Gods or a deity.
Note the two are different as lack of belief and believing that there isn't are different yet the two are often confused in today's society where atheism is the term that is (in my opinion wrongly) used.


----------



## Yil (Jul 26, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Antitheism is believing that there is no God, Gods or deity.
> Athiesm is not believing in God,Gods or a deity.
> Note the two are different as lack of belief and believing that there isn't are different yet the two are often confused in today's society where atheism is the term that is (in my opinion wrongly) used.


Okay, I thought of the opposite. But I am pretty sure I am more of atheist than miso-theist, which I never had faith in any deity to begin with and definitely not trying to punish god (if planning to screw him before he did the same to us does not count, however I still need to figure out about Jesus).
It does bother me a lot for a deity to use mortal souls to achieve greater form (in some sense you, everything else and god together will achieve Omnipotence, kind of like Asriel, the absolute god of hyperdeath, as you become a lost soul trapped in a mind-prison of happiness).
And I do not know if the creator is actually alive, hibernating or dead. In religious Taoism there was a human who achieved the power of creator but in order to create a new universe he sacrificed his own sentience. As of personal belief the creator is long dead.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 26, 2016)

It appears we have a definitions disparity.

I usually operated under
Theist. One that believes in some form of deity, or world view handed down (Buddhism would probably count under this, as would many tribal religions) based on believing something rather than theoretically being able to prove it/demonstrate it.
Agnostic. Undecided on the matter but not necessarily a theist. Arguably the wishy washy approach.
Atheist. One that would hold gods as most cultures, religions, creation stories... would define them to not describe 
Anti theist. Much like anti other things would be one opposed to theism as a concept, and would probably argue against its use in government and such like. Or if you prefer "believe what you want to believe, I don't" vs "I don't believe and it is a silly idea, I want it out of any thing that can trouble me". It would be entirely possible for an atheist to have a position on religion's role within the government and similar type things and it might even be "no way, no how" without going into anti territory too. Major overlap with the concept of militant atheist, though we can probably have another debate as to what that means (who made it, does anybody choose to identify as it rather than being labelled...).

Broadly speaking all anti theists are atheists but not all atheists would be anti theists, I am not sure if any atheists would find anti theism as a concept to be objectionable . I imagine there are ways to blur lines (I guess you could follow a strictly interpreted version of Buddhism, as opposed to a more literal one if I may confuse religion study terms) but as a broad concept go with that. You can be a theist and strongly disagree with another religion, or another interpretation of your religion, but it is not the same concept. You could also argue for some of the same things (no religion in schools/government say) whilst being a theist quite happily, it might be against interests of the religion (or it might not, if you don't grow up one it is easier to get you to another perhaps) if numbers and funds are a concern but that is a different matter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 26, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> It appears we have a definitions disparity.
> 
> I usually operated under
> Theist. One that believes in some form of deity, or world view handed down (Buddhism would probably count under this, as would many tribal religions) based on believing something rather than theoretically being able to prove it/demonstrate it.
> ...



One question that this brings up of course is simply how does one define the terms and the views? For example I know of many people who claim to atheist yet they also practice Buddhism as they feel it is not really a religion in the strongest sense (at least compared to the Abrahamic 3) or view it more as a philosophy (which to a point is what most Japanese think since they both manly believe in Shintoism and Buddhism yet they do not think the two ideas conflict).

Another is with regards to being an agnostic when are you one? There are many people who feel more in touch in the "atheist" or anti theist camps yet claim to be agnostic simply because they believe that you can never be 100% sure of anything although it is their strong personal opinion that there is no deity or god. So when would you claim that?

The issue is when speaking of religion (or lack of) there is no universally accepted terminology in either academic field or even to regular every day people which makes these talks more confusing.


----------



## Haider Raza (Jul 26, 2016)




----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 26, 2016)

Hour and a half. That is going to be a long one, especially if the editing is going to repeat things like it has been doing at points.

Interesting first 25 minutes though. I don't want to start pulling it apart when the rest could cover something like it (as it stands he went through people as gods and is now going onto manufacturing, albeit with a somewhat shaky knowledge of modern design practices). Starting from a position like that is hardly ideal from a logical standpoint but an acceptable one. It is curious that he starts out at least with the Abrahamic religions as separate concepts when most seem to treat the previous ones as alphas or betas of that, or people following some strange remix/extension. Proving concepts with scripture it hard if you don't take the scripture as read in the first place, particularly troublesome if your definition of your god starts from there. The pen example was an odd one as well from a logical standpoint as I am not sure a quirk of linguistics carries that well in this instance, if indeed a god has to be as powerful as it is then outlined to be.
The big bang thing I have seen things like it before, even from Islamic scholars, sure I guess if you hold there to be hidden knowledge that people might not understand and read things looking to confirm it you can find lots in lots of things. On moonlight then many would hold it was known to various Greek astronomers, well known to those which might then become Islamic scholars too.

Anyway I will have to finish it later. Interesting so far though.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 27, 2016)

Sweet, seems someone that has a better knowledge of Arabic went through it before me


----------



## Yil (Jul 27, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Sweet, seems someone that has a better knowledge of Arabic went through it before me



Just because something is more powerful and more knowledgable does not make it the supreme ruler of the universe. I have seen earthquake on tv does not mean I can create giant gaps between lands.

Primordial deities have demonstrated much higher power and there has been no implication god can achieve such level. Sky father generation of olypus/ asgard/ eygptian/ many african/ middle east/ asian deities like zeus/ odin/ shu, etc. are shown at least as powerful and all of them are not there in the beginning.


----------



## Feeling it! (Jul 31, 2016)

Yes.
Why? Nobody would believe me in 1 million years if I told them.
I realized that since this site is a breeding ground ground for that "iso" site type of things that of course I don't expect others to be the same as me.


----------



## Yil (Jul 31, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> Yes.
> Why? Nobody would believe me in 1 million years if I told them.
> I realized that since this site is a breeding ground ground for that "iso" site type of things that of course I don't expect others to be the same as me.


I believe he exist. I don't believe he is the creator or trustworthy.


----------



## Feeling it! (Jul 31, 2016)

Yil said:


> I believe he exist. I don't believe he is the creator or trustworthy.


Interesting thought there.
to what degree do you think god has an impact? This is super interesting to me to hear honestly.


----------



## Yil (Jul 31, 2016)

Feeling it! said:


> Interesting thought there.
> to what degree do you think god has an impact? This is super interesting to me to hear honestly.


Not too much beside politics and religion.
I do believe there is a creator out there, but most likely not god. Simply able to tell about certain cosmic event does not guaranteed him actually the cause of it. And though strong for a god to make physical changes in our world, it is not impossible for a mortal to accomplish the same. All needed to be done is to make someone stronger than average human to carry out his words, and inserting something we do not have an answer (which is at least partly right, but some are made up) for so everything seems real. However this man seems more interesting than his god.
If you read my earlier post, there are certain things in his plan: Gather lots of believers -> Destroy nature + Take over the world -> End all war -> Armies get disbanded + Nature has nothing against god -> Invasion of some kind to claim everything -> God's own ascension. In not very long time his 'judgement': Maybe flood because skyfather tier can do that, maybe zombie apocalypse because he can make zombies that convert others while all their soul gets into God, maybe we are invading by his army of angels or worst of all everything just suicide. If you've played undertale, then let's just say that God is flowey and with the souls of everything single thing on earth he can become the absolute god of hyperdeath, but without us he is still omega flowey (though God at least have a soul). Since his second part is already starting, I cannot afford not to care anymore.


----------



## jamieyello (Aug 3, 2016)

How about we stop thinking about "God" and start thinking about these organized religions. There are an uncountable amount of religions in the world, they all think they know the answers. Whatever you believe, is simply a matter of your geographic area, for the most part. Mormon? Odds are you were born a Mormon. Baptist? Most likely born into it. Muslim? (Good luck converting without getting your head chopped off.)

If any of these religions are correct, only one of them is correct. They all contradict each other. You roll the dice and get... Christianity, lucky you. The decision to pick Christianity was hardly a choice, but you've thought about it well and you believe it is true.







You're now looking at a 32.5% chance that you were lucky enough to have rolled the correct religion. Let's say best case scenario is that God is real, you're still probably not right, and you were born and raised in a phony cult. Odds that God is real * %of the world that follows that religion.

Maybe, just maybe you hit the jackpot, or maybe you just found a cult that exploited all your weaknesses and fullfilled your desires with lies, .


----------



## Yil (Aug 3, 2016)

jamieyello said:


> How about we stop thinking about "God" and start thinking about these organized religions. There are an uncountable amount of religions in the world, they all think they know the answers. Whatever you believe, is simply a matter of your geographic area, for the most part. Mormon? Odds are you were born a Mormon. Baptist? Most likely born into it. Muslim? (Good luck converting without getting your head chopped off.)
> 
> If any of these religions are correct, only one of them is correct. They all contradict each other. You roll the dice and get... Christianity, lucky you. The decision to pick Christianity was hardly a choice, but you've thought about it well and you believe it is true.
> 
> ...


Most of the creation stories are wrong, but that does not mean those gods does not exist. It is just to boost human ego to a new degree and who ever believes in it get to claim themselves superior above all else.

By the way the chart exceed 100%.

Seriously why does everyone think whatever deities that came to us and seek mortal worship is the creator? It (or is it 'them') does not require faith to exist or become more powerful as opposed to most deities seeking those. Quite a number of deities are not to be considered a force of nature (which nature include but goes far beyond the earth or this universe), and just want to mess with our lives, that they either are not interested at all or stop caring at one point and deem themselves superior.


----------



## ReigningSemtex (Aug 3, 2016)

Yeah I believe in God as much as I do father Christmas, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy


----------



## jamieyello (Aug 3, 2016)

Pff, not my chart. Rounding errors? That doesn't even take into account the other faiths section. Yeah this is a piss chart. Oh well. It just about looks like any other chart you can find on Google.


----------



## osirisjem (Aug 3, 2016)

It takes as little as 6 months of The TEMP to remove even the stubbornest of God-fearing ways.
Members having visited > 5 years have an "I believe in God" rate under 1 percent.

And That's a FACT (TM) !


----------



## Yil (Aug 3, 2016)

ReigningSemtex said:


> Yeah I believe in God as much as I do father Christmas, Easter bunny and the tooth fairy


Funny thing is Christmas is stolen from Paganism. Good time to grab money and gifts from parents. Father Christmas is an actual priest.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 3, 2016)

I do not consider the bible to be an accurate portrayal of events or to be relevant in this day and age, but I do accept that there's probably something out there.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Yil said:


> Funny thing is Christmas is stolen from Paganism. Good time to grab money and gifts from parents. Father Christmas is an actual priest.


Most of the things from Christianity are from other ANE religion or are largely taken the wrong way. For example the virgin birth is not really biblical as most scholars and serious theologians agree that "a young girl" is probably a much better translation.


----------



## SonicCloud (Aug 3, 2016)

I believe in god, but its not like im a die-hard catholic fan.



 Neither i go to the church every Sunday / have read the bible entirely. In fact, ever since i was a child we only went to a church when it was a special event like a weeding or baby shower oops


----------



## filfat (Aug 3, 2016)

If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.

On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).


----------



## Yil (Aug 3, 2016)

filfat said:


> If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.
> 
> On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).


There is more illogical to say that just because you cannot perceive that they are not there. But an intelligent person can tell the difference between illusion, mysterious and known source of perception. Holograms, for example, is not an illusion but not tangible either.
Oh but there are more than one part in the body that can process information, and more capable of achieving a more complex form. And no, this is not the quantum cloud.
Edit: brain -> cloud


----------



## SonicCloud (Aug 3, 2016)

filfat said:


> If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.
> 
> On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).


So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes? 



*not trying to make controversial posts. just saying


----------



## Lacius (Aug 3, 2016)

SonicCloud said:


> So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> *not trying to make controversial posts. just saying


Closing our eyes is an experience. Death is the end of experience. It's difficult to conceptualize and is more analogous to the time before your conception and birth.


----------



## Foxchild (Aug 3, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Most of the things from Christianity are from other ANE religion or are largely taken the wrong way. For example the virgin birth is not really biblical as most scholars and serious theologians agree that "a young girl" is probably a much better translation.



Just wanted to give the other side to this before I head to bed... You're referring to Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son..."(NIV).  In the hebrew, the word for "virgin" there can also be legitimately translated "young woman".  I've seen some defend "virgin" by pointing out that a young woman having a kid isn't much of a sign - which is a fair point but doesn't exactly clinch the argument.  More convincingly the entire Old Testament (including this passage) was translated from Hebrew to Greek around (too lazy to google exact date right now) 300-400 BC (I wanna say 380).  This translation was done by 70 Jewish scholars and is known as the Septuagint or LXX translation.  It is well documented that this translation was completed several centuries before Jesus was born.  How did they translate this passage?  They used the greek "virgo" which can only mean "virgin".  So, clearly, these scholars believed that the prophet Isaiah's original intent was a prediction of a virgin birth.  

Now, I'll grant you that it can't exactly be proven that Mary gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin, but I think it's pretty clear that the prophecy in question referred to a virgin and not a young woman.  Also, while a virgin birth isn't provable, just making the claim of having a virgin mother is of some significance, if only because there can't be too many people in the history of the planet who have even attempted to make the claim.  Couple that with the other Old Testament prophecies (again written centuries or more before Christ's birth), that the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that he would be born in Bethlehem but called a Nazarene, descended from King David, be declared king while riding a donkey into Jerusalem (and that that would occur exactly 173,880 days after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem's walls), etc., with many of those over 300 prophecies being more specific than most people realize, the odds of one man doing all that, even if intentionally trying to fulfill that stuff is pretty much impossible.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 3, 2016)

Foxchild said:


> I've seen some defend "virgin" by pointing out that a young woman having a kid isn't much of a sign - which is a fair point but doesn't exactly clinch the argument. More convincingly the entire Old Testament (including this passage) was translated from Hebrew to Greek around (too lazy to google exact date right now) 300-400 BC (I wanna say 380). This translation was done by 70 Jewish scholars and is known as the Septuagint or LXX translation. It is well documented that this translation was completed several centuries before Jesus was born. How did they translate this passage? They used the greek "virgo" which can only mean "virgin". So, clearly, these scholars believed that the prophet Isaiah's original intent was a prediction of a virgin birth.


A few things to keep in mind
The translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed in the late 2nd century BCE, translated _almah_ into Greek as παρθένος (_parthenos_), which generally means "virgin". One issie is that you must ask how sufficient was thier knowledge of the greek language? Back then there really was not a word for word system so the translators had to at times make an educated guess. Likewise many jewish leaders were against it sonce they felt Hebrew was the Holy language and they had some other issues with it as well sich as the source Hebrew text. Even most early Christians disagreed over the doctrine and favored adoptionism of Christ.

Likewise you can see that it is interesting it is not verified by Paul amd is seldom evem mentioned. You would think something so wonderful would be discussed more but it is not. I believe that it was probably added to stress the importance of Christ yet also to a degree is under utilised in the Bible, perhaps t is since the other authors did not view it as valid or that it was latter added (keep in mind the true order of the NT is much different.).

Like wise i feel under current scholarship and understanding it is safe to say the correct term is young woman and that Jesus was probably not born of a virgin and that there is a chance Paul and otgers did not believe him to be born of a virgin either.




Foxchild said:


> Now, I'll grant you that it can't exactly be proven that Mary gave birth to Jesus while still a virgin, but I think it's pretty clear that the prophecy in question referred to a virgin and not a young woman. Also, while a virgin birth isn't provable, just making the claim of having a virgin mother is of some significance, if only because there can't be too many people in the history of the planet who have even attempted to make the claim. Couple that with the other Old Testament prophecies (again written centuries or more before Christ's birth),



As stated you have to ask did they really happen? Many of them were most likely things that did not happen in a literal sense but instead to teach morals. In fact a majority of mainstream scholars view the stories of the nature miracles as metaphorical narratives rather than as historical reports. Think of it as Jesus told parables of people amd they told ones of him often to display ideas. To that point i feel it is wrong to take the Bible literally when it was not meant to be so.


----------



## filfat (Aug 4, 2016)

SonicCloud said:


> So...Do we only see like if we we're closing our eyes?
> *not trying to make controversial posts. just saying



No, in this context "nothing" is something. When you die, there's no more "you". You can't see, you can't think, you don't exist. we can't comprehend such a scenario which is why weak-minded people turn to religion which lies in some "everybody lived happily ever after" way.


----------



## Foxchild (Aug 4, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> To that point i feel it is wrong to take the Bible literally when it was not meant to be so.



I agree, and discernment is necessary to know where to take literally and where figuratively.  Parables,dreams/visions, metaphors, poetry, etc = not literally.  Most anything else, though, the burden of proof ought to be on finding textual evidence that a passage was not meant literally or otherwise it should be regarded at face value.  It seems a lot of Christians default to a "just take it figuratively" position because they feel it will be easier to defend.  What they don't realize is that the opposite is true.  Case-in-point:

Concerning the virgin birth, even if there were only one mention in the canon that would be sufficient for those who take the scripture seriously.  For those bothered by the apparent lack of mention, however, it is fortunate that God designed the Bible to be tamper-resistant with key doctrines dispersed throughout so that removing one or two passages from consideration would not detract from the whole.  In this instance, those who claim the lack of early church belief in the virgin birth forget that literally every time Jesus is called the Son of God it _assumes_ the virgin birth.  If you check Acts, this was the first thing Paul preached about Jesus and he calls Him that throughout his epistles.  Now, I realize that we could debate exactly what the term "son of God" means, but you'll find that in scripture it only ever refers to one of two things, and both preclude normal, biological parentage.  Either a being without parents at all who is a direct creation of God (Adam in Luke, angels in a couple places, etc.), or as we see in the famous John 3:16, someone who was literally fathered by God, as Jesus makes the claim to be the "only begotten" son of God - the only being to literally be fathered by God.  So, really, if someone is going to discount the virgin birth, they would have to exegete their way out of the most famous verse in the Bible.  Well, either that or take the easy way out and say "lots of scholars dismiss most of the gospel of John as inaccurate because reasons" then conveniently forget that they have to deal with the rest of the New Testament as well.


----------



## DustingtonZDX (Aug 4, 2016)

Are you talking about Arceus?


----------



## SonicCloud (Aug 4, 2016)

filfat said:


> No, in this context "nothing" is something. When you die, there's no more "you". You can't see, you can't think, you don't exist. we can't comprehend such a scenario which is why weak-minded people turn to religion which lies in some "everybody lived happily ever after" way.


nvm, to early to ask that ...


----------



## jamieyello (Aug 4, 2016)

Personally I feel like since I was dead before I was born reincarnation must be a thing in some way. Then if you take the odds that you exist at this exact place in time that you're alive, say you're actually able to witness being dead for eternity in some way, what are the odds that you are not experiencing the void/afterlife right now? Pretty much nothing.

That is my "educated guess", that you can't experience being dead, and if you ever experience anything ever again it would be in another place at another time.

Actually when I was 12 (I was a strange kid) I worried that after you die, at some point the universe will eventually go through all possible combinations of the positions of matter, and eventually it would loop, so I'd have to be extremely careful about how good my life is because I'm going to experience it an infinite amount of times. Of course as a kid I was also taught to be afraid of hell too.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 4, 2016)

Foxchild said:


> Concerning the virgin birth, even if there were only one mention in the canon that would be sufficient for those who take the scripture seriously. For those bothered by the apparent lack of mention, however, it is fortunate that God designed the Bible to be tamper-resistant with key doctrines dispersed throughout so that removing one or two passages from consideration would not detract from the whole


I do not agree here. The issue is that the less it is mentioned the less reliable it is since it was/is not verified by other sources in that time such as the works attributed to Paul. Likewise if you were to remove the virgin birth a little bit it would show that there was less consensus by the true authors. The same goes for other miracles described in the 4 Gospels. Granted you could argue they left it out since they did not feel it was important but i feel if it literally happened then it would be included but if it were a metaphor then not including it would make sense.




Foxchild said:


> . In this instance, those who claim the lack of early church belief in the virgin birth forget that literally every time Jesus is called the Son of God it _assumes_ the virgin birth


Well the issue is that under adoptionism he was the Son of God although not born of the virgin. Like wise other beliefs in the early argued that he could not be born of a littiral virgin (some have argued it means pure as in sinless) in different ways. Regardless it makes sense the Church was divided but we have to realize that they had valid concerns and if we are to better understand Christianity we must understand them.



Foxchild said:


> . Now, I realize that we could debate exactly what the term "son of God" means, but you'll find that in scripture it only ever refers to one of two things, and both preclude normal, biological parentage. Either a being without parents at all who is a direct creation of God (Adam in Luke, angels in a couple places, etc.), or as we see in the famous John 3:16, someone who was literally fathered by God, as Jesus makes the claim to be the "only begotten" son of God - the only being to literally be fathered by God.


First of all we could argue that the term "son of god" as you stated. First he could be the son of god via adoption as adoptionism proclaimed. Too i could  be the be in the sense of Romans 8:14 were it says those of us led by the spirit are sons of god. Also in the old testament, Israel is called God's first born and judges of the law are called sons of the most high in Psalm 82. Likewise the book of Wisdom says righteous men are sons of God. So as you stated there are many ways you could take it but even if he is in the sense that you are implying that does not mean thpe virgin birth is real in a literal sense. 



Foxchild said:


> f someone is going to discount the virgin birth, they would have to exegete their way out of the most famous verse in the Bible. Well, either that or take the easy way out and say "lots of scholars dismiss most of the gospel of John as inaccurate because reasons" then conveniently forget that they have to deal with the rest of the New Testament as well.


I agree that it would cause some issues but ultimately the goal as Christians is to have the most sound and accurate view and interpretation of the scriptires even if it goes against what was at times considered Orthodox. Scholars care about the bible and try to help us get to the point of getting the "true" understanding even though it is very difficult to do because of a variety of reasons. Ultimately as you ststed, I do not feel the entire NT depends on one verse but nevertheless scholarship of the bible is needed even if it would require a drastically different take on Christianity .




DustingtonZDX said:


> Are you talking about Arceus?


Thats debatable as many fans have also argued it could be mew since he is the anccestor of all Pokémon (which could be taken as a Creator or God) or atleast would give him more power then arceus.


----------



## Yil (Aug 4, 2016)

filfat said:


> No, in this context "nothing" is something. When you die, there's no more "you". You can't see, you can't think, you don't exist. we can't comprehend such a scenario which is why weak-minded people turn to religion which lies in some "everybody lived happily ever after" way.


Mind explaining how I was am able to avhieve astral projection?
Do I have to remind that first god does not have a physical body or a penis and second it is not impossible to just ctreate a child out of one body even with some modification, just not through biological means.
Christian Miracles are not really that special anyway.
@jamieyello
Being intangible does not mean it does not exist. Simply these experience, even if they are illusions casted by someone, does not make you non-existant. Beside since it does have some pattern, it is not chaotic either.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 4, 2016)

Ever since I contributed here I check back once in a while because it pops up in my notifications, but I have no idea what we're talking about now.

