The Daily Click ::. Forums ::. Misc Chat ::. Do you believe in God?
 

Post Reply  Post Oekaki 
 

Posted By Message

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 16:47:44 -

Poll: Do you stick pencils up your bottom?
Yes. - 10 votes
No. - 9 votes
Doubtful. - 6 votes

The thread title is the question I am posing.

Do you believe in God? Or to put it a slightly different way, do you believe there is 'something else'.

I am having a bit of internal doubt and wondering about stuff (nature of the world, meaning of 'God', afterlife and probability thereof).

Let's have a bit of adult debate; no "Christians are stupid" and no "atheists are going to hell" business.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
28th January, 2011 at 17:02:15 -

I'll throw you a bone on this one. For full disclosure, during my youth I was raised in a Christian home, and even attended a private Christian school in Midwest USA during my formative years. I currently consider myself a philosophical Taoist. In definitive terms, I'm an agnostic atheist.

I'm of the opinion that, if there is a higher power or universal creative force - a god, gods, or otherwise - we humans haven't figured it out yet. In any case, I've not been convinced one way or another of a supernatural creative force that brought us all here, whatever "here" is.

My thoughts on the afterlife are that the concept was introduced to impose obedience on followers in the here and now, so that those in control would have an easier time staying in power.

Kudos to you on questioning your beliefs, and best of luck to you on that.

 
n/a

Flava



Registered
  30/07/2002
Points
  684

Has Donated, Thank You!Code MonkeyVIP MemberThe Cake is a LieThe Spinster
28th January, 2011 at 17:29:20 -

I don't believe there is anything personally, but I have no problem if someone else chooses to believe in God or something else. I don't believe in heaven, hell or afterlife. I think once you die that's it. But I do hope there is a heaven or afterlife though - that would be awesome!

I just think that science proves more than any religion - but I also know that science could be completely wrong too. We'll probably never know for sure..

 
This is a signature. Have this one on me.

Sketchy

Cornwall UK

Registered
  06/11/2004
Points
  1852

VIP Member
28th January, 2011 at 17:39:29 -

I definitely don't believe in any kind of God.
I do tend to believe that good things happen to good people, so I guess that's kind of like Karma? (although it's maybe more because good/kind/charitable people are more likeable, and getting on with people will take you far in life).

Obviously I have my own "moral compass". If I don't do something, it's because I believe it's wrong - not because I'm afraid of going to hell (or jail either, for that matter).
And as long as they don't push their religion on me, or use it to justify acts I believe are wrong (eg. killing), then I don't really care what anyone else believes.

Edited by Sketchy

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 17:47:29 -

I never really question it, like I don't question alien life, ghosts etc. I do believe man evolved from ape,though. Its rather obvious when you make comparisons. I say this because Ive spoken to a few religious guys who believe God created apes and humans seperately, evolution doesn't really exist blah blah blah, which I believe is nonsense.

"I do tend to believe that good things happen to good people, so I guess that's kind of like Karma?"

I think it's rather the opposite, usually. I believe more in Sod's law than Karma

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
28th January, 2011 at 17:48:44 -

I don't really believe in god or any other diety but if someone proves he/it exists to me, then I'll probably change my mind.
Until then I can't see anything that would lead me to lead me to believe in anything religion related.
People like to believe in god because it gives them comfort. In sunday school you are taught that if you start to doubt your beliefs you might end up in hell, so I'm also lead to believe that people also believe out of fear, of what will happen to them after they die. Things also work the other way around; preaching and spreading "god's word" puts you in a good position to get you a place in heaven. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying that anyone defending their views on their beliefs do it with that in mind.

Also, I think it's part of human nature to "explain" something we don't understand by saying it was made by the hand of some superior entity. When humanity discovered fire, they thought it was a diving gift, same for the rain and other phenomena we can explain very easily now.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, I'm just trying to express my views on this subject.




 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 17:51:22 -

Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.

Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.

Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )

In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"

That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.

I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

chrilley

Insane Beaver

Registered
  05/01/2002
Points
  704

Game of the Week WinnerVIP Member360 Owner
28th January, 2011 at 17:58:22 -

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

 
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
28th January, 2011 at 18:44:01 -

Wow, good thread.

I believe in God, because I know there's a God, and Jesus is his name.

I've been going to church all my life. My grandfather was the pastor of our church up until recently when he turned it over to his son.

To be quite honest I don't go to church because I'm afraid I'll go to hell if I don't. I've also never doubted the existence of God, but I don't think doubting will send anyone to hell either. "To much is given much is required" to quote the Bible.

All my life starting from when I was like 4, I don't remember anything before that, I believed in God. Whenever I got scared about something I'd pray about it, and still do to this day. It didn't always make me feel better, and sometimes my prayers weren't answered right away, or at all. But that's the great thing about God. If he gave me what I wanted when I wanted it instead of just forcing me to trust in him no matter what then he would just be a cosmic santa clause, which wouldn't be that great of a God to me anyway.