I'll just say this: philosophy has no bearing in reality. All it does is act as a catchall excuse for your actions, whether to avoid responsibility or to perform actions that cannot be justified using logic or morality.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 4, 2016)

Yil said:


> Mind explaining how I was am able to avhieve astral projection?


I highly doubt you have any reason to think you've actually astral projected. Every study that's ever been done on the topic of out-of-body experiences, for example, shows that people cannot even describe what the room was like while having the alleged experience.



Yil said:


> Being intangible does not mean it does not exist.


Doesn't mean it exists either.


----------



## Yil (Aug 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I highly doubt you have any reason to think you've actually astral projected. Every study that's ever been done on the topic of out-of-body experiences, for example, shows that people cannot even describe what the room was like while having the alleged experience.
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean it exists either.


Not all out of body are triggered intentionally.
Well it is like schrodinger's cat.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 4, 2016)

Yil said:


> Not all out of body are triggered intentionally.
> Well it is like schrodinger's cat.


You didn't address either of my points.


----------



## Yil (Aug 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> You didn't address either of my points.


Okay how do you expect people to remember anything if they are not fully concious and most astral projection are intended to be sent far away.
And can you see ultraviolet, x ray, cosmic ray or gamma ray, or hear ultrasound?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 4, 2016)

Yil said:


> Okay how do you expect people to remember anything if they are not fully concious and most astral projection are intended to be sent far away.


There is no evidence that anyone has ever successfully astral projected. It has not met its burden of proof in any case.



Yil said:


> And can you see ultraviolet, x ray, cosmic ray or gamma ray, or hear ultrasound?


We have direct evidence of these tangible things existing, regardless of whether or not I can see them with the unaided eye.


----------



## Yil (Aug 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that anyone has ever successfully astral projected. It has not met its burden of proof in any case.
> 
> 
> We have direct evidence of these tangible things existing, regardless of whether or not I can see them with the unaided eye.


How about I go to your house and cause some trouble?
That is the point I am talking about.


----------



## andzalot55 (Aug 4, 2016)

Do waifu gods exist? I believe in those.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 4, 2016)

Yil said:


> How about I go to your house and cause some trouble?
> That is the point I am talking about.


What?


----------



## mammastuffing (Aug 4, 2016)

It gladdens me to see that the majority of people here do NOT base their lives on fairytales. It shows progress in our world, maybe there is hope for the future!


----------



## Mazamin (Aug 4, 2016)

filfat said:


> If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.
> 
> On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).


It's exactly what I think, but my family doesn't accept the fact that I don't believe in God, and I don't know what to do


----------



## Waywatcher (Aug 4, 2016)

I voted no because this poll is biased towards monotheistic religions. I do however believe in Zeus, Athena, Thor and Odin, to name a few.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 4, 2016)

mammastuffing said:


> It gladdens me to see that the majority of people here do NOT base their lives on fairytales. It shows progress in our world, maybe there is hope for the future!


The members of GBATemp are hardly representative of any one country or the world. If it were up to GBATemp members, for example, Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States. That being said, I would assume that GBATemp's members are disproportionately younger people, and younger people tend to be less religious these days. That does show progress.



DrCrygor07 said:


> but my family doesn't accept the fact that I don't believe in God, and I don't know what to do


Tell your family that if a god is all-powerful and wants you to believe, then that god will eventually be able to convince you of its existence and to bring you back into the fold. You should say the conversation should be dropped until then. If you're young and your parents mandate that you attend religious services, you might have no choice but to oblige until you move out. It's stupid, but it's their prerogative to require that while you live with them. Go in and take copious notes on everything wrong with what's being preached at the service, and your parents might be annoyed enough to stop taking you.


----------



## mammastuffing (Aug 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> ... That being said, I would assume that GBATemp's members are disproportionately younger people, and younger people tend to be less religious these days. That does show progress.



Exactly my point.


----------



## Smiths (Aug 4, 2016)

Well if heaven is an eight-year-old boy, and the ladder is my penis....


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 4, 2016)

Lacius said:


> The members of GBATemp are hardly representative of any one country or the world. If it were up to GBATemp members, for example, Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States. That being said, I would assume that GBATemp's members are disproportionately younger people, and younger people tend to be less religious these days. That does show progress.


True to a large degree and plus we have to consider that the countries involved would be pretty poorly chosen since Africa is very very under represented and as as are other areas (Seriously this forum is practically 80% USA and Europe and the rest is Latin America).


----------



## filfat (Aug 5, 2016)

DrCrygor07 said:


> It's exactly what I think, but my family doesn't accept the fact that I don't believe in God, and I don't know what to do


Tell them that you have chosen not to believe in a God, and if he now exists it must be his will that you don't believe in him since he's supposed to be "all-powerful".


On a whole other note,
if God is "all-powerful" wouldn't he be able to both exist and not exist at the same time?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 5, 2016)

filfat said:


> Tell them that you have chosen not to believe in a God, and if he now exists it must be his will that you don't believe in him since he's supposed to be "all-powerful".
> 
> 
> On a whole other note,
> if God is "all-powerful" wouldn't he be able to both exist and not exist at the same time?


Theists have decided that a god is only maximally powerful (i.e. as powerful as it can be logically), not absolutely powerful, in an effort to solve the omnipotence paradox.


----------



## filfat (Aug 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Theists have decided that a god is only maximally powerful (i.e. as powerful as it can be logically), not absolutely powerful, in an effort to solve the omnipotence paradox.


so he isn't absolutely powerful?.. that's boring.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 5, 2016)

filfat said:


> so he isn't absolutely powerful?.. that's boring.


If anything made God boring, it was his nonexistence.


----------



## 77Urmel77 (Aug 5, 2016)

I believe in spirituality and a monotheistic entity but not in religion. In my opinion all holy books are written by humans with a special intention, mostly to discribe spiritual experiences and regularities. I prefere parts of the bhagavadgita. But these holy books are commonly used to control people. I'm shure if one opens his/her heart and his/her mind he/she has a hard job not to find some kind of spirituality. But it's definitely easier to find joy in religion if one is young and/or uneducated.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Theists have decided that a god is only maximally powerful (i.e. as powerful as it can be logically), not absolutely powerful, in an effort to solve the omnipotence paradox.


"CouldJesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?" - Homer Simpson

Anyway the issue with that is very few evangelicals hold that belief despite the fact that academics, theologians, and historic church leaders have.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 5, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> "CouldJesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?" - Homer Simpson
> 
> Anyway the issue with that is very few evangelicals hold that belief despite the fact that academics, theologians, and historic church leaders have.


Very few religious people, evangelicals included, have even thought about things like the problem of evil or the omnipotence paradox.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 5, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Very few religious people, evangelicals included, have even thought about things like the problem of evil or the omnipotence paradox.


Likewise when certain theologians do raise the question lay people and regular church goers scream blasphemy whenever theology that has not been traditional teached by the church. A fine example is the response to the ideas of Bishop John Doing or the late Dr.Marcus Borg, which while reasonable were condemned as heretically by many well known religious leaders.


----------



## 77Urmel77 (Aug 5, 2016)

Lawfull good or chaotic evil 'n' all between - it's up to you, but...
If you talk to god. Then you're spiritual.
If he/she/it answeres. Then you're lunatic.


----------



## Yil (Aug 5, 2016)

filfat said:


> so he isn't absolutely powerful?.. that's boring.


Feat vice Christian god get destroyed by higher-tier pagan gods based on scripts and myth vs the Bible.
But seriously god has never demonstrated anything remotely close to even nigh-omnipotence and we can take him if it comes down to that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



77Urmel77 said:


> Lawfull good or chaotic evil 'n' all between - it's up to you, but...
> If you talk to god. Then you're spiritual.
> If he/she/it answeres. Then you're lunatic.


Actually Christianity forbid spirituality of any sorts. But devoting to a deity in general is a bad idea.


----------



## ThePanchamBros (Aug 6, 2016)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Do you? I just wanted to know everyones opinions on this subject
> And why? Do you / do you not believe in a god! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!
> 
> I believe that Jesus died for our sins, and i guess that makes me a christian
> ...


heck yes!


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 6, 2016)

ThePanchamBros said:


> heck yes!


so much you made 4 threads


----------



## ThePanchamBros (Aug 6, 2016)

ppkoo


RevPokemon said:


> so much you made 4 threads


*R O A S T E D*
_*
I made 1....* can u tell me the others?_


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2016)

Found it somewhat amusing


----------



## Yil (Aug 13, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> Found it somewhat amusing



Heritage is a major thing of religion.
You go to hell Only if you are killed By a Christian, or being one. That is kind of how faith work, and more reason to respond to god ‘‘Do you want to Have an awful time?’’


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 22, 2016)

£1 in the Oxfam book shop netted me this little gem
A first published in 1946... self help book for want of a better term from an American rabbi called Peace of Mind. Though it is to a modern self help book what Songs of Praise is to full bore American Televangelists.

It did however provide one of the best summations of atheism which I have ever seen
"I honestly believe the world is an accidental creation of exploding suns, a place of terror and death. I honestly believe that man is an animal who happens to be endowed with more cunning than the rest of the animal kingdom"




 


 


 


 
Skipping a few pages


----------



## Yil (Aug 22, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> £1 in the Oxfam book shop netted me this little gem
> A first published in 1946... self help book for want of a better term from an American rabbi called Peace of Mind. Though it is to a modern self help book what Songs of Praise is to full bore American Televangelists.
> 
> It did however provide one of the best summations of atheism which I have ever seen
> ...


Of course humans are a product of nature, and the smartest we know so far. The best yet most horrorable thing is that nature get rid of failures.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 22, 2016)

Thought of the god rock "paradox". Its actually two questions. Is god infinitely powerful? yes. Can he lift anything? yes. So the answer is yes. A similar question is "have you stopped beating your mother?" if you say yes youve beat your mother but are done now and if you say no, well...


----------



## Yil (Aug 22, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thought of the god rock "paradox". Its actually two questions. Is god infinitely powerful? yes. Can he lift anything? yes. So the answer is yes. A similar question is "have you stopped beating your mother?" if you say yes youve beat your mother but are done now and if you say no, well...


Suddenly realize this is the same as 'Irresistible force' and 'Irremovable object', and I say they surrender. The creator has the intelligence to never bother with it.


----------



## mechagouki (Aug 22, 2016)

What I believe, is that an individual should be free to believe what ever comforts them in the face of inevitable mortality.

That said, my own interpretation of religious faith is that it is the result of both human vanity and the genetic imperative to live as long as possible, which, in the hands of creative people down the ages has resulted in all kinds of seductive fantasies, usually centered around a hope that death is not the end. True enlightenment is accepting the gift of existence, and coming to terms with its frail and finite nature.


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

mechagouki said:


> What I believe, is that an individual should be free to believe what ever comforts them in the face of inevitable mortality.
> 
> That said, my own interpretation of religious faith is that it is the result of both human vanity and the genetic imperative to live as long as possible, which, in the hands of creative people down the ages has resulted in all kinds of seductive fantasies, usually centered around a hope that death is not the end. True enlightenment is accepting the gift of existence, and coming to terms with its frail and finite nature.


Would you trade your soul to some deity for eternity of illusional paradise? Techinically your body and possibly other things still exist, But a specific instance cease to be.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Aug 23, 2016)

Honestly, God has changed my life. Just personal experience.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Yil said:


> Would you trade your soul to some deity for eternity of illusional paradise? Techinically your body and possibly other things still exist, But a specific instance cease to be.


how would it be illusional? if all you are is a consciousness then only that has to be moved to a new eternal world which isnt hard for an infinitely powerful god.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> how would it be illusional? if all you are is a consciousness then only that has to be moved to a new eternal world which isnt hard for an infinitely powerful god.


Heaven has to be an illusion. If a Christian woman goes to Heaven, but her atheist son goes to Hell, then the woman is going to emotionally suffer, and it's not going to be a paradise for her. Since Heaven is typically described as a place without suffering, then that leaves three options:

1. Heaven isn't real (the mostly likely option and the simplest answer).

2. The woman thinks her son is there when he isn't, which would make it an illusion.

3. The woman is somehow altered to no longer care that her son is burning in Hell, which means she's a completely different person, and it's no longer the aforementioned woman who is in Heaven.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Heaven has to be an illusion. If a Christian woman goes to Heaven, but her atheist son goes to Hell, then the woman is going to emotionally suffer, and it's not going to be a paradise for her. Since Heaven is typically described as a place without suffering, then that leaves three options:
> 
> 1. Heaven isn't real (the mostly likely option and the simplest answer).
> 
> ...


edit: the child is the illusion not heaven.
In islam you are an entirely different person and only have your memories, god gives you what you want and if you want your child to be there with you islam allows that but basically a copy of said child, however, since heaven is without suffering you'd be having too much pleasure to really care. The belief is that you reach a state beyond being human.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This argument has moved away from god to more of a religious basis which has no real place here since a lot of us arent Christian.


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 23, 2016)

Yes I believe in God, and yes I believe in afterlife (heaven and hell).
Why? Because I'm Muslim.

Also, this thread should be closed. We don't want battles about religions here on GBATemp.

@Cyan ?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> edit: the child is the illusion not heaven.
> In islam you are an entirely different person and only have your memories, god gives you what you want and if you want your child to be there with you islam allows that but basically a copy of said child, however, since heaven is without suffering you'd be having too much pleasure to really care. The belief is that you reach a state beyond being human.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


If the child is an illusion, then Heaven is an illusion. If the mother is altered to no longer care about the well being of her child, then it's not the mother going to Heaven.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If the child is an illusion, then Heaven is an illusion. If the mother is altered to no longer care about the well being of her child, then it's not the mother going to Heaven.


Its not that shes stopped caring. It's that she's been enveloped with so much pleasure she's stopped caring. I should add that based on the idea of god being merciful in the quran it states that he will allow those in hell to come to heaven if a family member wants them to. But only a few.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 23, 2016)

Pleasure? There's no oral in heaven.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> *Its not that shes stopped caring*. It's that she's been enveloped with so much pleasure *she's stopped caring*. I should add that based on the idea of god being merciful in the quran it states that he will allow those in hell to come to heaven if a family member wants them to. But only a few.


I bolded the contradiction in your post.

So either God's altering the mother so she is no longer the same person, meaning she's not the one going to Heaven, or God is pumping her with so many drugs that she's in such an orgasmic haze that the thought of her child never even crosses her mind; otherwise, the thought of her child would make her sad.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I bolded the contradiction in your post.
> 
> So either God's altering the mother so she is no longer the same person, meaning she's not the one going to Heaven, or God is pumping her with so many drugs that she's in such an orgasmic haze that the thought of her child never even crosses her mind; otherwise, the thought of her child would make her sad.


I'm just gonna guess you didnt read the end of my comment? ok what evs. I should say that she still cares just that shes having so much fun that it hasnt really crossed her mind. Since in Islam, all monotheists go to heaven (as long as they do good deeds.) Theres also such thing as reasoning, god should be capable of reason, no?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Futurdreamz said:


> Pleasure? There's no oral in heaven.


Pleasure can be anything...


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

AboodXD said:


> Also, this thread should be closed. We don't want battles about religions here on GBATemp.



We are at 70 odd pages or the better part of 1400 replies and thus far it seems to be doing OK, don't think we have even had any "cool your jets" temporary locks either. Why close it?


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 23, 2016)

There is no point in deniying god. 

Just because we don't see a god doesn't mean he is not there. We don't even know what is beyond the universe. 

You think all this came by itself? Look at how complex we are as an organism. 

Mankind is arrogant, and thinks he has conquered the world yet he gets sick by a virus/ bacteria not bigger than a sandcorn.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Think about this. What if you die and discover there is something beyond our life here ? 

What if you are wrong ? And you discover there is a god? Too late i guess...


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> There is no point in deniying god.
> 
> Just because we don't see a god doesn't mean he is not there. We don't even know what is beyond the universe.
> 
> ...


Best post I've read on GBATemp this week.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> There is no point in deniying god.
> 
> Just because we don't see a god doesn't mean he is not there. We don't even know what is beyond the universe.
> 
> ...


Couldnt have said it better myself.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> We are at 70 odd pages or the better part of 1400 replies and thus far it seems to be doing OK, don't think we have even had any "cool your jets" temporary locks either. Why close it?


It could literally become a flame war i guess.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

But it hasn't, and has spawned some interesting discussions.

mustafag32g what you describe is a concept called Pascal's wager.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager covers some of the failures of it. Or if you prefer the Abrahamic god (the one of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) says none but me, and another says none but me, and for fun I am going to say there are infinite gods and some fraction of that infinite number also say none but me, others are OK with picking and choosing. What do I do now?

"Mankind is arrogant, and thinks he has conquered the world yet he gets sick by a virus/ bacteria not bigger than a sandcorn."
That is a rather large assumption for a lot of people you are making there. The conquering is going well but there is more to go.

"You think all this came by itself? Look at how complex we are as an organism."
What is your point? Why could it not have evolved? Life has been around for a very long time after all.

"Just because we don't see a god doesn't mean he is not there. We don't even know what is beyond the universe."
Maybe so, why then would I put any trust in notions developed (maybe revealed) hundreds or thousands of years ago, ones that have a lot of inconsistencies within themselves and the universe at large, ones used and twisted in some cases unrecognisably by groups aspiring to power for just as long and longer still.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> There is no point in deniying god.
> 
> Just because we don't see a god doesn't mean he is not there. We don't even know what is beyond the universe.
> 
> ...


Personally I'm not denying the existence of god, but I doubt the accuracy of the bible.

What I do doubt is the interpretation of heaven and hell as eternal reward and punishment. You realize how long is eternity is? What crime justifies a punishment that is enacted out for all eternity, with no escape through death? Hell, even Hitler can probably get all the hell he deserves in a couple galactic years; yet you're punishing everyone equally? You're going to make someone who _juust_ didn't make it to heaven live in eternal torture?

And where do you draw the line? Most reference the bible, but it's horrendously out of date - and from a time where basic science such as hygiene, medication, and transportation was nonexsistant. So much seems to be made up as we go along. How do we know if we are following the right path? We aren't getting any divine feedback. Is it right to punish someone who would've shaped up if someone just told them to cut it out? Or should we punish those who wouldn't have made the cut if it wasn't for someone telling them to behave? Can a reformed criminal go to heaven? Would a devout churchgoer go to hell if they perfomed a murder-suicide on their last day? If you blow up a building of infidels in the name of god do you get in? Does the Westboro Baptist Church get a free pass? Would a model citizen and devout churchgoer who's gay be sent to hell anyways? Do all those African kids who don't know god go to hell? If someone teaches them about god but doesn't save them, does that person get punished for condemning the kids to hell?

Honestly I think heaven and hell was invented for this discussion:
"Son, if you're bad I'll smack you and if you're good you get an extra fig for supper"
"But dad, why should I be good when you're old and dead?"
"Um, well, because after you die god will smack you for all eternity if you're bad; and give you unlimited figs if you're good"
"Yay!"
"No oral up there though."
"Awww..."



There's just too many contradictions, so I choose to not have it define who I am. I am perfectly capable of being a decent person without the threat of eternal punishment, and I'll teach my kids the same. I define myself as the person who lives, and whatever happens afterwards with whatever remembers being me is irrelevant. If god chooses to punish me for what I am, then he is a cruel asshole who does not know what it is to be human.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> But it hasn't, and has spawned some interesting discussions.
> 
> mustafag32g what you describe is a concept called Pascal's wager.
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager covers some of the failures of it. Or if you prefer the Abrahamic god (the one of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) says none but me, and another says none but me, and for fun I am going to say there are infinite gods and some fraction of that infinite number also say none but me, others are OK with picking and choosing. What do I do now?
> ...


indeed. However i have yet to see an inconsistency in the quran (usually misinterpreted)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Futurdreamz said:


> Personally I'm not denying the existence of god, but I doubt the accuracy of the bible.
> 
> What I do doubt is the interpretation of heaven and hell as eternal reward and punishment. You realize how long is eternity is? What crime justifies a punishment that is enacted out for all eternity, with no escape through death? Hell, even Hitler can probably get all the hell he deserves in a couple galactic years; yet you're punishing everyone equally? You're going to make someone who _juust_ didn't make it to heaven live in eternal torture?
> 
> ...


yeah... lets just call the creator a dumbass. The definition of humanity is subjective. I understand the bible is inconsistent with science but you cant put all religion in the same boat (let there be light is the biggest inconsistency as the universe was opaque like smoke, something the quran says as to how the world was born.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Do not the disbelievers realise that the heavens and earth were a solid mass, then We split them asunder, and We made from water every living thing? … He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon each gliding freely in its orbit.  21:31-34

For those who might say the quran didnt predict shit, quite clearly says all life began in water. If you want to disagree show me one scietific issue that isnt pulled frim wikislam or some other biased site (just look at some quotes in the quran)


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

Nature get rid of failures very quickly, intelligent design not So efficient.


TheDarkGreninja said:


> how would it be illusional? if all you are is a consciousness then only that has to be moved to a new eternal world which isnt hard for an infinitely powerful god.


Cause that's god's world where He Can milk infinite amount of belief out of you once He Force you to be part of him. Think about undertale flowey, but everyone on the planet. And god has been trying to do this for thousands of years, while constantly messing with us.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Yil said:


> Nature get rid of failures very quickly, intelligent design not So efficient.
> 
> Cause that's god's world where He Can milk infinite amount of belief out of you once He Force you to be part of him. Think about undertale flowey, but everyone on the planet. And god has been trying to do this for thousands of years, while constantly messing with us.


How can intelligent design not efficient when it was the intelligent design that made nature the way it is? He doesnt though Islam is all about freedom of complusion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What have you got to lose?


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> How can intelligent design not efficient when it was the intelligent design that made nature the way it is? He doesnt though Islam is all about freedom of complusion.
> 
> What have you got to lose?


If you study a bit of natural selection then you know how failures often dies within a single generation so nothing bad came out of it. Intelligent design cannot do that very efficiently.

I just don't want to have some random deity use our souls to mess with whoever he doesn't like, especially he has caused us so much trouble already, disease, war, etc over several thousand years. (Which is pretty simple for a deity) Afterall he is not the creator of anything, just some deity.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> indeed. However i have yet to see an inconsistency in the quran (usually misinterpreted)


I don't know Quranic Arabic and, despite the whole tajwid thing, history is not on the side of those that assume languages are static and do not change with time or perhaps take on different interpretations or psychological implications. I could do it in English but apparently that is not the done thing, and having seen what can happen in translation in all aspects then that is not an unreasonable position to hold as an hard line for a final call. Speaking of different interpretations there are quite a few of them for Islam and with it the Quran, it might be others left the true path and it was Sufism all along but that is always a fun debate to have.

This guy seems to know it though, or at least he does things in English and Arabic, so I will go with linking him up for now
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA/videos








Infallible source? Absolutely not, though I would hold nothing is. Is he perhaps a bit quick to dismiss things in other videos? Having not grown up in or observed intensely I am not inclined to say but again perhaps. None of that however makes me inclined to not at least consider what is put forth there.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 23, 2016)

Yil said:


> If you study a bit of natural selection then you know how failures often dies within a single generation so nothing bad came out of it. Intelligent design cannot do that very efficiently.
> 
> I just don't want to have some random deity use our souls to mess with whoever he doesn't like, especially he has caused us so much trouble already, disease, war, etc over several thousand years. (Which is pretty simple for a deity) Afterall he is not the creator of anything, just some deity.



Well Who put the system at work?  You think natural selection began by itself. Dont be a fool. Nothing Comes by itself


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't know Quranic Arabic and, despite the whole tajwid thing, history is not on the side of those that assume languages are static and do not change with time or perhaps take on different interpretations or psychological implications. I could do it in English but apparently that is not the done thing, and having seen what can happen in translation in all aspects then that is not an unreasonable position to hold as an hard line for a final call. Speaking of different interpretations there are quite a few of them for Islam and with it the Quran, it might be others left the true path and it was Sufism all along but that is always a fun debate to have.
> 
> This guy seems to know it though, or at least he does things in English and Arabic, so I will go with linking him up for now
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA/videos
> ...



Yeah, theyre all misinterpretations of words.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> I don't know Quranic Arabic and, despite the whole tajwid thing, history is not on the side of those that assume languages are static and do not change with time or perhaps take on different interpretations or psychological implications. I could do it in English but apparently that is not the done thing, and having seen what can happen in translation in all aspects then that is not an unreasonable position to hold as an hard line for a final call. Speaking of different interpretations there are quite a few of them for Islam and with it the Quran, it might be others left the true path and it was Sufism all along but that is always a fun debate to have.
> 
> This guy seems to know it though, or at least he does things in English and Arabic, so I will go with linking him up for now
> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9JU55HpvRvCSb1TO2w_eDA/videos
> ...



For the last one:http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/Quran_18.86_sun_setting_muddy_spring_murky_water.htm
He makes a little too many assumptions for me to consider his viewpoint viable. Did you just take videos from no where?  
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBalex.html on the alexander romance.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well Who put the system at work?  You think natural selection began by itself. Dont be a fool. Nothing Comes by itself


Except for God?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well Who put the system at work?  You think natural selection began by itself. Dont be a fool. Nothing Comes by itself


What you are describing is a concept called god of the gaps, we discussed it at various other points in this thread. The idea being that upon something once ascribed a divine origin . On top of that even if some programmer wrote the universe that led to it why would it be whatever you ascribe to that is the path to them -- there are infinite gods and philosophies after all.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yeah, theyre all misinterpretations of words.


The guy there would claim much of he was doing was correcting misinterpretations, wilful or otherwise (the refutation of the Dr Zakir guy having that at several occasions). Pending further refutations it seems we are at an impasse then.
Equally that is fairly quick to have seen all of them, though not impossible. Alternatively there might have been some fundamental flaw at points there which sunk his arguments entirely if he built his house of cards on a weak foundation; I am always up for expedience in sorting a debate.
At this point I may not understand it and it could well be a subtle thing, however if I could have it for the future or someone else that might know more can come along and explain further then that would be nice.

Edit. Missed the second reply as it happened after I clicked on this. Will come back later.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 23, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Except for God?


The original quote should be rephrased "nothing finite comes by itself".  God is infinite, having no beginning or end.  As finite creatures, it's hard for us to understand this.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> What you are describing is a concept called god of the gaps, we discussed it at various other points in this thread. The idea being that upon something once ascribed a divine origin . On top of that even if some programmer wrote the universe that led to it why would it be whatever you ascribe to that is the path to them -- there are infinite gods and philosophies after all.
> 
> 
> The guy there would claim much of he was doing was correcting misinterpretations, wilful or otherwise (the refutation of the Dr Zakir guy having that at several occasions). Pending further refutations it seems we are at an impasse then.
> ...


It was because i had seen said arguments before.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 23, 2016)

Can I just say (although I will get flak from atheists and theists) that the only logical belief system is agnosticism as it is the only one that accounts for the fact that we will never be able to know for 100% sure if there is a God or not? Sure I have seen arguments regarding the idea (Mostly Atheism vs Abrahamic religions) but even still they are mostly theoretical ideas about concepts regarding religion and God/ess/s/es that hold (in my opinion) little value because we can not be sure.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

RevPokemon said:


> Can I just say (although I will get flak from atheists and theists) that the only logical belief system is agnosticism as it is the only one that accounts for the fact that we will never be able to know for 100% sure if there is a God or not? Sure I have seen arguments regarding the idea (Mostly Atheism vs Abrahamic religions) but even still they are mostly theoretical ideas about concepts regarding religion and God/ess/s/es that hold (in my opinion) little value because we can not be sure.


I'd much rather be theistic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

As much as I enjoy preloaded list of debates vs preloaded list of refutations (we see it in things 10 questions for your biology teacher and the counters there) I will have to say what I do know of those things linked (mainly Alexander as it is a popular thing in myth and legend which I have read, even in original forms in cases) mixes well with some clear points, and decent historical analysis of psychology and empire building, in those videos. That guy in the videos is a random as far as I am aware, not that it would have made much difference if he was a leading ex imam, mullah or something, however I had also seen his arguments before and that was just a nice and easy to digest format. I had not seen any refutations of him or those at the time, and he seemed to be respected well enough among those which might be more capable of refuting him than I. This goes double if I would be supposed to consider the Quran to be the all time guide to life and Mohammed as the most righteous dude in history and an example to look up to in all things at all points in time.
I do however know the best lies are those with elements of truth and mixing what people know with a then unknown is a very good method for getting people of all stripes to believe things. To that end I am back to asking for refutations of them that I might not so that at least one day I might be able to fully grasp the meaning. Not ideal but a method of teaching which works.

On the logic of agnosticism then I might argue that, with all the historical precedent set by religions, if agnosticism is to be the mid line between wholesale rejection and notions that those hundreds of years ago with a lot to gain might have at least been onto something that it is still a somewhat absurd idea.

Continuing my wall of youtube


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

At this point the scientific validity of the Quran compared to the Bible is immense. So comparing all religions against atheism is in itself absurd. A pretty interesting mistake in the bible is sentence "let there be light". The universe wouldn't have had much light in its early days as it was opaque due to ionization. Only after the dark ages ended did we start seeing the first stars. The quran says the world was born in a haze-like smoke with no light.
And He [it is who] applied His design to the skies, *which were [yet but] smoke* Noble Quran 41:11 (Asad)
If someone tries to tell me that the quran isnt valid becuase these comments are "lucky guesses" then you'd be insane as these views were against the norms of arab society back then.
I digress. I want to get back on topic of god rather than go into religous ideas (please dont use the bible to show god is immoral. just please.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> As much as I enjoy preloaded list of debates vs preloaded list of refutations (we see it in things 10 questions for your biology teacher and the counters there) I will have to say what I do know of those things linked (mainly Alexander as it is a popular thing in myth and legend which I have read, even in original forms in cases) mixes well with some clear points, and decent historical analysis of psychology and empire building, in those videos. That guy in the videos is a random as far as I am aware, not that it would have made much difference if he was a leading ex imam, mullah or something, however I had also seen his arguments before and that was just a nice and easy to digest format. I had not seen any refutations of him or those at the time, and he seemed to be respected well enough among those which might be more capable of refuting him than I. This goes double if I would be supposed to consider the Quran to be the all time guide to life and Mohammed as the most righteous dude in history and an example to look up to in all things at all points in time.
> I do however know the best lies are those with elements of truth and mixing what people know with a then unknown is a very good method for getting people of all stripes to believe things. To that end I am back to asking for refutations of them that I might not so that at least one day I might be able to fully grasp the meaning. Not ideal but a method of teaching which works.
> 
> On the logic of agnosticism then I might argue that, with all the historical precedent set by religions, if agnosticism is to be the mid line between wholesale rejection and notions that those hundreds of years ago with a lot to gain might have at least been onto something that it is still a somewhat absurd idea.
> ...



I enjoy having my religion scrutinised. They usually act like I haven't scrutinised my religion myself. I pretty much argue with myself and counter argue. IMO its a good idea to question and scrutinise everything since it develops a higher understanding overall. I should say i agree with both videos.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> The original quote should be rephrased "nothing finite comes by itself".  God is infinite, having no beginning or end.  As finite creatures, it's hard for us to understand this.


Our lives are finite, but the stuff we're made of isn't gonna dissappear. 

I know I mentioned this before, but by saying that God created the universe you aren't answering anything, just adding another layer.

The real question is why does anything exist? If you say God did it, you're missing the point. Also time is relative to gravity. Maybe there isn't a beginning.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Our lives are finite, but the stuff we're made of isn't gonna dissappear.
> 
> I know I mentioned this before, but by saying that God created the universe you aren't answering anything, just adding another layer.
> 
> The real question is why does anything exist? If you say God did it, you're missing the point. Also time is relative to gravity. Maybe there isn't a beginning.


We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)


What I'm saying is that we don't know yet. I'm not assuming that there was a beginning and that there will be an end. We don't know.

Also, how fast time passes for an object is determined by the gravity it's experiencing. The greater the gravity, the slower time passes for an object. This is proven. We have to adjust the atomic clocks in GPS satellites every so often because of this. GPS satellites are experiencing less gravity than things on Earth's surface.

At a black hole time stops for an object. That's why I'm saying there might not be a beginning or end. Time is relative.

On top of this, moving faster also makes time slow down...


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> We're just going into a bunch of maybes. There has to be a beginning for there to be an end (something that will inevitably happen.)


There's no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god. This is regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning.

In addition, there are plenty of scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Even if we agreed there were no scientific inaccuracies in the Quran, that wouldn't be any reason to think a god exists.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 23, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Maybe there isn't a beginning.


Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.


That explains how the universe got the way it is. Not necessarily the beginning of existence if there was one.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Entropy and the big bang theory both make it seem likely that there was a beginning.


We don't know if the universe had a beginning. What you might call a likely beginning could very well have been a change in state.

If the universe did have a beginning, there is no reason to think the beginning requires a cause. We are, after all, talking about the beginning of what we would call causality. If the universe had a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There's no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if the universe did have a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god. This is regardless of whether or not the universe had a beginning.
> 
> In addition, there are plenty of scientific inaccuracies in the Quran. Even if we agreed there were no scientific inaccuracies in the Quran, that wouldn't be any reason to think a god exists.


Yeah, lets just use a site that doesnt look at the quran objectively and uses misinterpretations. this mustve been your thought process "time to search Quran inaccuracies on google and click the first link!"
It's logical to think things require a cause, you cant just have a cake exist. That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yeah, lets just use a site that doesnt look at the quran objectively and uses misinterpretations. this mustve been your thought process "time to search Quran inaccuracies on google and click the first link!"


I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> It's logical to think things require a cause, you cant just have a cake exist. That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable.


We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.
> 
> 
> We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.


"That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable." i didnt ignore your point. We know that everything requires a cause, show me one example of something in nature that wasnt caused to be? Also give me another example of something that could've caused the universe other than an intelligent designer.
You've thoroughly discussed with who? Other biased people? yeah. None of them hold up. I could go on a spiel about how you'd have to discuss this with someone who actually understands the arabic language of the time as well as me just debunking each comment except i have a life.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I've thoroughly discussed numerous claims on that website with other people, and most of them hold up. This isn't the first time I've had to refer to it. You also seem to have ignored my point on how it's irrelevant whether or not the Quran gets some or all of the science correct. That would be no reason to believe anything else in the book is true.
> 
> 
> We know a cake requires a cause because we know from our understanding of cake and all of our previous examples of cake that cake is something that is created. There is no reason to think the universe requires a cause, and if there was a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.


A famous mistranslation of where the mans sperm comes from. It was mistranslated to mean backbone when it could easily mean crotch also (loins to be more specific.)


----------



## 7iven8Nine (Aug 23, 2016)

I do, but I believe it a little differently so I don't go with the different denominations. What I have come to believe is that The Bible itself is a giant metaphor, in a way such to say, it's okay to break rules if needed and that nothing is absolute. No one has to be anything but themselves in order to enjoy heaven/eternal life. 1 Peter 2:24 States the Jesus died for our sins in order for us to live righteously, which to me says, He died for all sins past, present, and future. So, I live my life just doing the best I can. I also personally believe if you're doing what is good to you, then you're okay and will make it to heaven. It wouldn't make much sense to have most of the world's non-christian population go straight to hell. Heaven would be pretty empty. I can explain further if needed.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> "That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable." i didnt ignore your point. We know that everything requires a cause, show me one example of something in nature that wasnt caused to be? Also give me another example of something that could've caused the universe other than an intelligent designer.
> You've thoroughly discussed with who? Other biased people? yeah. None of them hold up. I could go on a spiel about how you'd have to discuss this with someone who actually understands the arabic language of the time as well as me just debunking each comment except i have a life.


We simply do not know why things exist. Saying it was an intelligent designer is just guessing and adding another question.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> We simply do not know why things exist. Saying it was an intelligent designer is just guessing and adding another question.



We do know how things exist. While yes there is more to be researched a god doesnt add another question but rather answers many. Of course someone will point out god of the gaps and, well until we fill those gaps, god can fill them with ease and logic. By the same logic an uncreated creator could exist. A being that begins and ends everything.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

[Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding
[Quran 14.48] On the day when Earth will be swapped by another Earth and so will be the heavens; and all (creatures) will resurrect before the One Dominant God.
God refers to a big crunch.
Quran 2:30 And your Lord said to the angels "I will make a successor on Earth", They said "How can You make [a successor] someone who corrupts and sheds blood while we praise and sanctify You?" He said "I know what you don't know."
God says we succeed something, obviously meaning we werent gods first creations.
(Quran 6.133) Your Lord, the Rich and Merciful, if He wishes, can discard you and succeed you with "WHATEVER" He wishes; Just like He created you from the seed of another clan.
He says we were made from a different species. 
Debunk these and then we'll talk.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> "That is a reason to think god exists as it proves my point that a god mustve written this as predicting this much is improbable."


Having science in the Quran with no errors, which isn't actually the case, would do nothing to demonstrate that a god exists or was at all involved with anything. Claiming something proves your point doesn't necessarily make it any less of a non sequitur. You haven't explained how that would demonstrate a god's existence.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> i didnt ignore your point. We know that everything requires a cause, show me one example of something in nature that wasnt caused to be?


What we would call causality is a property of the universe, so it would be pointless to show you an example of something uncaused and natural, and I'm going to skip an in-depth discussion about quantum mechanics and its causal ambiguity, for example. A better question would be to ask if you could show me an example of a caused universe and/or caused causality. Until you do, you have no basis with which to make the assertion that a cause to the universe is required.

Also, if you're going to claim that everything requires a cause, then your god requires a cause as well. Any reason you can come up with to argue your god doesn't require a cause can be applied to the universe or a hypothetical natural process that caused the universe.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Also give me another example of something that could've caused the universe other than an intelligent designer.


Happily.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> A famous mistranslation of where the mans sperm comes from. It was mistranslated to mean backbone when it could easily mean crotch also (loins to be more specific.)


You've got a lot more to go.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> We do know how things exist. While yes there is more to be researched a god doesnt add another question but rather answers many. Of course someone will point out god of the gaps and, well until we fill those gaps, god can fill them with ease and logic. By the same logic an uncreated creator could exist. A being that begins and ends everything.


God has no explanatory power regarding any question it seeks to resolve. God claims are assertions that merely create another layer of questions.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> [Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding
> [Quran 14.48] On the day when Earth will be swapped by another Earth and so will be the heavens; and all (creatures) will resurrect before the One Dominant God.
> God refers to a big crunch.
> Quran 2:30 And your Lord said to the angels "I will make a successor on Earth", They said "How can You make [a successor] someone who corrupts and sheds blood while we praise and sanctify You?" He said "I know what you don't know."
> ...


It's not our job to debunk anything in the Quran. It's your job to provide any sound reason whatsoever to believe what the Quran says about God is true.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> We do know how things exist. While yes there is more to be researched a god doesnt add another question but rather answers many. Of course someone will point out god of the gaps and, well until we fill those gaps, god can fill them with ease and logic. By the same logic an uncreated creator could exist. A being that begins and ends everything.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


What do you mean "how things exist"? We know that matter is made of energy if that's what you mean, but I'm talking about why "existence" is even a thing. There doesn't HAVE to be a cause and adding God into it didn't answer anything, but now there's another question. How did this God come into existence and if he has "always" existed, why can't everything else have "always" existed if this God was able to do it?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Having science in the Quran with no errors, which isn't actually the case, would do nothing to demonstrate that a god exists or was at all involved with anything. Claiming something proves your point doesn't necessarily make it any less of a non sequitur. You haven't explained how that would demonstrate a god's existence.
> 
> 
> What we would call causality is a property of the universe, so it would be pointless to show you an example of something uncaused and natural, and I'm going to skip an in-depth discussion about quantum mechanics and its causal ambiguity, for example. A better question would be to ask if you could show me an example of a caused universe and/or caused causality. Until you do, you have no basis with which to make the assertion that a cause to the universe is required.
> ...


Well it kinda is your job to debunk claims when you out right say the quran is false.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



invaderyoyo said:


> What do you mean "how things exist"? We know that matter is made of energy if that's what you mean, but I'm talking about why "existence" is even a thing. There doesn't HAVE to be a cause and adding God into it didn't answer anything, but now there's another question. How did this God come into existence and if he has "always" existed, why can't everything else have "always" existed if this God was able to do it?


 the idea that an outside force would make more sense as then we'd have cause that has always existed. and explains entropy.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Well it kinda is your job to debunk claims when you out right say the quran is false.


I think you need to look up the word _outright_, because I didn't say it's _outright false_. I said there are at least some scientific errors in the Quran, which I've demonstrated, and there is no reason to think what the Quran states about God is true. If you are going to argue that there is any sound reason to think a god exists, then it is your burden of proof.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> the idea that an outside force would make more sense as then we'd have cause that has always existed. and explains entropy.


It by definition doesn't _make more sense_ if you cannot provide any reason to believe it is true. Entropy is also irrelevant to the conversation when we're talking about the formation of the closed system that is the universe.

I also recommend you take a look at my previous list of universe-beginning possibilities.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I think you need to look up the word _outright_, because I didn't say it's _outright false_. I said there are at least some scientific errors in the Quran, which I've demonstrated, and there is no reason to think what the Quran states about God is true. If you are going to argue that there is any sound reason to think a god exists, then it is your burden of proof.
> 
> 
> It by definition doesn't _make more sense_ if you cannot provide any reason to believe it is true. Entropy is also irrelevant to the conversation when we're talking about the formation of the closed system that is the universe.
> ...


The thing is though, is its unknown.  I accept that. My belief stems from miracles most easily summarised on this site:http://speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/index.html very interesting read.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 23, 2016)

Lacius said:


> We don't know if the universe had a beginning. What you might call a likely beginning could very well have been a change in state.


Entropy says that the universe is running out of usable energy.  Going backwards from there, that's evidence of the universe having a beginning.

There is also no evidence that entropy has ever worked in reverse.  Believing that would require more faith than believing in God.



Lacius said:


> If the universe did have a beginning, there is no reason to think the beginning requires a cause. We are, after all, talking about the beginning of what we would call causality. If the universe had a cause, there is no reason to think that cause was a god.


At this point, we're purely speculating, since as finite creatures with finite minds, we cannot fully comprehend infinite concepts, like God and the universe.

This is where the argument of intelligent design comes into play.  Some like to think that the universe happened by chance, but I find that belief absurd given how complex the world around us is, and how incredibly implausible it would be for life to be created by chance.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 23, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Entropy says that the universe is running out of usable energy.  Going backwards from there, that's evidence of the universe having a beginning.
> 
> There is also no evidence that entropy has ever worked in reverse.  Believing that would require more faith than believing in God.
> 
> ...


absolutely agree.


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

@mustafag32g @TheDarkGreninja  If genesis is as much as god can pull off, then god is too weak to ever be considered a creator because that's not even close to omnipotence, not to mention that a) it is wrong, b) he caused it, c) he has observed it when it happens, or d) a higher being show it to him.
And where does existence it self come from? Why is there 1 from 0?


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 23, 2016)

Well god created you and the whole universe. How can you call it being weak. Have you never considered Why you were created? 

Well consider this, what if you die and YOU WERE WRONG?


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well god created you and the whole universe. How can you call it being weak. Have you never considered Why you were created?
> 
> Well consider this, what if you die and YOU WERE WRONG?


The end almost feels sad, but anyone who doubts god deserves hell.


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well god created you and the whole universe. How can you call it being weak. Have you never considered Why you were created?
> 
> Well consider this, what if you die and YOU WERE WRONG?


God is not the creator. The actual supreme creator is far more powerful and definitely do not need mortal worship for power which god is in desperate need of.
If I am wrong then I'd better start preparing to screw him when I am alive. And for the sake of balance the devil will have to die as well.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



AboodXD said:


> The end almost feels sad, but anyone who doubts god deserves hell.


Then you would you mind if I destroy both?


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 23, 2016)

Yil said:


> God is not the creator. The actual supreme creator is far more powerful and definitely do not need mortal worship for power which god is in desperate need of.
> If I am wrong then I'd better start preparing to screw him when I am alive. And for the sake of balance the devil will have to die as well.


1) Didn't understand the last part.
2) God is the most powerful thing.
3) Who do you think created us?


----------



## Yil (Aug 23, 2016)

AboodXD said:


> 1) Didn't understand the last part.
> 2) God is the most powerful thing.
> 3) Who do you think created us?


1) Sooner or later he will cause an apocalypse so he can kill then absorb every single thing on the planet, and if he could do that there is no telling what he would do next once he is closer to omnipotent. I would prefer everyone perish from existence than being a part of him.
2) Just because something is more powerful does not mean he should be worshipped, or any other deity or powerful human in that matter. Even if he caused genesis, there are still power beyond him and we can take him given enough time to prepare. But for the sake of balance, Satan will be the next one on the list.
3) The creator created the entire universe and beyond, and we are a product of its development. In other words human weren't that special.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2016)

On science and old books. Yeah I can believe a book written/cobbled together from various sources between 2000 and 1600 years ago does worse than one created (revealed?) a bit later, theoretically with access to some nice info (it being noted a lot of the old Greek philosophers came back from the Arabic speaking world after being "lost" for a while to Europe)3. Now we do have the was he actually an illiterate traveller, did he have a learned posse with him at points feeding him good stuff.



mustafag32g said:


> Well god created you and the whole universe. How can you call it being weak. Have you never considered Why you were created?
> 
> Well consider this, what if you die and YOU WERE WRONG?