I've felt God move in church services before, it's like a sweeping feeling that moves from your head to your feet. And I've seen some crazy things happen, like a guy randomly coming in who had never been to church before, but felt something *pull* him in. And another time when a older guy died on the alter but after the church prayed for him his heart started beating again, and he's alive to this day. (that was last year) Sometimes I'll have something on my mind, or be confused about something I read in the Bible, and then the preacher will say something like "I don't know who this is for, but God just spoke to me and told me to tell you ... " and it'll be exactly what I was thinking about! It's happened so many times I can't count.

Anyway, there's lots of reasons I believe in God, not just because I've felt him before, and I know that someone else will explain all that I said away by leaving it to chance or coincidence. You can tell me that if you want, but like I've said, I've never doubted God's existence in my life, and neither does anyone else who goes to my church, so believe me, I've heard everything.



Lot's of people ask me why I believe in Jesus over all the other God's in existence, and trust me I know all about most other religious and I've heard just about all there is to hear from my friends at school (most of which are Atheist or Muslim, go figure)

The Bible (a collection of 2000-3000 year old religious writings) still doesn't conflict with science after all these years even though many scientific books have been proven wrong many years after it was written. (Flat earth and spontaneous generation anyone?) IT in fact contains some scientific facts that weren't widely believed at the time. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Circle being translated from the original Greek meaning sphere, and: "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood..." yet years after that was written many believed that using leeches to suck someones blood would cure them of diseases.

Not to mention the fact that the Bible doesn't even conflict within itself either.

How far science has come eh?



I used to own a Quran, I don't remember how I got it, but I had it none-the-less. I was never Muslim mind you, but...
Many people like to say that Allah is the same God as Jesus/Jehovah

Well that believe conflicts directly with the Quran because it describes Allah as the greatest lier of all:

"...and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers" S. 3:54; cf. 8:30

However the Bible states that God cannot lie:

Hebrews 6:18: “[I]t is impossible for God to lie.”


Just thought I'd throw that in there for good measure, I would rather God tell me the truth, how am I supposed to trust his word otherwise?

Oh and one more thing, I listen to Holy Ghost Radio on my iphone whenever I can't fall asleep, so if you're curious and want to hear the kinda preaching I hear at my church you can listen here: http://www.holyghostradio.com/

Hope this helps.

 
n/a

W3R3W00F

Drum and Bass Fueled Psycho

Registered
  08/11/2008
Points
  368

VIP MemberCardboard BoxThe Cake is a Lie
28th January, 2011 at 19:35:29 -

I do believe there's a God, heaven, hell, purgatory, etc. I can't say I believe evolution as a whole... at least not macro evolution. I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape. There's a remarkable link, but I don't see how an animal could become a man. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I believe there's a God because, first off, something had to have started everything that ever was. If there was no God, then how did the universe get here? It couldn't have been created by something which was created by something which was created by something... you'd have an infinite chain of this-created-that. There would be no end to that chain. If there was a God who always existed and always will, then the chain would have a beginning and an end.

With God: God creates universe, universe does stuff, God destroys universe, then everybody exists in an afterlife.

Without God: This matter creates this matter which creates this matter which creates this matter which creates this matter...

In the end, where did all of that matter come from? It had to have come from a beginning. A God.

My two cents.

Edit: Also, I agree with UrbanMonk. Well said.

Edited by W3R3W00F

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 20:04:29 -

"I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."



"I don't see how an animal could become a man"

No one can, it would take millions of years.

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 20:06:31 -

Good thread! Good atmosphere!

I'll be back later tonight with a more in-depth reply if I get the chance.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 20:07:39 -

Oh, some douche disabled embedding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzeGJC4FQ8c

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 20:26:10 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

The Bible (a collection of 2000-3000 year old religious writings) still doesn't conflict with science after all these years even though many scientific books have been proven wrong many years after it was written. (Flat earth and spontaneous generation anyone?) IT in fact contains some scientific facts that weren't widely believed at the time. "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." Circle being translated from the original Greek meaning sphere, and: "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood..." yet years after that was written many believed that using leeches to suck someones blood would cure them of diseases.

Not to mention the fact that the Bible doesn't even conflict within itself either.

How far science has come eh?