OK the universe is a giant marble a la men in black, created by a being some call a god (as opposed to any of the billion other creation stories we have seen throughout history and continue to see). It might be weak compared to beings in its universe just like I am stronger than the 6 year old on the playground also playing with marbles

As for "you were wrong thing" we did cover it before. It is called Pascal's Wager/Pascal's Gambit
The idea being covered, expanded and considered in
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
The table form of it looks like
+--------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+
|                    |       God exists         | God does not exist  |
+--------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+
| Believe in God     | Infinite gain in heaven  | Insignificant loss  |
| Disbelieve in God  | Infinite loss in hell    | Insignificant gain  |
+--------------------+--------------------------+---------------------+
The link covers various variations on the theme and some of the shortcomings.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The thing is though, is its unknown.  I accept that. My belief stems from miracles most easily summarised on this site:http://speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/index.html very interesting read.


I went through a few of these, and they're all based on vague passages that have zero explanatory power in the absence of any real science. I also sincerely doubt that these convinced you of anything. More likely, they reinforced something you already believed. I doubt it if anyone has ever been convinced because of something like this.

You're also selectively choosing passages that you think have science in them, and you're ignoring the aforementioned ones that have incorrect science in them.

Finally, even if the Quran had specific science ahead of its time, that's not evidence for a god's existence.



UniqueGeek said:


> Entropy says that the universe is running out of usable energy.  Going backwards from there, that's evidence of the universe having a beginning.


As I've already stated, that's not necessarily evidence of a beginning. For all we know, it's evidence of a change in state.

If the universe did have a beginning, it's not evidence of a cause, and it's certainly not evidence of a god.



UniqueGeek said:


> There is also no evidence that entropy has ever worked in reverse.  Believing that would require more faith than believing in God.


I don't think anybody's claiming that entropy works in reverse.



UniqueGeek said:


> At this point, we're purely speculating, since as finite creatures with finite minds, we cannot fully comprehend infinite concepts, like God and the universe.


If you cannot comprehend something well enough to articulate any sound reason to believe it exists, and if you care if your beliefs are true, you have no business believing in that thing.



UniqueGeek said:


> This is where the argument of intelligent design comes into play.  Some like to think that the universe happened by chance, but I find that belief absurd given how complex the world around us is, and how incredibly implausible it would be for life to be created by chance.


Complexity doesn't equal design, and you have no basis with which to claim implausibility let alone _incredible_ implausibility. There are plenty of examples of increased complexity arising naturally.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 23, 2016)

Yil said:


> God is not the creator. The actual supreme creator is far more powerful and definitely do not need mortal worship for power which god is in desperate need of.
> If I am wrong then I'd better start preparing to screw him when I am alive. And for the sake of balance the devil will have to die as well.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...



Maybe you should try to read the quran.. God doesn't need us he says that himself in the quran ? 

We need him.. Worshipping him is a way of remembrance. You must remember god so he will remember you and have mercy upon you the day you are judged for your actions. 

"And He it is Who has created the heavens and the earth in six Days and His Throne was on the water, that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds. But if you were to say to them: "You shall indeed be raised up after death," those who disbelieve would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious magic."


He's the One) Who has created death and life, so He may test you which of you is best in deed. And He is the All-Mighty, the Oft-Forgiving;


*(He's the One) Who has created the seven heavens one above another, you can see no fault in the creations of the Most Beneficent. Then look again: "Can you see any rifts?"*






* Then look again and yet again, your sight will return to you in a state of humiliation and worn out. *
*[Noble Quran 67:1-4]*

*And when some hurt touches man, he cries to his Lord (Allah Alone), turning to Him in repentance, but when He bestows a favor upon him from Himself, he forgets that for which he cried for before, and he sets up rivals to Allah, in order to mislead others from His Path. Say: "Take pleasure in your disbelief for a while: surely, you are (one) of the dwellers of the Fire!" [*
*
We forget, as we were created to forget. And this is a part of our test. Will we only use a selective memory and overlook what we owe to our Creator and Sustainer? Or will we be appreciative even when we are suffering some hardship or setback in this life? As for mankind, whenever his Lord tests him giving him honor and gifts, he says (bragging): "My Lord honors me." But whenever He tests him by withholding his livelihood, he says: "My Lord has disgraced me!" [Noble Quran 89:15-16] Then Allah makes clear to us the real reasoning behind all that is taking place: Nay! But (it is because) you do not treat orphans with kindness and generosity. And you do not encourage feeding of the poor! And you devour inheritance with greed, And you love wealth with abounding love! [Noble Quran 89:17-20]
*
*Source:*
*http://www.godallah.com/why_create.php*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

People say quran is written by man and is not the words of god. 

Quran provides us with the test of authenticity and offers challenges against itself to prove its veracity. God says in the holy quran:

"Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions?".

"If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it."
[Noble Quran 2:23]


And Allah challenges us with:

Bring ten chapters like it.
[Noble Quran 11:13]


And finally:

Bring one chapter like it.
[Noble Quran 10:38].


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 23, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Maybe you should try to read the quran.. God doesn't need us he says that himself in the quran ?
> 
> We need him.. Worshipping him is a way of remembrance. You must remember god so he will remember you and have mercy upon you the day you are judged for your actions.
> 
> ...


Also, prophet Mohammed doesn't know how to write, so there's no way he would've written the Holy Quran.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Maybe you should try to read the quran.. God doesn't need us he says that himself in the quran ?
> 
> We need him.. Worshipping him is a way of remembrance. You must remember god so he will remember you and have mercy upon you the day you are judged for your actions.
> 
> ...


So since it's from man then it is believable?


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 24, 2016)

What you just said doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Maybe you should try to read the quran.. God doesn't need us he says that himself in the quran ?
> 
> We need him.. Worshipping him is a way of remembrance. You must remember god so he will remember you and have mercy upon you the day you are judged for your actions.
> 
> ...


And just for the record I believe he is some evil deity who has been messing with us since ancient times, and that is not okay.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 24, 2016)

Do you not know your history mate? Prophet Muhammad did not know how to write. How the hell would he have written it. Sadly, you can not read arabic, but it is no kind of normal writing any human can write, I swear. It is unbelievably poetic, like a poem, very beautiful. 

It is not the "same" when you read it in english.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Do you not know your history mate? Prophet Muhammad did not know how to write. How the hell would he have written it. Sadly, you can not read arabic, but it is no kind of normal writing any human can write, I swear. It is unbelievably poetic, like a poem, very beautiful.
> 
> It is not the "same" when you read it in english.


All religions write in poem.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 24, 2016)

Yil said:


> And just for the record I believe he is some evil deity who has been messing with us since ancient times, and that is not okay.



Mate you think everything in your little world must be perfect ? There is no such thing as eternal good. Not in this world atleast. People have their ups and downs, but you can't blame it on god. 

If you wan't him to interfere every minute something happens, what is the reason we were created?


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 24, 2016)

Yil said:


> All religions write in poem.


What did you expect?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well consider this, what if you die and YOU WERE WRONG?


Well consider this, what if god doesn't exist and YOU WERE WRONG?


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 24, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Well consider this, what if god doesn't exist and YOU WERE WRONG?


Nothing would happen.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 24, 2016)

AboodXD said:


> Nothing would happen.


Exactly! Who gives a fuck about any of this?! Why do people get angry about other people's beliefs or lack there of? It's not like it matters to your life.


----------



## AboodXD (Aug 24, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Exactly! Who gives a fuck about any of this?! Why do people get angry about other people's beliefs or lack there of? It's not like it matters to your life.


If God really exists, then this guy is trying to save you.

And you don't give a ****...


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 24, 2016)

AboodXD said:


> If God really exists, then this guy is trying to save you.
> 
> And you don't give a ****...


But I don't believe in god. There's no proof it exists, so why should I?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I went through a few of these, and they're all based on vague passages that have zero explanatory power in the absence of any real science. I also sincerely doubt that these convinced you of anything. More likely, they reinforced something you already believed. I doubt it if anyone has ever been convinced because of something like this.
> 
> You're also selectively choosing passages that you think have science in them, and you're ignoring the aforementioned ones that have incorrect science in them.
> 
> ...


If you want an exact on how every verse is misinterpreted then you wont find any as no one has the time to go over every single one and prove that they are misinterpreted. If you disagree then i cant do much other than say they are misinterpreted. Maybe one day i'll debunk each and every single one. Maybe that'll quench you thirst since trust is obviously out of the question.
Also this book is poetry its not meant to be exact to the point as science isnt the point of this book. It can be considered proof of god's existence as he knew and wrote things that were millennia ahead of its time. What better explanation is there? chance? a grenius of there time? No. There's no way this genius could have existed, unless of course they had space satellites back then?
seems a guy spent some time debunking a few:http://quranscientificerror.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 24, 2016)

What if one of the infinite other possible deities is real and he smites everyone who believes in false gods?   What then?  Pascal's Wager is shit as there is an infinite number of possible deities with just as much probability to exist as the Abrahamic god.  One of infinity converges to zero, so that's a losing bet.  In a race with infinite horses you've only been given third-hand information on, your money's safer in your pocket than on one of horses.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 24, 2016)

cornerpath said:


> 98% of tempers don't believe in GOD. You jackass you should known that, since you already know 98% of these users are crazy
> /insane. They have no patience, no morals, ungrateful lol just ask hykem... Just alot of stuff


And you're arrogant! The insult game is fun!


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> If you want an exact on how every verse is misinterpreted then you wont find any as no one has the time to go over every single one and prove that they are misinterpreted. If you disagree then i cant do much other than say they are misinterpreted. Maybe one day i'll debunk each and every single one. Maybe that'll quench you thirst since trust is obviously out of the question.
> Also this book is poetry its not meant to be exact to the point as science isnt the point of this book. It can be considered proof of god's existence as he knew and wrote things that were millennia ahead of its time. What better explanation is there? chance? a grenius of there time? No. There's no way this genius could have existed, unless of course they had space satellites back then?
> seems a guy spent some time debunking a few:http://quranscientificerror.blogspot.co.uk/


Absence of an alternative explanation is not evidence for another. In addition, there is no specific science in the Quran that wasn't known for the time, and there are plenty of errors in the Quran that cannot be attributed to mistranslation or misinterpretation.

It's cherry-picking at its finest to say, "All these things that I don't like are misinterpretations," and, "All these things I do like are not misinterpretations." If something in the Quran cannot stand alone as a scientific fact, then it's not any sort of specific science with explanatory power. Instead, you are in hindsight taking the actual science and applying it to vague passages in the Quran. If the Quran is so insightful and so full of science ahead of its time, why didn't we know these scientific facts until after the actual science came out?

The idea that the Quran is the greatest piece of scientific literature is bologna that has been debunked over and over again.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Mate you think everything in your little world must be perfect ? There is no such thing as eternal good. Not in this world atleast. People have their ups and downs, but you can't blame it on god.
> 
> If you wan't him to interfere every minute something happens, what is the reason we were created?


No, there is no absolute good but god does not fit in good of  any relativity.
How do you know he is the creator beside some holy book?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



cornerpath said:


> 98% of tempers don't believe in GOD. You jackass you should known that, since you already know 98% of these users are crazy
> /insane. They have no patience, no morals, ungrateful lol just ask hykem... Just alot of stuff


All so Christian don't do drug, don't kill, have lots of patient, treat everyone kindly.
Millions have died in his name for his holy war, Christian destory everything we feel good about, want the earth to be polluted and want to sacrifice the rest of the popilation to their god.


----------



## Smoker1 (Aug 24, 2016)

Sorry but I have a Logical, Rational, and Scientific way of thinking on this Subject. There are simply too many things wrong with the Bible and how it explains Events described in it. There are way too many things I can list. I believe everyone has a Right to believe how they want, just dont push your Beliefs onto others and/or try to force them to believe as you do. Keep it in Home and in Church.
Few Examples:
Adam and Eve were the 1st Humans on Earth right?????? No one else? They had 2 Sons. So how they continue on with Humanity?????? Gross.
Also, if they were the 1st Humans, what Race were they??????? If White, which if you look closely at the Bible, a great many are, or Middle Eastern, then where did Asians, Blacks, Hispanics come from then?????????
Also it is Scientifically impossible for just 2 People to start up the Human Race. You need anywhere from 30-50 Couples.

Next, the Great Flood. If Noah was commanded to gather 2 of each Animal on the Planet, then how was the Americas not discovered until 1492 and why did everyone still think the World was Flat???????????????? Not to mention, with the method of Travel back then, it would have taken Decades to accomplish the Task, and also for the World to Flood, it would have taken Centuries. Unless there was a Comet or Asteroid due to Impact the Earth, I highly doubt this happened.

Next, how old is the World/Galaxy/Universe??????? According to some Religious Groups, it is around 6-7000 Years old. Then why has there been proof of Carbon Dating showing Artifacts, Mummies, Dino's being around quite a few Million Years old?????? 
Also, there are those who believe Humans are the ONLY beings in the Universe, that we are God's Chosen. Really? With our Galaxy being an Estimated 70,000 Light Years, and so many Galaxies in our Universe, there is not a tiny bit of a possibility that there is other Life out there????????? Seems like a big waist of Space dont you think?????? It is highly likely, that there are many other forms of Life out there that have Evolved like Humans did on other Worlds. As old as the Universe is Estimated to be, there has to be TONS of other life out there, all having various differences in Appearance.

Oh and another reason why I cant agree with Religion: At some point, way back when, according to the Bible, if you went to another Land, and those People did not answer correctly to the God or Bible Question, then you were commanded to kill them all. Really??????? Doesnt matter if they live Peacefully, try to help others or try to make a better way of Life????? Just because they do not follow what you do, that is reason enough to murder innocent Men, Women and Children huh? Oh and also make Slaves out of them???????????


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

Smoker1 said:


> Sorry but I have a Logical, Rational, and Scientific way of thinking on this Subject. There are simply too many things wrong with the Bible and how it explains Events described in it. There are way too many things I can list. I believe everyone has a Right to believe how they want, just dont push your Beliefs onto others and/or try to force them to believe as you do. Keep it in Home and in Church.
> Few Examples:
> Adam and Eve were the 1st Humans on Earth right?????? No one else? They had 2 Sons. So how they continue on with Humanity?????? Gross.
> Also, if they were the 1st Humans, what Race were they??????? If White, which if you look closely at the Bible, a great many are, or Middle Eastern, then where did Asians, Blacks, Hispanics come from then?????????
> ...


There has been record of the great flood in Greek, which too wiped out most of the humans, various other similar myth and some manage to survive by digging thousands of miles long trenches so they simply stop at one point. Kind of wonder about ancient civilizations or if they are human level intelligence or higher beings that are not exactly human.


Smoker1 said:


> Sorry but I have a Logical, Rational, and Scientific way of thinking on this Subject. There are simply too many things wrong with the Bible and how it explains Events described in it. There are way too many things I can list. I believe everyone has a Right to believe how they want, just dont push your Beliefs onto others and/or try to force them to believe as you do. Keep it in Home and in Church.
> Few Examples:
> Adam and Eve were the 1st Humans on Earth right?????? No one else? They had 2 Sons. So how they continue on with Humanity?????? Gross.
> Also, if they were the 1st Humans, what Race were they??????? If White, which if you look closely at the Bible, a great many are, or Middle Eastern, then where did Asians, Blacks, Hispanics come from then?????????
> ...


That's why someone need to get rid if him before his apocalypse really start. If it's some kind if invasion with lots of entities, over 99% of our weapons cannot hit intangible things. If it's some kind of great flood again, then well we are kind of screwed unless we can pull off similar things, which is currently impossible. Any way we need to get at least get some 200 hundered years more advanced in technology, hopefully that's a possibility.


----------



## Smoker1 (Aug 24, 2016)

Well I mean a World Wide Flood Even. 
But also the other thought I had is, for those who say God Demands those who dont believe in him or the Bible be murdered, I highly doubt a Being would demand that unless from Alien Origin and is trying to dominate the World or Area. 
But yeah there have been numerous Civilizations that have known about Astronomy, Biology, you name it. There was even something on a Show, forgot which one about there being a Map of the World including Antarctica when Free of Ice well before Explorers looked at the place. Also got to wonder about the Stories about Atlantis, Olympus, you name it.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

Smoker1 said:


> Well I mean a World Wide Flood Even.
> But also the other thought I had is, for those who say God Demands those who dont believe in him or the Bible be murdered, I highly doubt a Being would demand that unless from Alien Origin and is trying to dominate the World or Area.
> But yeah there have been numerous Civilizations that have known about Astronomy, Biology, you name it. There was even something on a Show, forgot which one about there being a Map of the World including Antarctica when Free of Ice well before Explorers looked at the place. Also got to wonder about the Stories about Atlantis, Olympus, you name it.


Something like that but it is more of a deity of alien origin than a race trying to conquir us. Trust me, aliens can at least be fight back, deities not so much.
I do believe in mysyicism, which in that regard this planet is already much more than we think, and not to mention potentially parallel universe, time, other universe like two lines in a R^n(>=3) space that is neither parallel or intersecting.Or spaces that have a complete different point of origin and completely seperated.


----------



## Smoker1 (Aug 24, 2016)

Yeah, who knows, in an Alternate Timeline/Universe/Reality Religion is not a dominating factor in the World. So many Killings have been made in the Name of God it is stupid. Just because someone believes differently than you does not mean you or them is any different than anyone else. We are all the same with slight differences. But in the Words of Q from Star Trek: TNG - Humanity is a Dangerous, Savage Child Race.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 24, 2016)

filfat said:


> If i believe in a God? No, I usually don't believe things at all without evidence, I need real proof (feelings and voices in your head aren't). The idea of a God in itself is just completely absurd since it goes against all and every logic we have evolved to have.
> 
> On the subject of what happens after you die, that's easy. It's nothing. Really, nothing. The neurons in your brain stop firing therefore you can't interpret anything which equals nothingness. It's like turning off a computer, only it'll be such degraded after a few minutes that you can't turn it on again. No matter what religious people argue. You won't be a part of an afterlife since you physically won't be there, and neither will your brain which contains you (it's like copying a file from a flash drive to your pc they will still contain the same data bot won't be the same materia and therefore isn't the same).



Did all this nonsense just come out from your head?

Well, if you knew a bit then science has proof that your consciesness moves on and continues even after death! http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...veal-shock-findings-from-groundbreaking-study

I believe that Islam is the right religion. Not those shithead that kill in the name of religion. Those are just psychopaths who have latched themselves on religion. 

Quran has never changed since it was revealed thousands of years ago. 

_“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e.  the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”

[Quran 2:87] We gave Moses the scripture, and subsequent to him we sent other messengers, and we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit. Is it not a fact that every time a messenger went to you with anything you disliked, your ego caused you to be arrogant? Some of them you rejected, and some of them you killed.

[Quran 2:253] These messengers; we blessed some of them more than others. For example, God spoke to one, and we raised some of them to higher ranks. And we gave Jesus, son of Mary, profound miracles and supported him with the Holy Spirit.

[Quran 5:110] God will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, remember My blessings upon you and your mother. I supported you with the Holy Spirit, to enable you to speak to the people from the crib, as well as an adult. I taught you the scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel.

[Quran 19:17-19] While a barrier separated her from them, we sent to her our Spirit. He went to her in the form of a human being. She said, "I seek refuge in the Most Gracious, that you may be righteous." He said, "I am the messenger of your Lord, to grant you a pure son."

[Quran 78:38] The day will come when the Spirit and the angels will stand in a row. None will speak except those permitted by the Most Gracious, and they will utter only what is right.

[Quran 97:4] The angels and the Spirit descend therein, by their Lord's leave, to carry out every command.

The time of miracles is over! We are left with quran as the last revelation. Now it is up to us to believe in the lord of the worlds/universe. 

How arrogant is man to think he has control over everything..

[Quran 2:118] Those who possess no knowledge say, "If only God could speak to us, or some miracle could come to us!" Others before them have uttered similar utterances; their minds are similar. We do manifest the miracles for those who have attained certainty.
_


----------



## vincentx77 (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Well, if you knew a bit then science has proof that your consciesness moves on and continues even after death! http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...veal-shock-findings-from-groundbreaking-study



Look, not getting into your insane religious pissing contest, I just want to point out something about this article that REALLY needs to be said. If this, and articles like this, are your 'scientific' proof of life after death, all you're really doing is simply latching on to what you want to hear without doing any research about what happens during anoxic brain injury (essentially, what happens when your brain ceases to receive oxygen). I have a B.S. Psychology with an emphasis in neurophysiology, and if that isn't enough for you guys, this past January, my sister's heart stopped in the middle of the night while she was asleep. It was ten minutes before we could get it restarted. Essentially, she died of this kind of injury. So let me impart some actually knowledge that doesn't come from a right-wing religious slanted fluff piece written specifically to tell Christians, Jews, and Muslims exactly what they want to hear.

When your heart stops, you lose consciousness. That's because oxygen is no longer circulating to your body. It's also a defense mechanism. Your brain IS NOT DEAD. If it were, then CPR would be a pointless endeavor.  If you heart can bet restarted in around 3 minutes, it's unlikely you'll even have any brain damage. Some people have even gone a bit longer, up to 5. The longer you go without oxygen, the greater the likelihood that cells in your brain will start to die.

It's important to say this, because in these first few minutes, your brain can be active. Some people dream, some hear and see (if their eyes are left open), some hallucinate (basically mix dream and reality). This is because the LIVING BRAIN is shutting down and not yet dead. Not everyone will do this. Some just lose consciousness and that's it. It's a personal thing, pretty much just like everything else.

I'm not shitting on your religion here. I'm not telling you not to believe whatever you want. But things like this ARE NOT PROOF of an afterlife. Science knows better, and shame on any of you who try to purport otherwise.

edit: (and before anyone asks, when my sister's heart stopped, she made loud, strange exhale. That's how we knew and found her).


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

vincentx77 said:


> Look, not getting into your insane religious pissing contest, I just want to point out something about this article that REALLY needs to be said. If this, and articles like this, are your 'scientific' proof of life after death, all you're really doing is simply latching on to what you want to hear without doing any research about what happens during anoxic brain injury (essentially, what happens when your brain ceases to receive oxygen). I have a B.S. Psychology with an emphasis in neurophysiology, and if that isn't enough for you guys, this past January, my sister's heart stopped in the middle of the night while she was asleep. It was ten minutes before we could get it restarted. Essentially, she died of this kind of injury. So let me impart some actually knowledge that doesn't come from a right-wing religious slanted fluff piece written specifically to tell Christians, Jews, and Muslims exactly what they want to hear.
> 
> When your heart stops, you lose consciousness. That's because oxygen is no longer circulating to your body. It's also a defense mechanism. Your brain IS NOT DEAD. If it were, then CPR would be a pointless endeavor.  If you heart can bet restarted in around 3 minutes, it's unlikely you'll even have any brain damage. Some people have even gone a bit longer, up to 5. The longer you go without oxygen, the greater the likelihood that cells in your brain will start to die.
> 
> ...


I have achieved astral projection, and there is a second 'brain' that does not rely on electrical potential. However god's afterlife was an unnatural process to milk your soul.


----------



## vincentx77 (Aug 24, 2016)

Yil said:


> I have achieved astral projection, and there is a second 'brain' that does not rely on electrical potential. However god's afterlife was an unnatural process to milk your soul.



When you can astral project under scientific conditions (i.e. in a lab), and your projection is able to observe recordable phenomena which can be verified, then this will become a valid conversion. Otherwise you were lucid dreaming.


----------



## filfat (Aug 24, 2016)

mustafag32g said:


> Did all this nonsense just come out from your head?
> 
> Well, if you knew a bit then science has proof that your consciesness moves on and continues even after death! http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...veal-shock-findings-from-groundbreaking-study
> 
> ...


You can't use religion to "prove" religion. That would be like me writing a book that say "everything in this book is true". And that "since" article you shared proves nothing, a sample size of only 2000 people isn't enough if you've gone to a school you would've known that.


----------



## mustafag32g (Aug 24, 2016)

No offense mate i am a medical student . I am not proofing anything. I just want to make you reflect.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Absence of an alternative explanation is not evidence for another. In addition, there is no specific science in the Quran that wasn't known for the time, and there are plenty of errors in the Quran that cannot be attributed to mistranslation or misinterpretation.
> 
> It's cherry-picking at its finest to say, "All these things that I don't like are misinterpretations," and, "All these things I do like are not misinterpretations." If something in the Quran cannot stand alone as a scientific fact, then it's not any sort of specific science with explanatory power. Instead, you are in hindsight taking the actual science and applying it to vague passages in the Quran. If the Quran is so insightful and so full of science ahead of its time, why didn't we know these scientific facts until after the actual science came out?
> 
> The idea that the Quran is the greatest piece of scientific literature is bologna that has been debunked over and over again.


How about showing some of these verses? At this point youre sounding weak, unable to come up with a conclusion so you say cherry-picked data yet you fail to show me one that isn't misinterpreted. The quran is meant to be timeless thats why we pick the interpretation that makes sense to us. You have yet to show wich passages are "vague" how about putting some time into research?
TL;DR: Put some effort into actually understanding the quran since you seem extremely one sided on it. Wouldnt expected much objectivity anyways.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smoker1 said:


> Sorry but I have a Logical, Rational, and Scientific way of thinking on this Subject. There are simply too many things wrong with the Bible and how it explains Events described in it. There are way too many things I can list. I believe everyone has a Right to believe how they want, just dont push your Beliefs onto others and/or try to force them to believe as you do. Keep it in Home and in Church.
> Few Examples:
> Adam and Eve were the 1st Humans on Earth right?????? No one else? They had 2 Sons. So how they continue on with Humanity?????? Gross.
> Also, if they were the 1st Humans, what Race were they??????? If White, which if you look closely at the Bible, a great many are, or Middle Eastern, then where did Asians, Blacks, Hispanics come from then?????????
> ...


Everything you pointed out is christianities flaws. The quran doesnt even talk about time scales so as to be timeless.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> Something like that but it is more of a deity of alien origin than a race trying to conquir us. Trust me, aliens can at least be fight back, deities not so much.
> I do believe in mysyicism, which in that regard this planet is already much more than we think, and not to mention potentially parallel universe, time, other universe like two lines in a R^n(>=3) space that is neither parallel or intersecting.Or spaces that have a complete different point of origin and completely seperated.


Deity's cant fight back? Youre logic is pretty funny imo. If a deity is outside this universe we cant fight back. Im not against the idea of aliens however i dont think theyre here just yet.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The afterlife isnt provable.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> How about showing some of these verses? At this point youre sounding weak, unable to come up with a conclusion so you say cherry-picked data yet you fail to show me one that isn't misinterpreted. The quran is meant to be timeless thats why we pick the interpretation that makes sense to us. You have yet to show wich passages are "vague" how about putting some time into research?
> TL;DR: Put some effort into actually understanding the quran since you seem extremely one sided on it. Wouldnt expected much objectivity anyways.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


I've put plenty of time into this topic, because this is far from the first time I've heard this debunked claim about science in the Quran. Don't pretend you know anything about me or my knowledge base. In reality, this topic has been thoroughly vetted by myself and others over the years, and it doesn't hold water.

I am not sure what you want from me, because I can do nothing but acknowledge that there is no specific science in any of these passages. We cannot, for example, pull the speed of light from the Quran. With every one of these examples, one can only hope to find the science in the Quran after taking the science (the speed of light, for example) and retroactively trying to cram it into a passage. Nobody was going around knowing the speed of light because they found it in the Quran. Science brought us the speed of light, and then people started to apply it to vague passages in the Quran. The same goes for every single example of alleged science in the Quran.

I have no biases here. It would only take one piece of sound evidence to begin to change my mind about the topic of God. I suggest you look at this with a shred of objectivity and acknowledge the mere possibility that the Quran is wrong.

I would ask you to provide one passage from the Quran that demonstrates some sort of specific science claim ahead of its time that we can understand independent of the actual science, but it's also irrelevant. As I've said before, the presence of science in the Quran would do nothing to demonstrate that a god exists.


----------



## Youkai (Aug 24, 2016)

You know, "god" is actually believing no matter what and even though I don't believe I wouldn't tell anyone to stop doing so (even though I cannot comprehend anyone believing) still I for one want them to stop "believing" what they were told by some human beings who think they know it all better.
Actually in my opinion the higher/closer they get to their "god" the less trustworthy they are (that's just my point of view)

I wouldn't even trust the pope not stealing from me if he could get something worth enough XD

You know Humans did pretty much the opposit of what religion taught them for many years (and not only the Christians)


----------



## Jao Chu (Aug 24, 2016)

I was raised in a household that was extremely anti-religion, to the point where my mother and father would author letters to my school teacher requesting that I do not attend "Religious Instruction" classes.

It worked out well for me, while my buddies were having nonsense dribbled into their ears by bible-basher's for an hour, I was playing games on old school apple macintosh's, along with the three other kids whose parents didn't want them participating either.


----------



## Yil (Aug 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> How about showing some of these verses? At this point youre sounding weak, unable to come up with a conclusion so you say cherry-picked data yet you fail to show me one that isn't misinterpreted. The quran is meant to be timeless thats why we pick the interpretation that makes sense to us. You have yet to show wich passages are "vague" how about putting some time into research?
> TL;DR: Put some effort into actually understanding the quran since you seem extremely one sided on it. Wouldnt expected much objectivity anyways.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


I said you cannot fight back deities in the same way you deal with alien. To beat a deity you need to be at least on par at the start (I don't even know how to kill an entity though avoiding one was easy enough) To fight aliens if you can last several years and reverse engineer things, you can win with a initial disadvantage.

Am I the only one thinks god is going to screw us all in some future?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I've put plenty of time into this topic, because this is far from the first time I've heard this debunked claim about science in the Quran. Don't pretend you know anything about me or my knowledge base. In reality, this topic has been thoroughly vetted by myself and others over the years, and it doesn't hold water.
> 
> I am not sure what you want from me, because I can do nothing but acknowledge that there is no specific science in any of these passages. We cannot, for example, pull the speed of light from the Quran. With every one of these examples, one can only hope to find the science in the Quran after taking the science (the speed of light, for example) and retroactively trying to cram it into a passage. Nobody was going around knowing the speed of light because they found it in the Quran. Science brought us the speed of light, and then people started to apply it to vague passages in the Quran. The same goes for every single example of alleged science in the Quran.
> 
> ...



You do understand what timelessness is? If a religious passage was specific then it wouldn't have been followed back in its time. E.g *[Quran 21:33] And He it is who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, **each in an orbit floating. 
*
Its not specific so as not to contradict beliefs of the time (so that people can believe everything orbits the earth back then.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> I said you cannot fight back deities in the same way you deal with alien. To beat a deity you need to be at least on par at the start (I don't even know how to kill an entity though avoiding one was easy enough) To fight aliens if you can last several years and reverse engineer things, you can win with a initial disadvantage.


Oh your wording made it seem otherwise.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 24, 2016)

Smoker1 said:


> Well I mean a World Wide Flood Even.
> But also the other thought I had is, for those who say God Demands those who dont believe in him or the Bible be murdered, I highly doubt a Being would demand that unless from Alien Origin and is trying to dominate the World or Area.
> But yeah there have been numerous Civilizations that have known about Astronomy, Biology, you name it. There was even something on a Show, forgot which one about there being a Map of the World including Antarctica when Free of Ice well before Explorers looked at the place. Also got to wonder about the Stories about Atlantis, Olympus, you name it.


It's not that that God demands that people who don't believe in Him be murdered, it's that we all deserve death for being corrupt through sin, and he provided a way for us to get back to Him (through Jesus).  Everyone has the choice to not come back to Him, but will miss out on the gift of eternal life.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> I've put plenty of time into this topic, because this is far from the first time I've heard this debunked claim about science in the Quran. Don't pretend you know anything about me or my knowledge base. In reality, this topic has been thoroughly vetted by myself and others over the years, and it doesn't hold water.
> 
> I am not sure what you want from me, because I can do nothing but acknowledge that there is no specific science in any of these passages. We cannot, for example, pull the speed of light from the Quran. With every one of these examples, one can only hope to find the science in the Quran after taking the science (the speed of light, for example) and retroactively trying to cram it into a passage. Nobody was going around knowing the speed of light because they found it in the Quran. Science brought us the speed of light, and then people started to apply it to vague passages in the Quran. The same goes for every single example of alleged science in the Quran.
> 
> ...


Here's why i think youre arguements are weak:

You cant provide proof yourself yet you tell me that these things have been debunked.
You seem to be incapable of reason.
Reading comprehension is fun.
If you get offended by any of these statements im sorry, im not here to make someone hate me.
edit: i should add you also say there is incorrect science yet you fail to show me any how am i meant to believe you? Seriously you expect me to believe you there is literally nothing for me to look at objectively how about you read this objectively? and consider you might be wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You do understand what timelessness is? If a religious passage was specific then it wouldn't have been followed back in its time. E.g *[Quran 21:33] And He it is who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, **each in an orbit floating.
> *
> Its not specific so as not to contradict beliefs of the time (so that people can believe everything orbits the earth back then.)


If a divinely inspired passage written in a way so as not to contradict current thinking is indistinguishable from a vague passage that has no explanatory power, it's effectively useless, regardless of which one it is.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Here's why i think youre arguements are weak:
> You cant provide proof yourself yet you tell me that these things have been debunked.


I can easily point to passages in the Quran and say, "There is no specific science here that's ahead of its time," or say, "This contradicts what we know about the natural world." If we assume for a second that I'm right about these things, there is nothing more I can say about it. The onus is on the person claiming, for example, that there are specific scientific facts in the Quran, and the onus is also on the person claiming this to explain how this would demonstrate that a god exists. It doesn't.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> You seem to be incapable of reason.
> Reading comprehension is fun.
> If you get offended by any of these statements im sorry, im not here to make someone hate me.


I don't seem to be the one who is offended here, claiming I'm incapable of reason or lack reading comprehension.



TheDarkGreninja said:


> edit: i should add you also say there is incorrect science yet you fail to show me any how am i meant to believe you? Seriously you expect me to believe you there is literally nothing for me to look at objectively how about you read this objectively? and consider you might be wrong.


There are plenty of errors in the Quran. I have posted a link. You're free to argue that each and every one is a mistranslation or misinterpretation without looking at them, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day. Whether or not there are errors in the Quran is irrelevant to whether or not there's any reason to think the Quran is correct about God.


----------



## Smoker1 (Aug 24, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> It's not that that God demands that people who don't believe in Him be murdered, it's that we all deserve death for being corrupt through sin, and he provided a way for us to get back to Him (through Jesus).  Everyone has the choice to not come back to Him, but will miss out on the gift of eternal life.


Then why is there a Thou Shall not Kill Commandment?????????????


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Lacius said:


> If a divinely inspired passage written in a way so as not to contradict current thinking is indistinguishable from a vague passage that has no explanatory power, it's effectively useless, regardless of which one it is.
> 
> 
> I can easily point to passages in the Quran and say, "There is no specific science here that's ahead of its time," or say, "This contradicts what we know about the natural world." If we assume for a second that I'm right about these things, there is nothing more I can say about it. The onus is on the person claiming, for example, that there are specific scientific facts in the Quran, and the onus is also on the person claiming this to explain how this would demonstrate that a god exists. It doesn't.
> ...


if you can easily point to messages that contradict what we know about the natural world how about showing me one?

You seriously think that site is objective? You claim unbias yet you use a biased site.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smoker1 said:


> Then why is there a Thou Shall not Kill Commandment?????????????


It's conditional.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> It's not that that God demands that people who don't believe in Him be murdered, it's that we all deserve death for being corrupt through sin, and he provided a way for us to get back to Him (through Jesus).  Everyone has the choice to not come back to Him, but will miss out on the gift of eternal life.


Condemning me to an eternal torture chamber because I lack a belief due to absence of evidence is infinitely more immoral than anything I could do, so who is saving God?



TheDarkGreninja said:


> if you can easily point to messages that contradict what we know about the natural world how about showing me one?


I could go to that link I shared and copy and paste a few of the good ones, but I don't want to distract from the fact that I've already explained how it's irrelevant to whether or not there's any reason to think a god exists. The Quran could be error-free, and it doesn't matter.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 24, 2016)

Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
There is no external, objective, revealed standard written in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity,gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination
Just something I feel that has to be considered.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

Quite the read.
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/a-response-to-the-god-delusion/


----------



## evandixon (Aug 24, 2016)

Smoker1 said:


> Then why is there a Thou Shall not Kill Commandment?????????????


The command says no murder.  Murder =/= kill.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 24, 2016)

I should add infinity is not possible in the real world.
Really interesting debate: (whether youre athiest
or not)


I have respect for both speakers. A lot of respect for krausse.
@Lacius skip to 1:44 you'll get your answer there.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> It's not that that God demands that people who don't believe in Him be murdered, it's that we all deserve death for being corrupt through sin, and he provided a way for us to get back to Him (through Jesus).  Everyone has the choice to not come back to Him, but will miss out on the gift of eternal life.


Not falling for that one. Permanently being a part of him is an end far worse than perished. So instead, I will make him perish, or a worse outcome make ourselves perish but that will save everything else from him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RevPokemon said:


> Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
> Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
> The Biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
> The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
> ...


My experience in mythism tells me that despite evolution is correct, biology still cannot comprehend the exact definition of life. There has been experiment that rocks formation which simulate cells despite not being organic. Just google.
I wonder how long it takes for non organic to develop a brain like structure and if it like ours rely on electrucity.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Aug 25, 2016)

No, I don't. I used to, until I began to think for myself. And while I enjoy a good debate, I will not start one here. To each his own.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> The command says no murder.  Murder =/= kill.


What's thr difference? If an action result in one's death it is a murder. There is no justification. The difference is if someone take guilt following that action.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> What's thr difference? If an action result in one's death it is a murder. There is no justification. The difference is if someone take guilt following that action.


Kill:
"to deprive of life :  cause the death of"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kills

Murder:
"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

"Kill" is a more general word, while "Murder" implies the intention of doing harm.

If someone breaks into your house with a gun, and you try to disarm him, killing him in the process, that's not murder.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Kill:
> "to deprive of life :  cause the death of"
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kills
> 
> ...



Biblical terms and legal/modern terms are rather different in some people's eyes....


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

GuyInDogSuit said:


> Biblical terms and legal/modern terms are rather different in some people's eyes....


For killing vs murder, there is no difference between the legal and biblical terms.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> For killing vs murder, there is no difference between the legal and biblical terms.
> 
> http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/



No, not if you actually take that into moral consideration. There are some fundamentalist groups in every religion, regardless of similar beliefs, that commit murder whether it's morally right or not.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

GuyInDogSuit said:


> No, not if you actually take that into moral consideration. There are some fundamentalist groups in every religion, regardless of similar beliefs, that commit murder whether it's morally right or not.


Just because some people have different beliefs about this doesn't make them right (just look at Westboro "Baptist Church").  The bible is pretty clear on this subject: it is not a sin to kill someone if you are trying to defend someone (see here for sources).


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Just because some people have different beliefs about this doesn't make them right (just look at Westboro "Baptist Church").  The bible is pretty clear on this subject: it is not a sin to kill someone if you are trying to defend someone (see here for sources).



Didn't say they were right. In fact, I was insinuating that they are, in fact, wrong. Very wrong. And this is part of the reason why religion has become a problem. If you don't believe me, look into the religious beliefs of various world leaders that have started wars and genocide. The USA is the biggest perpetrator of wars in the world.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

GuyInDogSuit said:


> Didn't say they were right. In fact, I was insinuating that they are, in fact, wrong. Very wrong. And this is part of the reason why religion has become a problem. If you don't believe me, look into the religious beliefs of various world leaders that have started wars and genocide. The USA is the biggest perpetrator of wars in the world.


However there is the case of law abuse, but still killing innocent people in god's name is wrong. So in exchange, someone has to kill god, not to mention a mass genocide on everything he planed some time in the future.


----------



## baselhamad (Aug 25, 2016)

yes, i believe in god, i'm a muslim, i believe in god ''Allah''  but my question is: why the unbelievable voters doesn't believe in god?? tell me voter, who created you? who gave you a brain to think? who gave you the heart and family? it's the god, Allah alghafor, alraheem so please voter, believe in god


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 25, 2016)

baselhamad said:


> yes, i believe in god, i'm a muslim, i believe in god ''Allah''  but my question is: why the unbelievable voters doesn't believe in god?? tell me voter, who created you? who gave you a brain to think? who gave you the heart and family? it's the god, Allah alghafor, alraheem so please voter, believe in god


Two people boning made me.  Who made Allah?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Two people boning made me.  Who made Allah?


an uncreated creator. you should watch the video above.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

baselhamad said:


> yes, i believe in god, i'm a muslim, i believe in god ''Allah''  but my question is: why the unbelievable voters doesn't believe in god?? tell me voter, who created you? who gave you a brain to think? who gave you the heart and family? it's the god, Allah alghafor, alraheem so please voter, believe in god


Does not "Allah" mean "The lord" in several language?
Another question, how do you even know any of this is true just because someone more powerful than average human tell you it is? Majority of religious prophets have demonstrate power beyond, say, psychic.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> Who made Allah?


No one.

Theists, Deists, Athiests, and Panthiests (I believe that covers pretty much everyone) all believe that something has to be infinite, having always been, needing no maker.  Thiests (like myself), Deists, and Panthiests believe that God is infinite, and athiests believe that the universe or matter is infinite.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> No one.
> 
> Theists, Deists, Athiests, and Panthiests (I believe that covers pretty much everyone) all believe that something has to be infinite, having always been, needing no maker.  Thiests (like myself), Deists, and Panthiests believe that God is infinite, and athiests believe that the universe or matter is infinite.


Then what is existence? How can it be explained since it comes before and thus beyond logic. (be preserved, even if lack of physical, or even some vision in your head is classified as existing)


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> an uncreated creator. you should watch the video above.


All you're doing is pushing the creation question further down the line without providing any real answers.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Then what is existence? How can it be explained since it comes before and thus beyond logic. (be preserved, even if lack of physical, or even some vision in your head is classified as existing)


I don't understand your question or how it relates to what I posted.  But I'll give it my best shot.
Existence (n): "the fact or state of living or having objective reality"

In the context of us, we exist if we're within objective reality.
Defining whether God exists is harder to put into words, but thinking about it the other way, Christains believe that God exists because we can observe the complex design of the universe, none of which is possible if He did not exist.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> No one.
> 
> Theists, Deists, Athiests, and Panthiests (I believe that covers pretty much everyone) all believe that something has to be infinite, having always been, needing no maker.  Thiests (like myself), Deists, and Panthiests believe that God is infinite, and athiests believe that the universe or matter is infinite.


Why do I even bother posting here? Numerous times, and sometimes in direct response to your posts, I've pointed out possibilities that don't require anything being infinite.



UniqueGeek said:


> I don't understand your question or how it relates to what I posted.  But I'll give it my best shot.
> Existence (n): "the fact or state of living or having objective reality"
> 
> In the context of us, we exist if we're within objective reality.
> Defining whether God exists is harder to put into words, but thinking about it the other way, Christains believe that God exists because we can observe the complex design of the universe, none of which is possible if He did not exist.


Complexity is not evidence of design. Design has to be demonstrated if it is going to be asserted.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Why do I even bother posting here? Numerous times, and sometimes in direct response to your posts, I've pointed out possibilities that don't require anything being infinite.
> 
> 
> Complexity is not evidence of design. Design has to be demonstrated if it is going to be asserted.


Another thing about intelligent design is that it is much more likely to cause trouble, since nature get rid of failures and let everything remain in a dynamic balance.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Numerous times, and sometimes in direct response to your posts, I've pointed out possibilities that don't require anything being infinite.


Then how did _they_ come into existence?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Then how did _they_ come into existence?


A tendency toward something. But Christian god plays no part in this, nor is he the creator.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> A tendency toward something


If there is nothing infinite, then where did matter with this tendency come from?



Yil said:


> But Christian god plays no part in this, nor is he the creator.


I believe He does/is.

If you're going to make a statement like that, it's usually best to either support your argument, or say why you believe it.  I believe God created the universe because the universe is incredibly complex, and intelligent design makes the most sense IMO.  Several posts ago someone posted a link that's a response to the book The God Delusion, which I think sums things up pretty nicely.
http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/a-response-to-the-god-delusion/


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> If there is nothing infinite, then where did matter with this tendency come from?
> 
> 
> I believe He does/is.
> ...


How does any of the facts prove that god is the creator?


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> How does any of the facts prove that god is the creator?


There's no hard evidence for anyone's hypothesis about the beginning of life and the universe.  But...


			
				A Response to The God Delusion said:
			
		

> The odds against assembling the human genome spontaneously are incalculable. The probability of assembling the genome is between 4^-180 to 4^-110,000 and 4^-360 to 4^-110,000. These numbers give some feel for the unlikelihood of the species Homo sapiens. And if anyone were to accept evolution by chance, they would have to believe in a miracle as these numbers are so high! Therefore evolution itself would prove the existence of God!


I find it much easier to believe that an intelligent God whom we can't fully comprehend created everything than random chance with astronomically low odds in a process we can't fully comprehend.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> There's no hard evidence for anyone's hypothesis about the beginning of life and the universe.  But...
> 
> I find it much easier to believe that an intelligent God whom we can't fully comprehend created everything than random chance with astronomically low odds in a process we can't fully comprehend.


There is a tendency which humans already approached and rest still struggling. Further, there are other forms of life not even classified as organic, which further what can be considered life and what not.
And beside just because you cannot comprehend does not mean it has to be from a higher intelligence.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> There's no hard evidence for anyone's hypothesis about the beginning of life and the universe.  But...
> 
> I find it much easier to believe that an intelligent God whom we can't fully comprehend created everything than random chance with astronomically low odds in a process we can't fully comprehend.


Evolution isn't random chance...

Also, like I mentioned before, time is RELATIVE. Objects moving faster experience slower time as well as objects in stronger gravity. Why assume that the universe needs a beginning. Maybe the universe, by which I mean all of existence, is static.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> There's no hard evidence for anyone's hypothesis about the beginning of life and the universe.  But...
> 
> I find it much easier to believe that an intelligent God whom we can't fully comprehend created everything than random chance with astronomically low odds in a process we can't fully comprehend.


If I flip a coin a billion times, the probability of any given sequence of results is one in 2^(a billion).  Astronomically low.  That doesn't mean that it was designed to create the sequence that happened to play out, it just means that was the sequence that happened to play out.  You are falling into the fallacy that we are some end result to be worked towards.  We are not the end goal.  We are not the desired outcome.  We are _an_ outcome.  Actually, even that isn't entirely accurate as we aren't at an endpoint.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> All you're doing is pushing the creation question further down the line without providing any real answers.


You seem to not understand how a universe could exist, one the universe cant be uncreated, since we know it has a beginning because nothing in reality is infinite (its qualititve not quantitive) so it had to be something outisde the universe that was uncreated the most simple is god a being of infinite power.
Im tired od seeing this argument placed again and again for the past 1500 posts so ill just sum this entire thread up in some videos watch it or not:



Theyre all by a muslim guy yes and they do have a basis on the quran so if you hate the idea that a muslim is arguing from a point of a theist then ok, don't watch it.

@Lacius Did you watch the video?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)




----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Skip to 6:55


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

My god @Haider Raza you have opened my eyes with your videos.



before I walked in the valley of the Shadow of Death, but maybe that's because my friends iPhone maps sucked. 



now im on the right path to righteousness and becoming a Shito


----------



## erman1337 (Aug 25, 2016)

stop shitposting


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> My god @Haider Raza you have opened my eyes with your videos.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you became sh_to? wern't you always a sh_to?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MarioErmando said:


> stop shitposting


Who are you talking to? (If me) then why me? I'm just giving some info to the non-believers. Is it bad to do that?


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> So you became sh_to? wern't you always a sh_to?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





in saudi arabia if I took the fun out of your religion what would happen to my me?


so why are you making fun out of my new religion.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> in saudi arabia if I took the fun out of your religion what would happen to my me?
> 
> 
> so why are you making fun out of my new religion.


What fun? Are you talkin about that call from muslim guy video? If yes then what wrong did he said? He is just asking question that you guys can't explain to anyone. I want to know the same question's about the trinty thing.


The bible that you read today is not the real bible it is all mixed up by some guys. There  wer'nt no trinty thhing in the bible it is made up today. So you guys think jesus was god. But jesus never claim himself as god. He said There is only one god. But what the trinty says that there are 3gods. Then will you believe trinty thing or jesus?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> in saudi arabia if I took the fun out of your religion what would happen to my me?
> 
> 
> so why are you making fun out of my new religion.


You use saudi arabia as an example when they dont follow sharia law.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 25, 2016)

What does Sharia law have to do with anything here? Saudi law is pretty against freedom of expression with regards to religion and it is the flag sported by the person that was being responded to
http://www.pen-international.org/03...-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> What does Sharia law have to do with anything here? Saudi law is pretty against freedom of expression with regards to religion and it is the flag sported by the person that was being responded to
> http://www.pen-international.org/03...-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/


No hes not saudi arabian. The saudi arabian flag looks nothing like his flag


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> What does Sharia law have to do with anything here? Saudi law is pretty against freedom of expression with regards to religion and it is the flag sported by the person that was being responded to
> http://www.pen-international.org/03...-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/




You are a god among men.




TheDarkGreninja said:


> You use saudi arabia as an example when they dont follow sharia law.



sharia law? In which part did I say sharia law.

oh its Pakistan. even better. Proves my point more.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> You are a god among men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I said you used saudi arabia as a way to show islam doesnt allow freedom of speech when its just one country,that was my assumption.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TheDarkGreninja said:


> You seem to not understand how a universe could exist, one the universe cant be uncreated, since we know it has a beginning because nothing in reality is infinite (its qualititve not quantitive) so it had to be something outisde the universe that was uncreated the most simple is god a being of infinite power.
> Im tired od seeing this argument placed again and again for the past 1500 posts so ill just sum this entire thread up in some videos watch it or not:
> 
> 
> ...



Im just gonna keep posting this wall till someone comes up with an answer as im tired of the same posts.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 25, 2016)

My bad, I was a few pages back where there was a saudi flag and messed up my reply. That does rather trouble part of the point, though the other on asking why you decided to mention sharia law stands.

Back on topic
" so it had to be something outisde the universe that was uncreated the most simple is god a being of infinite power"
I might argue otherwise but even if we are going to take that as read then why would the writings of people with a vested interest and a lot to gain several thousand years ago have the answer?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

FAST6191 said:


> My bad, I was a few pages back where there was a saudi flag and messed up my reply. That does rather trouble part of the point, though the other on asking why you decided to mention sharia law stands.
> 
> Back on topic
> " so it had to be something outisde the universe that was uncreated the most simple is god a being of infinite power"
> I might argue otherwise but even if we are going to take that as read then why would the writings of people with a vested interest and a lot to gain several thousand years ago have the answer?


I recommend watching the debates. You only need to watch one but watching all three will give the viewpoints out more clearly.


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

@TheDarkGreninja Why isn't dinosaurs talked about in religious books?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> @TheDarkGreninja Why isn't dinosaurs talk about in religious books?


what? Becuase they arent important. This is about humanity, the quran says life began in water thats one of the few times it talks about past events.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> k



The bible that you read today is not the real bible. It is all mixed up by some guys. There were no trinty thing in the real bible. It is made up today. So you guys think jesus was god. But jesus never claim himself as god. He said there is only one god. But what the trinty says that there are 3gods. So will you believe trinty thing or jesus?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Flame said:


>


 Remove your arrogance for just 6mins & watch this video. Skip it to 6:55 & listen it carefully. So you can understand what God (Almighty Allah) is.


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> The bible that you read today is not the real bible. It is all mixed up by some guys. There were no trinty thing in the real bible. It is made up today. So you guys think jesus was god. But jesus never claim himself as god. He said there is only one god. But what the trinty says that there are 3gods. So will you believe trinty thing or jesus?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Remove your arrogance for just 6mins & watch this video. Skip it to 6:55 & listen it carefully. So you can understand what God (Almighty Allah) is.





you seem to think that im christian for some reason.

Im a prophet of the church of atheism.


im joking atheism is a non-prophet organization unlike yours.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> you seem to think that im christian for some reason.
> 
> Im a prophet of the church of atheism.
> 
> ...


Omg, dude, that is so bad.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I recommend watching the debates. You only need to watch one but watching all three will give the viewpoints out more clearly.


How do you know the masculine and male, genocidal deity is the supreme creator of all, when gender was not supposed to exist in its primal state and toxic masculinity is by no means right in any form but on of the greatest evil surrounding our society. Or has he ever demonstrate anywhere close to omnipotence even in genesis?


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

You know this is weird because I do actually believe in God but the funny thing is when I meet people who are Christian they are always nice and happy I mean they are not perfect but they do seem more educated and they don't do drugs or alcohol and I know this guy who doesn't believe in God and he is like a drug addict and has a lot of problems. I believe in God and I really live a happy life and I don't do drugs and alcohol. may sound funny but am telling the truth


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

the thing i dont understand..


Jesus is god.

God made Mary pregnant.

Mary gave birth to Jes...



wait a minute. that motherfucker Joseph did not do anything.


I GOT MY EYES ON YOU JOSEPH!


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 25, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> You know this is weird because I do actually believe in God but the funny thing is when I meet people who are Christian they are always nice and happy I mean they are not perfect but they do seem more educated and they don't do drugs or alcohol and I know this guy who doesn't believe in God and he is like a drug addict and has a lot of problems. I believe in God and I really live a happy life and I don't do drugs and alcohol. may sound funny but am telling the truth


Hmm, I was raised in a Christian household and apostated when I got a little older. I noticed that the Christians I knew tried to keep up appearances, but weren't actually much different than the non-Christians I knew.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

invaderyoyo said:


> Hmm, I was raised in a Christian household and apostated when I got a little older. I noticed that the Christians I knew tried to keep up appearances, but weren't actually much different than the non-Christians I knew.


Yeah well I guess its just me then


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Remove your arrogance for just 6mins & watch this video. Skip it to 6:55 & listen it carefully. So you can understand what God (Almighty Allah) is.


Do you really think anyone is going to convert to your stupid religion just because you showed them some Youtube video?


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 25, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> Yeah well I guess its just me then


Could be the area I grew up in, though. I've lived in Pacoima, CA my whole life and it's actually a pretty bad area.

Well, nearly my whole life...


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Do you really think anyone is going to convert to your stupid religion just because you showed them some Youtube video?


What if they will kill you if you don't? Will you kill the believers, or kill their god (literally, not metaphorically)?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> What if they will kill you if you don't? Will you kill the believers, or kill their god (literally, not metaphorically)?


How can you kill something that doesn't even exist?


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

I know I will piss off a lot of you, but I really dislike Islam. According to the Quran, you should murder gays. Oh, and Jews are bad too. Oh, and women need to be treared like shit. You can't even talk to the opposite sex, besides for a few people.

Every muslim I've met that are around my age looks down to girls and acts like they're different beings. Some talk about how Jews have done terrible things, yet they forget what Islam has done. I won't generalize, but still, it's worth noting.

Christians on the other hand, go with the times. I have rarely met a mean Christian. In fact, most of them are nice and loving people, at least where I live.

Anyways those were my 2 cents, so take it with a grain of salt.

EDIT: Same goes for atheists, except the ones who can't shut up about how theyre ''right'' and youre wrong. Screw them.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> you seem to think that im christian for some reason.
> 
> Im a prophet of the church of atheism.
> 
> ...


if you're not christian then why did you said stop making fun of my religion?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I know I will piss off a lot of you, but I really dislike Islam. According to the Quran, you should murder gays. Oh, and Jews are bad too. Oh, and women need to be treared like shit. You can't even talk to the opposite sex, besides for a few people.
> 
> Every muslim I've met that are around my age looks down to girls and acts like they're different beings. Some talk about how Jews have done terrible things, yet they forget what Islam has done. I won't generalize, but still, it's worth noting.
> 
> ...


Then you've clearly never seen how Christians treat gays, people of other religions, or really anyone who doesn't believe in their stupid little book.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Do you really think anyone is going to convert to your stupid religion just because you showed them some Youtube video?


Do you think i'm here to change there religion? i'm just giving them example of what true creator is.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Do you think i'm here to change there religion? i'm just giving them example of what true creator is.


That's pretty much what proselytizing is.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Then you've clearly never seen how Christians treat gays, people of other religions, or really anyone who doesn't believe in their stupid little book.


Oh, you mean just like how some atheists treat gays, people of other beliefs or really anyone who doesn't believe in their "stupid" theories. Like you


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

oops


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I know I will piss off a lot of you, but I really dislike Islam. According to the Quran, you should murder gays. Oh, and Jews are bad too. Oh, and women need to be treared like shit. You can't even talk to the opposite sex, besides for a few people.
> 
> Every muslim I've met that are around my age looks down to girls and acts like they're different beings. Some talk about how Jews have done terrible things, yet they forget what Islam has done. I won't generalize, but still, it's worth noting.
> 
> ...


First of all if you think muslims are bad. I want to know how did you made that statement of your without proof? you're doing the same thing like bush did with the 9/11. He is a terrorist himself but he blame others for his crime.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I know I will piss off a lot of you, but I really dislike Islam. According to the Quran, you should murder gays. Oh, and Jews are bad too. Oh, and women need to be treared like shit. You can't even talk to the opposite sex, besides for a few people.
> 
> Every muslim I've met that are around my age looks down to girls and acts like they're different beings. Some talk about how Jews have done terrible things, yet they forget what Islam has done. I won't generalize, but still, it's worth noting.
> 
> ...


I really agree


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Oh, you mean just like how some atheists treat gays, people of other beliefs or really anyone who doesn't believe in their "stupid" theories. Like you


So by saying you're being a hypocrite I'm saying gays and people of other beliefs are terrible?


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> So by saying you're being a hypocrite I'm saying gays and people of other beliefs are terrible?


why are you so mad. chill it out because not everyone here thinks like you.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Oh


& who told you we muslims are guided the kill gays. What proof do you have? By spitting your hatred wont give any proof! don't misguide people against us.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> why are you so mad. chill it out because not everyone here thinks like you.


I'm not mad. I was just responding to him.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> So by saying you're being a hypocrite I'm saying gays and people of other beliefs are terrible?


No, I'm saying that you hate it when people don't believe the same as you, like you said Christians do.  Also, how am I a hypocrite?

Note that you live in the US and I live in Europe. If you fully read my initial post, you would've seen that I said "at least where I live". People act different all over the world.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

gbaboy123 said:


> why are you so mad. chill it out because not everyone here thinks like you.


What? You're agreeing with that dutch-p_ssy & you are asking him to chill? wth?


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> & who told you we muslims are guided the kill gays. What proof do you have? By spitting your hatred wont give any proof! don't misguide people against us.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

I doubt that my GBATemp post will change peoples' opinions on your religion.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> *I have been brainwashed by media so please don't judge me!*


Aye dutchducko who the satanic egg are you?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> First of all if you think muslims are bad. I want to know how did you made that statement of your without proof? you're doing the same thing like bush did with the 9/11. He is a terrorist himself but he blame others for his crime.


Us has been assholes to the rest of the world but still 9/11 failed to get rid of US military in middle east. The best way right now is to get rid of fuel and for that you must be ready to take on trillion-dollar organization. None of us have that kind of resource.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> How do you know the masculine and male, genocidal deity is the supreme creator of all, when gender was not supposed to exist in its primal state and toxic masculinity is by no means right in any form but on of the greatest evil surrounding our society. Or has he ever demonstrate anywhere close to omnipotence even in genesis?


Did you watch the video? He's male because that is considered the more powerful of the two hes not a mother but a father.


----------



## gbaboy123 (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> What? You're agreeing with that dutch-p_ssy & you are asking him to chill? wth?


I mean like he should calm down and respect. no need for your insults


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
> 
> I doubt that my GBATemp post will change peoples' opinions on your religion.


Internet articles? WTH!? Did those brainwashed you? what a simple dork you're.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Do you really think anyone is going to convert to your stupid religion just because you showed them some Youtube video?


No need to call a religion stupid, we're not here to offend anyone. Mostly because you have yet to provide proof that it is stupid.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
> 
> I doubt that my GBATemp post will change peoples' opinions on your religion.


What is this argument even about, I missed a lot and as far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What is this argument even about, I missed a lot and as far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing


basically yeah, its gone to a religous shit post thread.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Did you watch the video? He's male because that is considered the more powerful of the two hes not a mother but a father.


And masculinity is a unnecessary and ugly thing. Besides all man are pathetic, and I get to say because I am one, and definitely not the most hopeless type. But if I was a girl, well, I will be superior in every way and much less corrupted.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

I'll keep posting this on this thread to show just how ridiculous this argument is:


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What is this argument even about, I missed a lot and as far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing


Shut down the thread, who should I contact?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> And masculinity is a unnecessary and ugly thing. Besides all man are pathetic, and I get to say because I am one, and definitely not the most hopeless type. But if I was a girl, well, I will be superior in every way and much less corrupted.


Thats your opinion. Who is scientifically stronger?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

a supervisor


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats your opinion. Who is scientifically stronger?


If we're going to go down this rabbit hole, who is scientifically more mentally stable?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Thats your opinion. Who is scientifically stronger?


Female, higher tolerance, better stress dealing, lighter and more agile, less aggression, superior intelligence.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What is this argument even about, I missed a lot and as far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing


He/She got no proof but a wikipedia article. What a shameless dork he is.


----------



## invaderyoyo (Aug 25, 2016)

-snip-

Nvm, I don't like where this is going.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Female, higher tolerance, better stress dealing, lighter and more agile, less aggression, superior intelligence.


Scientific study?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Female, higher tolerance, better stress dealing, lighter and more agile, less aggression, superior intelligence.


Men are generally physically stronger though. Both genders are pretty equal in terms of intelligence though.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What is this argument even about, I missed a lot and as far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of arguing


Eh to be fair I don't even know, I just posted my opinion and now I'm getting disagreements to that opinion (despite me saying to take it with a grain of salt), and now I'm defending it.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If we're going to go down this rabbit hole, who is scientifically more mentally stable?


The evolutionary biology of a women needs her to be more mentally stable she cant just kill her child out of frustration.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Scientific study?


Yes, and one last thing males are much more vulnerable to genetic problems.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Men are generally physically stronger though. Both genders are pretty equal in terms of intelligence though.


intelligence has nothing to do with gender though.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The evolutionary biology of a women needs her to be more mentally stable she cant just kill her child out of frustration.


Weren't you a creationist?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Yes, and one last thing males are much more vulnerable to genetic problems.


So? A god isnt gentic your point is invalid.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

This turned from Islam vs Christianity vs Atheism to Men vs Woman quickly


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The evolutionary biology of a women needs her to be more mentally stable she cant just kill her child out of frustration.


And men can? I'm confused as to what you're saying


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Weren't you a creationist?


I'm not a creationist. Im a rational muslim


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> intelligence has nothing to do with gender though.


That's exactly what I just said.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Men are generally physically stronger though. Both genders are pretty equal in terms of intelligence though.


Brain size yes, but not efficiency.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And men can? I'm confused as to what you're saying


The women is the one who takes care of her child.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> He/She got no proof but a wikipedia article. What a shameless dork he is.


Says the guy who keeps posting a video as proof that your religion is true. Don't even bother replying to this post because I'm someone who can keep arguing forever.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

We muslims are forbidden to kill an ant. Do you really think we would kill gays?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Brain size yes, but not efficiency.


you have yet to provide a peer reviewed study.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> I'm not a creationist. Im a rational muslim


But Muslum is creationist religion.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The women is the one who takes care of her child.


Hahaha this is so stupid it's laughable.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> We muslims are forbidden to kill an ant. Do you really think we would kill gays?


Yes


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> We muslims are forbidden to kill an ant. Do you really think we would kill gays?


How do i block this guy? see ya bro.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The women is the one who takes care of her child.


Which means a woman can both provide financial and other support, further making a man unnecessary.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Hahaha this is so stupid it's laughable


How is it stupid? Whose the one who breast feeds? the man? The man is the provider, the women is the carer.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The women is the one who takes care of her child.


So I'm guessing you're not the kind of guy who believes in a stay-at-home dad...


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Hahaha this is so stupid it's laughable


Why though? Despite what feminists might want you to believe, men are physically superior to women to protect their family and women are better care givers because they have a higher tolerance for stress and pain.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Which means a woman can both provide financial and other support, further making a man unnecessary.


The man is unnecessary yes but he still provides sperm.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> So I'm guessing you're not the kind of guy who believes in a stay-at-home dad...


No, im not.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> But Muslum is creationist religion.


Ehhh, don't make that assumption. Technically radical Christianity is too, but only a relatively small percentage of the Christian population actually believes that


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> The man is unnecessary yes but he still provides sperm.


And with the right stimulation it is not impossible for female to produce sperm. There has been solid research and there are many other alternatives.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> No, im not.


Why, then?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> Says the guy who keeps posting a video as proof that your religion is true. Don't even bother replying to this post because I'm someone who can keep arguing forever.


If you want to give proof. Then give from Quran & hadiths. If you think our book say kill gays. Give any verse from it that says kill innocent people & I'm not giving videos for my own gain i'm giving them because in the video they show verses of the holy books. So if you want to battle go get some verses to show.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> And with the right stimulation it is not impossible for female to produce sperm. There has been solid research and there are many other alternatives.


Prove it then! you have yet to provide any.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> How is it stupid? Whose the one who breast feeds? the man? The man is the provider, the women is the carer.


I wasn't even breastfed. Sure I grew up with only a mom, but in a good relationship both parents should raise the child. Have you never heard of a father and son playing sports or games together? Heck, a lot of the times it's the woman working and the man taking care of the children.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Aug 25, 2016)

I am Jewish and Catholic, however I am very un-religious that I could be considered an Atheist. I strongly believe in Heaven though!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Why, then?


Because for the hundred of thousands of years humans have been around, females would care for the child and the man would hunt.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Because for the hundred of thousands of years humans have been around, females would care for the child and the man would hunt.


And that can't change on an individual/group basis?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

dpad_5678 said:


> I am Jewish and Catholic, however I am very un-religious that I could be considered an Atheist. I strongly believe in Heaven though!


That must be really confusing.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I wasn't even breastfed. Sure I grew up with only a mom, but in a good relationship both parents should raise the child. Have you never heard of a father and son playing sports or games together? Heck, a lot of the times it's the woman working and the man taking care of the children.


Thats now-adays we're talking about science not social sciences. Im not saying both shouldnt raise the cild im saying both have a specific job.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> And that can't change on an individual/group basis?


Yes it can but im talking about overall, the majority.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Why though? Despite what feminists might want you to believe, men are physically superior to women to protect their family and women are better care givers because they have a higher tolerance for stress and pain.


But it isn't always the man working and the woman taking care of the child/cooking etc. In some relationships it's vice a versa, in some relationships there isn't even a man/woman, only two of the same gender. I think that parents should both equally raise the child. You can't just have the dad working and earning money and then lettng the woman do everything. A dad has to bond with his child, play with them, teach them new stuff, etc.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> But it isn't always the man working and the woman taking care of the child/cooking etc. In some relationships it's vice a versa, in some relationships there isn't even a man/woman, only two of the same gender. I think that parents should both equally raise the child. You can't just have the dad working and earning money and then lettng the woman do everything. A dad has to bond with his child, play with them, teach them new stuff, etc.


That's social science though not actual science aka biologically.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I wasn't even breastfed. Sure I grew up with only a mom, but in a good relationship both parents should raise the child. Have you never heard of a father and son playing sports or games together? Heck, a lot of the times it's the woman working and the man taking care of the children.


Aye idiot I asked you to give proof from my book that it says kill gays!? Quran says: (If you kill any innocent human being it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity & if you save any innocent human being it is as though you have saved the whole of humanity.)


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> That's social science though not actual science aka biologically.


Other species also have behaviors like gay or switched gender role.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Other species also have behaviors like gay or switched gender role.


we're talking about humans though, stop digressing from the point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Can we end the digression here?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Yes it can but im talking about overall, the majority.


So... even if that's your argument, I'm confused as to why God can't be feminine for motherly love, as opposed to just fatherly strength


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> But it isn't always the man working and the woman taking care of the child/cooking etc. In some relationships it's vice a versa, in some relationships there isn't even a man/woman, only two of the same gender. I think that parents should both equally raise the child. You can't just have the dad working and earning money and then lettng the woman do everything. A dad has to bond with his child, play with them, teach them new stuff, etc.


Look who is speaking against women! In you earlier message you said we don't give womens right. Now what happened? You dutchdork!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... even if that's your argument, I'm confused as to why God can't be feminine for motherly love, as opposed to just fatherly strength


God is a provider he created you. Think the universe as the mother and god as the sperm, you need said sperm.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

AHH no more @Haider Raza


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... even if that's your argument, I'm confused as to why God can't be feminine for motherly love, as opposed to just fatherly strength


Cause it is not one of balance. We have seen masculinity killing billions of people.


Haider Raza said:


> Look who is speaking against women! In you earlier message you said we don't give womens right. Now what happened? You dutchdork!


I don't see that happening amongst muslims.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Cause it is not one of balance. We have seen masculinity killing billions of people.
> 
> I don't see that happening amongst muslims.


That makes no sense.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> God is a provider he created you. Think the universe as the mother and god as the sperm, you need said sperm.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> AHH no more @Haider Raza


And I was supposed to forget about my mother?


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Aye idiot I asked you to give proof from my book that it says kill gays!? Quran says: (If you kill any innocent human being it is as though you have killed the whole of humanity & if you save any innocent human being it is as though you have saved the whole of humanity.)


Quran (4:16) - _"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"_

Abu Dawud (4462) - _The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."._


If that isn't enough proof for you explain to me why a majority of the Islamitic countries have death punishments for gays.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> And I was supposed to forget about my mother?


no.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DutchyDutch said:


> Quran (4:16) - _"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"_
> 
> Abu Dawud (4462) - _The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."._
> 
> ...


The hadith shown isn't credible enough for it to be Fard (obligatory)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DutchyDutch said:


> Quran (4:16) - _"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone"_
> 
> Abu Dawud (4462) - _The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done."._
> 
> ...


punishment doesn't mean death.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> no.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Or place my father above my mother? But I want to do the opposite so that make me guilty?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> I don't see that happening amongst muslims.



But that dutchdork said we muslims don't give womens there wrights. You should tell that fraud we muslims are not like what he thinks!


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Look who is speaking against women! In you earlier message you said we don't give womens right. Now what happened? You dutchdork!


I'm not speaking against women, in fact I was talking about how a man and a woman should equally take care of a child. Calm down.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Or place my father above my mother? But I want to do the opposite so that make me guilty?


God has no wife so your point is invalid. In islam the mother is higher than the father so sure.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> no.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


No but combine those first quotes and the fact that a bunch of islamitic countries kill gays. And death is bad, but punishment for being yourself is okay?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I'm not speaking against women, in fact I was talking about how a man and a woman should equally take care of a child. Calm down.


Whose attacked you @Haider Raza ?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> In islam the mother is higher than the father so sure.


Wait what?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> No but combine those first quotes and the fact that a bunch of islamitic countries kill gays. And death is bad, but punishment for being yourself is okay?


Punishment for failing to stop your tendencies. Lets say I like to punch people is it okay for me to be myself?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> Wait what?


Your mother is right behind god in terms of respect. You disrespect her and youre in hell.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



People please put some time aside to watch this. You wont be sorry. (I'm not trying to convert you so don't say I am.)


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Punishment for failing to stop your tendencies. Lets say I like to punch people is it okay for me to be myself?


That is a terrible analogy. Having sex isn't equal to punch someone in the face, regardless if you're gay or not. So you're saying that if you are gay you can't have sex? And yes, according to your book it IS okay to punch people as long as they're gay.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Damn this thread will get famous in no time!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DutchyDutch said:


> That is a terrible analogy. Having sex isn't equal to punch someone in the face, regardless if you're gay or not. So you're saying that if you are gay you can't have sex? And yes, according to your book it IS okay to punch people as long as they're gay.


WTF according to who's book? Give proof dutchdork!!


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> That is a terrible analogy. Having sex isn't equal to punch someone in the face, regardless if you're gay or not. So you're saying that if you are gay you can't have sex? And yes, according to your book it IS okay to punch people as long as they're gay.


It says punishment not by who. No, you cant have sex in public. If you want to do it in your discretion have fun.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DutchyDutch said:


> That is a terrible analogy. Having sex isn't equal to punch someone in the face, regardless if you're gay or not. So you're saying that if you are gay you can't have sex? And yes, according to your book it IS okay to punch people as long as they're gay.


seems you haven't read the book properly.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> That is a terrible analogy. Having sex isn't equal to punch someone in the face, regardless if you're gay or not. So you're saying that if you are gay you can't have sex? And yes, according to your book it IS okay to punch people as long as they're gay.


My first time is when I got  raped by a gay classmate. That's one of the reason I was driven away from being a guy because female is a much more preferable form.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> It says punishment not by who. No, you cant have sex in public. If you want to do it in your discretion have fun.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I never said anything about sex in public. If you somehow get caught "being gay" then you willl get murdered in a lot of islamic coutries. Something like kissing each other is enough.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Aye dutchdork did your father & mother had sex in public & gave birth to you in public? What kind of dark world do you liv in?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

@TheDarkGreninja What do you say about male having a harem?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> I never said anything about sex in public. If you somehow get caught "being gay" then you willl get murdered in a lot of islamic coutries. Something like kissing each other is enough.



Kissing is haram no matter what sexuality (in public). Being gay is different to sodomy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> @TheDarkGreninja What do you say about male having a harem?


a what?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> God is a provider he created you. Think the universe as the mother and god as the sperm, you need said sperm.


But didn't God create the universe?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Kissing is haram no matter what sexuality (in public). Being gay is different to sodomy.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Is it not legal for a man to have multiple wives?


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

grossaffe said:


> If I flip a coin a billion times, the probability of any given sequence of results is one in 2^(a billion).  Astronomically low.  That doesn't mean that it was designed to create the sequence that happened to play out, it just means that was the sequence that happened to play out.  You are falling into the fallacy that we are some end result to be worked towards.  We are not the end goal.  We are not the desired outcome.  We are _an_ outcome.  Actually, even that isn't entirely accurate as we aren't at an endpoint.


Life forming isn't as simple as flipping a coin.  There are countless more variables involved, and if any of them were different in the slightest, there would be no life.

Life is complicated, even some individual components, like the Eye.  I refuse to believe _that_ happened by chance. Various components need to work together _just right_, or the whole thing is useless.  While some will try to explain this away as a series of beneficial mutations, it's important to remember that the majority of all mutations are harmful.  To quote a quote in my source, "‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects?".  As a computer scientist I'm in the habit of always putting in disclaimers in my statement, like "That's almost certainly not possible", or "This almost always happens."; however, due to the nature of this subject, I'll make an exception: There is no way the formation of the eye could have happened by chance.
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwinian-mechanisms



Haider Raza said:


> So you guys think jesus was god. But jesus never claim himself as god.


He didn't _directly_ say it in today's words, but he did make it very clear that he was.  Instead of calling himself the "Son of God", he called himself the "Son of Man".  The prophet Daniel said "In my vision, there before me was one like a Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven", and the Jews knew that this is exactly what Jesus was referring to.

There are also the cases where Jesus accepted the worship of others, something not even angels do (and when John tried to do so, the angel explicitly said not to).  A few of many examples of Jesus accepting worship, implying he really is God's son:
- When Mary (brother of Lazarus) washed Jesus's feet with perfume.
- Thomas calling him "My Lord and my God!"

And there's also the thing where he was killed because wouldn't say no.

So one of 3 things is possible:
- He's delusional
- He's lying
- He's telling the truth

He's clearly not delusional, giving one of the most powerful sermons in history.  If he lied, he did a bad job at it, since he didn't get any power material wealth out of it.  So I think he told the truth.

Sources:
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-is-jesus-called-son-of-man
http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/jesus-the-son-of-man



Haider Raza said:


> He said There is only one god. But what the trinty says that there are 3gods. Then will you believe trinty thing or jesus?


The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but are the same God.  I know this seems contradictory, but it's not.  I think this post explains it better than I can:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity


GalladeGuy said:


> Then you've clearly never seen how Christians treat gays, people of other religions, or really anyone who doesn't believe in their stupid little book.


Christians are _supposed_ to spread love, not hate.  While we don't necessarily _approve_ of those things, that's no excuse to be hostile about it.  (Looking at you, Westboro.)  I apologize for the hostile actions of people who call themselves "Christian".


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Is it not legal for a man to have multiple wives?


When did I say it wasn't?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> But didn't God create the universe?


This is under the idea he did. And I believe it is the most likely.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> When did I say it wasn't?


I am saying sarcastically but that went wrong. What I am saying is why islam countries are allowing one man to have multiple wives?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> I am saying sarcastically but that went wrong. What I am saying is why islam countries are allowing one man to have multiple wife?


Because I believe they don't follow sharia law.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Aye dutchdork did your father & mother had sex in public & gave birth to you in public? What kind of dark world do you liv in?


Calm down. Enough of the insults. I can't tell if there's a language barrier or something but clearly you're missing something in this conversation


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Calm down. Enough of the insults. I can't tell if there's a language barrier or something but clearly you're missing something in this conversation


I blocked the guy, you should to.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Aye dutchdork did your father & mother had sex in public & gave birth to you in public? What kind of dark world do you liv in?


Are you stupid? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Also no, if the former happened I doubt that I would've been born that fast.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TheDarkGreninja said:


> I blocked the guy, you should to.


Yeah I'm just gonna do that too. You are allowed to believe what you want to, I don't hate muslims or anything, I just disagree with their religion. That's all, no hard feelings.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> This is under the idea he did. And I believe it is the most likely.


So God's the universe's mother


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Someone asked me this, "If a guy never knew about Islam, say a native American would they be damned to hell?" Simple answer, no.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> So God's the universe's mother


more like father, say the universe was an egg and gods creation was the sperm.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Someone asked me this, "If a guy never knew about Islam, say a native American would they be damned to hell?" Simple answer, no.


What do you say of other religions, native Americans for example?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Life forming isn't as simple as flipping a coin.  There are countless more variables involved, and if any of them were different in the slightest, there would be no life.
> 
> Life is complicated, even some individual components, like the Eye.  I refuse to believe _that_ happened by chance. Various components need to work together _just right_, or the whole thing is useless.  While some will try to explain this away as a series of beneficial mutations, it's important to remember that the majority of all mutations are harmful.  To quote a quote in my source, "‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects?".  As a computer scientist I'm in the habit of always putting in disclaimers in my statement, like "That's almost certainly not possible", or "This almost always happens."; however, due to the nature of this subject, I'll make an exception: There is no way the formation of the eye could have happened by chance.
> http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwinian-mechanisms
> ...



Give me answers of what this dude asked in the video.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Someone asked me this, "If a guy never knew about Islam, say a native American would they be damned to hell?" Simple answer, no.


That's my opinion even if a person is of a different religion and rejects another on the basis that they truly believe theirs is the right one


> more like father, say the universe was an egg and gods creation was the sperm.


But the universe wasn't even an "egg" before God came up with the concept of it


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

In various other myth the creator, in some context god, is born out of chaos, which means a state where no pattern exist thus no structure is possible.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> What do you say of other religions, native Americans for example?


Since they didn't know about islam they would be judged on their actions and based on what I know about the Navajo (correct me if the name is wrong) they would go to heaven as they believed in treating animals fairly and not destroying the world, the Aztecs would go to hell however.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's my opinion even if a person is of a different religion and rejects another on the basis that they truly believe theirs is the right one
> 
> But the universe wasn't even an "egg" before God came up with the concept of it


His concept was the egg. Him actually making it was the sperm and the big bang was the birth.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Since they didn't know about islam they would be judged on their actions and based on what I know about the Navajo (correct me if the name is wrong) they would go to heaven as they believed in treating animals fairly and not destroying the world, the Aztecs would go to hell however.


So according to some of my 'study' on mythicism afterlife is somewhat affected by their belief.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's my opinion even if a person is of a different religion and rejects another on the basis that they truly believe theirs is the right one
> 
> But the universe wasn't even an "egg" before God came up with the concept of it


Christians and jews wouldn't go to hell. Does Christianity count as polytheism since jesus is gods son

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> So according to some of my 'study' on mythicism afterlife is somewhat affected by their belief.


The Navajo believe that they begin a journey before reaching true peace.


----------



## Flame (Aug 25, 2016)

So I went for dinner...


A lot has happened. What did I miss.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Christians and jews wouldn't go to hell. Does Christianity count as polytheism since jesus is gods son


Nice one. I am pretty sure early Christian around 1000 B.C. has a goddess and god's wife. And Allah does mean the lord, but I am not to devote myself to anything.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> So I went for dinner...
> 
> 
> A lot has happened. What did I miss.
> ...


Man vs Woman. Why god is male etc. And also some talk on LGBT rights.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> Nice one. I am pretty sure early Christian around 1000 B.C. has a goddess and god's wife. And Allah does mean the lord, but I am not to devote myself to anything.


A goddess then that instantly disqualifies it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

Flame said:


> So I went for dinner...
> 
> 
> A lot has happened. What did I miss.
> ...


Is God male/female (+offtopic)?
Are Muslims satan?
Do Muslims hate gays?
A language barrier causing someone to throw insults left and right



TheDarkGreninja said:


> Christians and jews wouldn't go to hell. Does Christianity count as polytheism since jesus is gods son


Good question, actually. I'm inclined to say "no" because of the St Patrick explanation but at this point it's just easier and probably more correct to say "yes"


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Is God male/female (+offtopic)?
> Are Muslims satan?
> Do Muslims hate gays?
> A language barrier causing someone to throw insults left and right
> ...


well then...


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Christians and jews wouldn't go to hell. Does Christianity count as polytheism since jesus is gods son
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I was talking about Religions in general.


TheDarkGreninja said:


> Man vs Woman. Why god is male etc. And also some talk on LGBT rights.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Then you are looking down on people with other faith and woman.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Can we get back to the god vs no god argument now? I miss it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> I was talking about Religions in general.
> 
> Then you are looking down on people with other faith and woman.


I'm not against a goddess just polytheism in general.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18“Why do you call Me good?Jesus replied, “No one is good except God alone.19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, and honor your father and mother.’”… 

Can you explain this @UniqueGeek?


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Christians and jews wouldn't go to hell. Does Christianity count as polytheism since jesus is gods son


The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, but one God.  This post explains it better than I can:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity



Yil said:


> I am pretty sure early Christian around 1000 B.C. has a goddess and god's wife.


B.C. stands for "Before Christ".  Some people want to change it to B.C.E. which means "Before the Christian Era".  In any case, there were no Christians in any year ending in B.C.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> Can we get back to the god vs no god argument now? I miss it.


If you just want to prove about the creator and not about what god's exact form is, I am on your side. It's just that deities being affected by worshipper in terms of power does not fit inside the creator category.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> If you just want to prove about the creator and not about what god's exact form is, I am on your side. It's just that deities being affected by worshipper in terms of power does not fit inside the creator category.


what do you mean?


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> 17As Jesus started on His way, a man ran up and knelt before Him. “Good Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18“Why do you call Me good?Jesus replied, “No one is good except God alone.19You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, and honor your father and mother.’”…
> 
> Can you explain this @UniqueGeek?


Be very careful taking things out of context.  He worded his question that way because he's calling into question whether or not the man is "good".  He's not implying that he himself isn't good.
http://www.gotquestions.org/good-God-alone.html


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, but one God.  This post explains it better than I can:
> http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
> 
> 
> B.C. stands for "Before Christ".  Some people want to change it to B.C.E. which means "Before the Christian Era".  In any case, there were no Christians in any year ending in B.C.


Yahweh is the main god of that religion and he has a wife of equal power, who is of course a goddess. Christmas is also from that era.


----------



## drewby (Aug 25, 2016)

Personally, I am Agnostic, so... sort of?

EDIT: Also, no, I do not believe in an afterlife.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Heres another thing I'd like to clear up, muslims shouldn't hate Jews or Christians, they should be respected as much as other muslims.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> what do you mean?


I believe the world is in its current form because of a higher conscious which lead it to this direction. But I disagree with this being having masculine trait since in its most primitive state there is no opposition. In other words, there is no 1 or -1.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Drew That Gamer said:


> Personally, I am Agnostic, so... sort of?


You could call yourself a deist.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yil said:


> I believe the world is in its current form because of a higher conscious which lead it to this direction. But I disagree with this being having masculine trait since in its most primitive state there is no opposition. In other words, there is no 1 or -1.


Ah, I see my only reason for him being masculine is its connotations.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> B.C. stands for "Before Christ".  Some people want to change it to *B.C.E. which means "Before the Christian Era".*  In any case, there were no Christians in any year ending in B.C.


I hate to step on toes, but it's actually "Before Common Era"


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Yahweh is the main god of that religion and he has a wife of equal power, who is of course a goddess.


To which religion are you referring?  It's certainly not Judaism or Christianity.


Yil said:


> Christmas is also from that era.


Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, although it had a different name.  I don't know when it's from, or what it was originally called, but it became Christmas in 2nd century A.D.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christmas-origin.html


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Also, about apostasy in the quran it talks of freedom of compulsion, the idea of execution was hadith which contradicts quran making itself false.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I hate to step on toes, but it's actually "Before Common Era"


What does common era mean?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> What does common era mean?


common to become christian?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Be very careful taking things out of context.  He worded his question that way because he's calling into question whether or not the man is "good".  He's not implying that he himself isn't good.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/good-God-alone.html


explain this (Why do you call Me good? Jesus replied,“No one is good except God alone.) dude stop running away from the main question. If jesus was god he should have never said that line.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I hate to step on toes, but it's actually "Before Common Era"








(That's what I get for not looking it up recently.)

Regardless, my point still stands: Christianity wasn't a thing in any year ending in B.C. or B.C.E.


----------



## drewby (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> You could call yourself a deist.



I didn't know what that word meant, so here's the definition Google gave to me:



Spoiler



The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. *Deism* thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.



Personally, I don't believe that God created the universe, but I do believe he just lets the Earth function on itself.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> To which religion are you referring?  It's certainly not Judaism or Christianity.
> 
> Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, although it had a different name.  I don't know when it's from, or what it was originally called, but it became Christmas in 2nd century A.D.
> http://www.gotquestions.org/Christmas-origin.html


Or maybe a it, like allah, is a term to refer to something but in another language, or b, Christianity stole both deities names and Christmas, or c the same guy came back after getting rid of his goddess wife.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> If jesus was god he should have never said that line.


Jesus refers to himself in the 3rd person a lot.  He calls himself the Son of Man, but then uses "Son of Man" as if that's a different person.

Pay more attention to the context of that sentence.  He's saying that in order to say that the man who asked him that isn't "good"; he's too greedy.


----------



## drewby (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> What does common era mean?


Common Era is the more "politically correct" way to say AD.
Before Common Era is the "politically correct" way to say BC.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Jesus refers to himself in the 3rd person a lot.  He calls himself the Son of Man, but then uses "Son of Man" as if that's a different person.
> 
> Pay more attention to the context of that sentence.  He's saying that in order to say that the man who asked him that isn't "good"; he's too greedy.


that's somewhat confusing


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Jesus refers to himself in the 3rd person a lot.  He calls himself the Son of Man, but then uses "Son of Man" as if that's a different person.
> 
> Pay more attention to the context of that sentence.  He's saying that in order to say that the man who asked him that isn't "good"; he's too greedy.


But Jesus Replied (No one is good except God alone). If he was god he should have never said that instead he should be saying No one is good except me. What point are you making dude get the fact stop spreading lies!!!


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Drew That Gamer said:


> Common Era is the more "politically correct" way to say AD.
> Before Common Era is the "politically correct" way to say BC.


That makes less sense. Anyway maybe we should start a new callender.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> That makes less sense. Anyway maybe we should start a new callender.


islam uses AH, so what now?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> islam uses AH, so what now?


I was starting to wonder if the world being connected in such a way is bad. It is ruining both culture and nature. And even greater imbalance of distribution.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> But Jesus Replied (No one is good except God alone). If he was god he should have never said that instead he should be saying No one is good except me. What point are you making dude get the fact stop spreading lies!!!


If he said "no one is good except me", that would be excluding the Father and the Holy Spirit, which while distinct persons, are still God.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> If he said "no one is good except me", that would be excluding the Father and the Holy Spirit, which while distinct persons, are still God.


There is no trinty thing dude. If it was there jesus should have said something about it. It is a person made lie. Trinty equal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that means three gods. But jesus said there is only one god. So will you believe this trinty lie or jesus?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

God has a name ? Yes, what is it ? Quran has God name ? Yes, what is it ? No, its not Allah (Its in English for God).



Yil said:


> Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.



You are not correct. If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28? See?

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. NIV Mark 10:18

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." NIV John 17:26. So he is not God but God's son.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> There is no trinty thing dude. If it was there jesus should have said something about it. It is a person made lie. Trinty equal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that means three gods. But jesus said there is only one god. So will you believe this trinty lie or jesus?


There's only one God, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

Please read this, which explains it quite nicely:
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> There is no trinty thing dude. If it was there jesus should have said something about it. It is a person made lie. Trinty equal Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that means three gods. But jesus said there is only one god. So will you believe this trinty lie or jesus?


Here is a bad example: Milk + Coco + sugar = White Chocolate, but I don't want to eat the said chocolate.


----------



## CoinKillerL (Aug 25, 2016)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Do you? I just wanted to know everyones opinions on this subject
> And why? Do you / do you not believe in a god! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!
> 
> I believe that Jesus died for our sins, and i guess that makes me a christian
> ...


no


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.



You are not correct. If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28? See?

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. NIV Mark 10:18

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." NIV John 17:26. So he is not God but God's son.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.


We all are made by the same Noor (Light). Jesus was not just a tool. He was just like normal human but a better human because he was a messenger of god. Trinty thing could also be like this Father=God Son=Believers Holy Spirit=Messenger. What those liar explain is Father=God Son=God Holy Spirit=God. If this was true then what does this say (But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God) If trinty is ture then this means we all are gods!! Whats the point?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> We all are made by the same Noor (Light). Jesus was not just a tool. He was just like normal human but a better human because he was a messenger of god. Trinty thing could also be like this Father=God Son=Humans Holy Spirit=Messenger. What those liar explain is Father=God Son=God Holy Spirit=God. If this was true then what does this say (But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God) If trinty is ture then this means we all are gods!! Whats the point?


That's what I am saying, but I do not want to be a part of him.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> God has a name ? Yes, what is it ? Quran has God name ? Yes, what is it ? No, its not Allah (Its in English for God).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What religion do you believe in?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> What religion do you believe in?



Does it matter ? I am talking to yil.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> There's only one God, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.
> 
> Please read this, which explains it quite nicely:
> http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity


But theyre all still god no? Well as long as its monotheistic i have no beef with Christianity. (since all three are believed to go to heaven anyways.)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



azoreseuropa said:


> Does it matter ? I am talking to yil.


well it kinda does when talking on religion


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

@azoreseuropa How do you know that Christian god is not a fake? What if he is a devil for example that what everyone's soul and the real god is far from our reach?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Jack_Sparrow said:


> Do you? I just wanted to know everyones opinions on this subject
> And why? Do you / do you not believe in a god! You don't have to answer but please state that to avoid confusion!
> 
> I believe that Jesus died for our sins, and i guess that makes me a christian
> ...



Right, Jesus died for our sins. What does that mean for us ? Are we going to heaven ? Can you live forever in Paadise on Earth ?? What ?



TheDarkGreninja said:


> But theyre all still god no? Well as long as its monotheistic i have no beef with Christianity. (since all three are believed to go to heaven anyways.)
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> well it kinda does when talking on religion



I'd love to hear your thoughts! 



Yil said:


> @azoreseuropa How do you know that Christian god is not a fake? What if he is a devil for example that what everyone's soul and the real god is far from our reach?



Wait.. You haven't answered me yet.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Right, Jesus died for our sins. What does that mean for us ? Are we going to heaven ? Can you live forever in Paadise on Earth ?? What ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course a drop of water is not as much as the ocean (this is of course a metaphor). How do you know the rest is true, for example 'only god is good'. Make a argument without using the bible or you won't get through some people, by which I mean over half of the population.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil, your quote:

Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.

My quote:

You are not correct. If Jesus was God, why did He say "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28? See?

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. NIV Mark 10:18

I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them." NIV John 17:26. So he is not God but God's son.

Can you answer my question ?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Yil, your quote:
> 
> Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.
> 
> ...


There is no question in your quote.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Yil, your quote:
> 
> Really what is so hard to understand about Jesus. Christian God split a piece of himself, use it to make a baby, then when he grow up and dies, he goes back to the bigger piece. But that does not prove anything about god's nature expect he is stronger than us.
> 
> ...


They say Trinty means Father=God Son=God Holy Spirit=God. While Bible Say who believe in God is a Son of God. If we match trinty thing here Then it means I am a God too which is very bad to say. It is totally against God. Trinty is a man made piece of sh-t.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

was away whats happening?


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

My mistake. Ok, answer is: Bible.  



Haider Raza said:


> They say Trinty means Father=God Son=God Holy Spirit=God. While Bible Say who believe in God is a Son of God. If we match trinty thing here Then it means I am a God to which is very bad to say. It is totally against God. Trinty is a man made piece of sh-t.



Right, the Bible does NOT mention TRINITY at all.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> My mistake. Ok, answer is: Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> Right, the Bible does NOT mention TRINITY at all.


Maybe you should try not quote the bible so much convincing non believers since most of us does not memorize its entirety or even read the whole thing.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Maybe you should try not quote the bible so much convincing non believers since most of us does not memorize its entirety or even read the whole thing.



Well,the bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy. Nothing to do with memorize at all. If you have a question and are seeking an answer from the Bible, its there.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Well,the bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy. Nothing to do with memorize at all. If you have a question and are seeking an answer from the Bible, its there.


Let there be light isnt scientifically accurate


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

hmmmmmmmmmm :/


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

azoreseuropa said:


> Well,the bible is the Word of God because of its scientific accuracy. Nothing to do with memorize at all. If you have a question and are seeking an answer from the Bible, its there.


Maybe I choose not to use that specific book as guideline.
@TheDarkGreninja I have always wondered if photon also have a standing wave state if the universe is fundamentally composed of energy of different wave patterns.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Maybe I choose not to use that specific book as guideline.
> @TheDarkGreninja I have always wondered if photon also have a standing wave state if the universe is fundamentally composed of energy of different wave patterns.


Hey last question why your name is yil? Are you chinese?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Hey so can someone provide 7th dragon lll code vfd arcodes?
> 
> Hey last question why your name is yil? Are you chinese?


Positive, but the name Yil was not a good one. I made it up when I first got here and now I can't change it. As somewhat a Communism country the term of god is ridiculous (they have no respect for anything. But back then Communist are clueless and fearless but I am driven by fear and constantly haunted by guilt over small things)


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Like any normal human, ofcourse not.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Maybe I choose not to use that specific book as guideline.
> @TheDarkGreninja I have always wondered if photon also have a standing wave state if the universe is fundamentally composed of energy of different wave patterns.


could you ellaborate?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Positive, but the name Yil was not a good one. I made it up when I first got here and now I can't change it. As somewhat a Communism country the term of god is ridiculous (they have no respect for anything, has been destroying lots of stuff, disrespecting locals etc. But then people are clueless and fearless but I am driven by fear and constantly haunted by guilt over small things)


God has nothing to do with the bad people please understand. God said in the Quran ( O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). )


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> God has nothing to do with the bad people please understand. God said in the Quran ( O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). )



Are you guys fucking retarded?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> God has nothing to do with the bad people please understand. God said in the Quran ( O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). )


Wouldn't that make all of us inbred weirdos?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Krakatau said:


> Are you guys fucking retarded?


Yes. And that is exactly why you shouldn't insult them. They'll try to drag you down to their level by screaming bullshit at you until you submit!


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Wouldn't that make all of us inbred weirdos?



Just leave them, they are ignorant fools that don't know anything about the world. They most likely let their females wear a trash bag.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> I am a f_cking retard!!


Why are you abusing yourself?


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Why are you abusing yourself?


Why have you gone so low as to change what other people say for your gain?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> I'm ignorant & Arrogant fool!!


I know!


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> could you ellaborate?


When I look into mysticism there has always been entity referred as being of light (I can do astral projection and I have dealt with entities before. Sadly I don't know how to kill one but I do doubt it'd be necessary). But they, unlike photon is not travelling at speed of light which would make them only stay on earth for a second or two consider their collision is not the same as ours. And if it is indeed referring to photon that must mean photon can somehow solidify (though not in the normal context of chemistry), or assume a standing wave state that does not constantly move in great speed, and also allowed some form of construct to allow more complicated functionality, for example think.
If mysticism can somewhat be connected to modern physics then perhaps we will get a certain answers, and in addition of engineering, well, just think about the possibilities.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Why have I gone so low as to change what other people say for my gain?


I don't know!!


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Why are you abusing yourself?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> God has nothing to do with the bad people please understand. God said in the Quran ( O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). )


No, communist don't believe in god, in addition believes whatever their ego tells them to is right for everyone and they get to disrespect everyone. Just think of all the trouble they caused during the cold war, especially tearing up middle east that still have an effect this very day. But I don't want a false god to absorb everyone and mess with whatever is opposing him, if that is the case, which I am afraid have some possibility.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


>


I know!


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> I know!









PS: It's funny that you have to change my post because you can't handle the truth.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> PS: It's funny that you have to change my post because you can't handle the truth.


You should know that faith is more deadly than you think.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> You should know that faith is more deadly than you think.



Your faith is in your own hands, not in the hands of an imaginary creature.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Your faith is in your own hands, not in the hands of an imaginary creature.


By the grander term of existence, anything that is referred to is also existing, despite potential absence of a physical form.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


>


hmmmmmmm


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> hmmmmmmm



Ok. Have fun locking up your women and preparing new terrorist attacks.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Your faith is in your own hands, not in the hands of an imaginary creature.


Do you really think that this system of our like we born we grow we eat we sleep in the end we die is just a miracle? made by itself this function of our solar system made by itself? by miracle? oh wait you atheists did'nt believed in miracles? what happened?


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> Do you really think that this system of our like we born we grow we eat we sleep in the end we die is just a miracle? made by itself this function of our solar system made by itself? by miracle? oh wait you atheists did'nt believed in miracles? what happened?



I think you should go back to school, you missed a few lessons about science and evolution.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> could you ellaborate?


In other words, photon changes from a wave that travels in straight line that vibrate at different amplitude to a particle that constantly changes in radius, but both are trimetric graph.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Ok. I will fun locking up my women and preparing for a new terrorist attacks.


So you became the next american bin ladin?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Krakatau said:


> I think you should go back to school, you missed a few lessons about science and evolution.


oh really were you born a monkey? you said evolution thats why I asked.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Then how did _they_ come into existence?


If you're asking how the universe came into existence, see my previous post where I discuss some possibilities:


Lacius said:


> Might the universe have had a cause? Sure. Is there any reason to think the universe is required to have had a cause? Not really. If causality is a property of the universe, it's a bit silly to talk about causality requiring a cause. It's also possible the universe in some form has always existed. In essence, there's no excuse for a hypothetical god not requiring a cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe. In fact, it might be fair to say the universe has always existed when time as we know it exists a finite amount backwards, but that's a matter of semantics.
> 
> If the universe did have a cause, there's no reason to think it wasn't a natural cause. Perhaps the natural cause to the universe has always existed in some form. Perhaps the cause is atemporal. Perhaps it's a causal loop of the universe in a future state causing the universe in a past state (e.g. something natural, or Stewie Griffin's time pad exploding and causing the Big Bang). We just don't know, and absence of an explanation is never a reason to believe another explanation.





UniqueGeek said:


> I find it much easier to believe that an intelligent God whom we can't fully comprehend created everything than random chance with astronomically low odds in a process we can't fully comprehend.


If someone claims the human genome assembled spontaneously and suddenly, that person is an idiot. This is a strawman argument. Complexity does not equal intelligent design, and we understand how evolution by natural selection can account for the complexity of, for example, the human genome. Even if we had no idea how complexity could have arisen naturally, that's not evidence for supernatural causation. Absence of an explanation would never be evidence for another explanation.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> So you became the next american bin ladin?


Wasn't his objective to get rid of Americans?
But at this point the worst people in middle east are beyond anyone's control. Sometimes we light fires that cannot be put out.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Ok. Have fun locking up your women and preparing new terrorist attacks.


 WTH is wrong with you, What is wrong with Religion? you know... Where You are, stupid people are abundant your the proof.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Sorry that was mean.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> So you became the next american bin ladin?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



This one made me laugh so much. You have to be a troll.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> WTH is wrong with you, What is wrong with Religion? you know... Where You are, stupid people are abundant your the proof.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Sorry that was mean.


He was born a monkey. That is what he learned in his school.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> He was born a monkey that's what he learned in school.


People are not going to listen to you if you keep making insults. I have had quite that experience.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> People are not going to listen to you if you keep making insults. I have had quite that experience.



He keeps changing posts of people when he quote them, you'll be a victim of his stupidity as well eventually.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> Wouldn't that make all of us inbred weirdos?


I've heard it explained like this: Incest is only bad because it makes it more likely for harmful mutations in our genes to be expressed.  (Chromosomes are in pairs of two.  If one doesn't properly "implement" something, like the chromosome for sickle cell anemia, the other covers for it.  Incest makes it less likely for this to be the case.)  Supposedly when God created us, there were no genetic mutations, and incest wasn't wrong.  After Adam and Eve sinned, God stopped preventing these mutations, until finally they got bad enough for God to say not to do so.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/too-close-for-comfort/
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/cains-wife-who-was-she/

This of course brings back the whole evolution vs. creationism debate, which I'd like to try to avoid, because in the end it doesn't matter exactly _how_ God created us as long as He did.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> People are not going to listen to you if you keep making insults. I have had quite that experience.


He's calling me a terrorist & I can't even call him a monkey? WTH? What kind of justice is this?


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> I've heard it explained like this: Incest is only bad because it makes it more likely for harmful mutations in our genes to be expressed.  (Chromosomes are in pairs of two.  If one doesn't properly "implement" something, like the chromosome for sickle cell anemia, the other covers for it.  Incest makes it less likely for this to be the case.)  Supposedly when God created us, there were no genetic mutations, and incest wasn't wrong.  After Adam and Eve sinned, God stopped preventing these mutations, until finally they got bad enough for God to say not to do so.
> 
> Source: https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/too-close-for-comfort/
> https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/cain/cains-wife-who-was-she/
> ...



But there is no god?
Creationism vs evolution is no longer a debate, as by now almost everybody has probably accepted that fact that evolution is the truth.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Kratakau. you must think all Religious people are stupid, and ignorant, if one cookie out of the batch is burnt, are they burnt? Ummm no there are not.
Hopefully your not that stupid to realize the point.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> People are not going to listen to you if you keep making insults. I have had quite that experience.


And as he said he believes in evolution. He think he was born a monkey & that's is what his school is teaching him.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> because in the end it doesn't matter exactly _how_ God created us as long as He did.


There problem is there's no sound reason to think a god exists or did anything.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> And as he said he believes in evolution. He think he was born a monkey & that's is what his school is teaching him.



... I can't handle this amount of stupidity to be honest.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> He's is calling me a terrorist & I can't even call him a monkey? WTH? What kind of justice is this?


@Krakatau al-Qeada will most likely disband after outsiders get out of Middle East.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> Kratakau. you must think all atheists like me are stupid, and ignorant, if one cookie out of the batch is burnt, are they burnt? Ummm no there are not.
> Hopefully your not that stupid to realize the point.


No he got it.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There problem is there's no sound reason to think a god exists or did anything.


There is a critical transition between a chaotic state and when patterns start to exist. There is probably some conscious born during this phase that cause logic to exist.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

Just block that idiot, I checked to see if he's acting less moronic now, but no, still insulting people who don't like his religion. He's just adding to the stereotype.

I mean the "you were born a monkey" guy.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> And as he said he believes in evolution. He think he was born a monkey & that's is what his school is teaching him.


I believe in it too, though evolution is even more complicated than well biologist know.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

This thread should end know. All of you people Get The F out time is over bye have fun leasons are over!


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> No he got it.


Wow DO NOT SINK DOWN TO HIS LEVEL.
I'm Catholic, so when you said I was atheist.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> There is a critical transition between a chaotic state and when patterns start to exist. There is probably some conscious born during this phase that cause logic to exist.


There is no reason to believe that either. In fact, every example of consciousness we have requires some sort of material brain or brain-like object.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> This thread should end know. All of you people Get The F out time is over bye have fun leasons are over!


Well, how do you like the new pokemon games? Do you miss gyms? Seriously evolution in pokemon is like going from a boy to a man because Japanese like give weird names to evolution. Or unless you are saying that evolution exist or people cannot grow up.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

THIS IS WHAT I REALLY SAID:
Kratakau. you must think all Religious people are stupid, and ignorant, if one cookie out of the batch is burnt, are they burnt? Ummm no there are not.
Hopefully your not that stupid to realize the point.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> There is no reason to believe that either. In fact, every example of consciousness we have requires some sort of material brain or brain-like object.


Well how do you suppose 0 suddenly become 1 and -1.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> This thread should end know. All of you people Get The F out time is over bye have fun leasons are over!



Fuck off please, there is an IQ requirement of 60 on this forum.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Well how do you suppose 0 suddenly become 1 and -1.


You're going to have to get a lot more specific than that if you want me to answer.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Numerous times, and sometimes in direct response to your posts, I've pointed out possibilities that don't require anything being infinite.





Lacius said:


> If the universe did have a cause, there's no reason to think it wasn't a natural cause. Perhaps the natural cause to the universe has always existed in some form. Perhaps the cause is atemporal. Perhaps it's a causal loop of the universe in a future state causing the universe in a past state (e.g. something natural, or Stewie Griffin's time pad exploding and causing the Big Bang).


Wouldn't _that_ be infinite?

By definition, there was a time for everything finite in which each finite thing did not exist.  By observation of the universe as we know it, finite things do not come into being without a a cause.  Therefore, either something infinite is involved, or our understanding of the nature of finite things is incorrect.  Trying to say that our understanding of the nature of finite things is incorrect without any evidence would require just as much, if not more, faith than believing in God.


Lacius said:


> Absence of an explanation would never be evidence for another explanation.


Then I believe that we've reached a stalemate.  While we each have reasons to believe what we believe, neither of us have actual proof.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Fuck off please, there is an IQ requirement of 60 on this forum.


 Then how did you get in here?


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> Well, how do you like the new pokemon games? Do you miss gyms? Seriously evolution in pokemon is like going from a boy to a man because Japanese like give weird names to evolution. Or unless you are saying that evolution exist or people cannot grow up.


In pokemon game evolution means changing form & in real life evolution means growing up & dying in grave & giving the result of this life in afterlife.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> Fuck off please, there is an IQ requirement of 60 on this forum.


Typing or forming a sentence requires higher IQ than that. I have seen more idiot in a month than you in your entire life several years ago.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> Then how did you get in here?



Because I'm intellectually gifted and my IQ is about 150 and it should be an honour for you guys to be in my presence.


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Aug 25, 2016)

no, god just leads to death and wars.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

mech said:


> no, god just leads to death and wars.


No. Sin, and pious men lead to war.


----------



## GalladeGuy (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> No. Sin, and pious men lead to war.


99% of all wars are caused by religion.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

@Haider Raza My biggest concern is if I should start preparing to kill a false god before he screw us all.


----------



## Haider Raza (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> F-ck me please, there is an IQ requirement of 60 on this forum.


WTH!?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> 99% of all wars are caused by religion.


The last will be on their end. We will teach them to mess with normal people.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> WTH!?


Why do you have to change my posts? Is the content too difficult to understand?


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Haider Raza said:


> WTH!?


 STOP PLEASE, you acting just as stupid as him.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> 99% of all wars are caused by religion.


 Because of stupid people that corrupt it, when Jesus was here on earth, the High priest were to pious, and used the faith as
an excuse

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Haider Raza said:


> Hmmmmmm what?


 STOP.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> Because of stupid people that corrupt it, when Jesus was here on earth, the High priest were to pious, and used the faith as
> an excuse


Sometimes absence and changes of little things can make a huge difference, though sometimes they don't.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Wouldn't _that_ be infinite?


Some of my proposed possibilities were. Some were not.



UniqueGeek said:


> By definition, there was a time for everything finite in which each finite thing did not exist.  By observation of the universe as we know it, finite things do not come into being without a a cause.


You're applying what you perceive to be rules of the universe to the formation of those very rules, which is a huge flaw in your thinking. Requiring a cause to causality is like asking what came before time; they're both nonsensical. If you had read my post, you would have seen numerous non-god things that could have caused the universe, and you would have seen numerous reasons why the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause.



UniqueGeek said:


> Therefore, either something infinite is involved, or our understanding of the nature of finite things is incorrect.


Those aren't the only two options. See above.



UniqueGeek said:


> Trying to say that our understanding of the nature of finite things is incorrect without any evidence would require just as much, if not more, faith than believing in God.


I'm not claiming that there is anything wrong with our understanding of the natural world. I'm saying you have no idea what the nature of universe-formation is, and you can't apply the rules of the universe to the formation of those rules. I am not making any claims that require a faith-based belief.



UniqueGeek said:


> Then I believe that we've reached a stalemate.  While we each have reasons to believe what we believe, neither of us have actual proof.


I have not made a claim that has any sort of burden of proof. You, however, are making the positive claim that a god exists, and in order for that belief to be at all reasonable, you must be able to articulate a sound reason to believe a god exists.


----------



## Krakatau (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> Because of stupid people that corrupt it, when Jesus was here on earth, the High priest were to pious, and used the faith as
> an excuse
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...


He isn't going to stop, he has a brain malfunctioning!


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

Krakatau said:


> He isn't going to stop, he has a brain malfunctioning!


 At least he has one.


----------



## evandixon (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Some of my proposed possibilities were. Some were not [infinite].





Lacius said:


> Might the universe have had a cause? Sure. Is there any reason to think the universe is required to have had a cause? Not really. If causality is a property of the universe, it's a bit silly to talk about causality requiring a cause. It's also possible the universe in some form has always existed. In essence, there's no excuse for a hypothetical god not requiring a cause that couldn't also be applied to the universe. In fact, it might be fair to say the universe has always existed when time as we know it exists a finite amount backwards, but that's a matter of semantics.


Isn't that saying that the universe is infinite in time, having have always existing, needing no cause?


Aside: It looks like this thread has become a flame war.  If it doesn't stop soon, the thread will likely be closed.  Remember everyone, don't directly attack your opponent in an argument.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> When I look into mysticism there has always been entity referred as being of light (I can do astral projection and I have dealt with entities before. Sadly I don't know how to kill one but I do doubt it'd be necessary). But they, unlike photon is not travelling at speed of light which would make them only stay on earth for a second or two consider their collision is not the same as ours. And if it is indeed referring to photon that must mean photon can somehow solidify (though not in the normal context of chemistry), or assume a standing wave state that does not constantly move in great speed, and also allowed some form of construct to allow more complicated functionality, for example think.
> If mysticism can somewhat be connected to modern physics then perhaps we will get a certain answers, and in addition of engineering, well, just think about the possibilities.


no light is always moving.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> Some of my proposed possibilities were. Some were not.
> 
> 
> You're applying what you perceive to be rules of the universe to the formation of those very rules, which is a huge flaw in your thinking. Requiring a cause to causality is like asking what came before time; they're both nonsensical. If you had read my post, you would have seen numerous non-god things that could have caused the universe, and you would have seen numerous reasons why the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause.
> ...


Sadly none of this is can be confirmed for the moment, but maybe in 200 years or so. Good thing we have a very good foundation and have some of the smartest people doing things. But on the other hand will god seems so power then?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

I missed a lot anyone want to explain?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Isn't that saying that the universe is infinite in time, having have always existing, needing no cause?


For some of the possibilities I offered, yes. For others, no. It doesn't really matter though, since a failure to offer any alternative to God is no reason to believe a god exists.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

GalladeGuy said:


> 99% of all wars are caused by religion.


More people have died from ideology and nationalism in the past century alone.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> For some of the possibilities I offered, yes. For others, no. It doesn't really matter though, since a failure to offer any alternative to God is no reason to believe a god exists.


 Infinity doesnt exist in reality. It's qualitative not quantitive. A good example is if i had infinite you's and took away 5 of them how many would I have left?


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> no light is always moving.


I know in a normal state light is always in that case. But first this may very well not be photon or second photon does indeed have an alternative standing wave/ particle like state, or third it is transmuted into some else.


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

@Lacius im guessing you didnt watch the video


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Lacius said:


> For some of the possibilities I offered, yes. For others, no. It doesn't really matter though, since a failure to offer any alternative to God is no reason to believe a god exists.


But really what caused time or why are things changing in that way?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> I know in a normal state light is always in that case. But first this may very well not be photon or second photon does indeed have an alternative standing wave/ particle like state, or third it is transmuted into some else.


no, While maybe this being emits light it probably isnt light itself.


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

TheDarkGreninja said:


> no, While maybe this being emits light it probably isnt light itself.


By the way is mysticism forbidden?


----------



## TheDarkGreninja (Aug 25, 2016)

Yil said:


> By the way is mysticism forbidden?


in islam? IDK.


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 25, 2016)

UniqueGeek said:


> Isn't that saying that the universe is infinite in time, having have always existing, needing no cause?
> 
> 
> Aside: It looks like this thread has become a flame war.  If it doesn't stop soon, the thread will likely be closed.  Remember everyone, don't directly attack your opponent in an argument.


 No it's that God is infinite in time, having have always existing, needing no cause.


----------



## DutchyDutch (Aug 25, 2016)

This thread went from "civilized discussion on religion" to "I'm right, you're wrong!" 
And yes I know that it's partially my own fault...


----------



## Yil (Aug 25, 2016)

Deonot1 said:


> No it's that God is infinite in time, having have always existing, needing no cause.


Okay what before that? Shouldn't he be able to describe how changes happen?


----------



## Deleted-355425 (Aug 25, 2016)

DutchyDutch said:


> This thread went from "civilized discussion on religion" to "I'm right, you're wrong!"
> And yes I know that it's partially my own fault...



told you god leads to wars


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 25, 2016)

This thread should come to an end just like its creator did.


----------