You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times. As far as science being wrong, you have to consider that modern science hasn't been around too long, and later than the whole "flat earth" garbage, which is mostly attributed to ignorant assumptions, rather than using the scientific method (which had not been developed yet). In modern science, anything is subject to change. If something is proven false, it is replaced by something else, as opposed to the bible which is 100% true despite evidence to the contrary. If you want to claim that the bible is 100% true, you'll have to prove that snakes can talk, burning bushes can talk, people can live in a big fish, and that miracles happen... which they quite obviously do not. Besides, if the events in the bible actually happened as described, God is not the type of guy I'd want to be hanging around with.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

One of my favorite arguments from christians is the "out of context" argument, which is detailed perfectly in this video,



Personally, there may or may not be a god, but if there is one, he cannot be described in any "holy book" written by men. Men have not figured out much of how life works, they aren't going to know how god works. And all that garbage about being written by god through men, with all the nonsense and politics and petty emotions, it couldn't have been written by a higher power. Bill Hicks makes some great points on this.



As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 20:33:02 -


Originally Posted by -Adam-
Oh, some douche disabled embedding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzeGJC4FQ8c

Interesting. There ape species that do that as well, they have even adapted to using crude tools. Unfortunately there are also some groups of chimps that are at war with each other as well as hunting human children (although the second being more due to deforestation than a thought process)

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
28th January, 2011 at 20:41:33 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.



I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.

You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.


As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.



I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?

 
n/a

Rikus

Administrator
Crazy for News

Registered
  02/12/2001
Points
  496
28th January, 2011 at 20:48:14 -

I believe that there is something else out there when you die, I believe in spirits and souls and that your soul eventually moves on to possible another body after you pass.

So yea, cool topic

 
Be sure to follow us on the twitters for the latest and greatest: @dailyclick

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 20:53:05 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You should probably re-read the Christian bible, it conflicts with itself plenty of times.



I have read it, about 3 times last year. I took a bible as lit class it my college.
Like I said in my earlier post, I've heard everything, you're not telling me anything new.

You can present some "contradictions" if you like, but trust me, you'd either have to take something out of context or just misinterpret something to make it work.


As far as Science not coming far, you might just want to get rid of your computer, and not go to the hospital for that fact, of course, if God can provide better.



I didn't once say that science didn't come far.
And besides, look at it from this point of view, pretend you believe in God for a second, wouldn't you have to say that God gave humans the ability to use his creation for their own good?



Yes you did.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
How far science has come eh?



If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't? Of all the different sects and religions within religions of Christianity that disagree with each other, do you possess the super human power to see better than all of them. The issue is most of these people that claim out of context will only claim that if it does not fit their ideals.

I too have read the bible numerous times, as I was a devout German Lutheran for most of my life. The problem is most Christians tend to make excuses for the "nasty" parts of the bible due to indoctrination. Similar to the video I posted described, in what context does genocide become moral or ethical?

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
28th January, 2011 at 21:08:45 -

"How far science has come eh?"

or

Science has come far eh?

Means the same thing...


I can see how you thought I was saying that science didn't come far though, but that's not what I was saying.

I was referring to the fact that the majority of people used to think that the earth was flat, which we now know is false.



Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
If you can claim that I have taken something out of context or misinterpreted it, who's to say you haven't?



Well it's easy, if I say something that you're not sure about go check it out for yourself. It's pretty cut and dry. It's not like you have to mumble some magical phrase to understand the Bible, the King James version is in plain English.


That's interesting, out of all the Atheists that I've found most used to be Catholic/Lutheran or their parents were down the line, maybe there a connection.

I've never met a post Muslim or Baptize Atheist however.

I myself am not any of the above..


I don't have to make any excuses, it's easy to understand if you read the beginning of Genesis.

The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 21:24:32 -

@Horrendous: You said you were a devout German Lutheran, what made you change your view on life?

I believe in God.

Not the God that usually appears as the target of Atheists, nor the God proclaimed by religious fundamentalists.

I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.

I believe in re-incarnation. Fun fact: the Bible does too! (Elia/John the Baptist)

I believe in the existence of the soul and it's everlasting.

I believe that 2000 years of editing the New Testament was not the wisest approach if you are intent on following the original teachings and ideas of Jesus. Though as I said earlier, I'm sure that you can get a good idea of them by reading the New Testament with your intuition turned up to 11.

I really believe a lot of things.

And I don't believe there has to be a fight between science and religion. In my world they complement each other. I would never use a measuring stick to define God, nor would I use God to define the length of a piece of paper.

One could say that science is "raw" knowledge, and religion is "raw" faith.


Nice to see everyone keep a good attitude and share!

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 21:29:54 -

You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed? And what do you think of the scripture that was left out of the bible? Was that part made up or is it all just a load of crap. Do you think that the book of Morman is fictitious because the credibility of Joseph Smith was pretty bad? Well I've got news for you, it's the same story for the "authors" of the Bible. The most anyone has to an "eyewitness" testimony was some guy that knew some guy that knew some guy. If I went up on a mountain alone and told you God spoke to me and gave me a shoddy list of ten things he did not want people to do, you'd say I was crazy.

The people that God destroyed in those days sacrificed their infants to their stone statues by burning them alive. Honestly if you think that should be allowed to go on then there isn't much more I can tell you to change your mind.<quote/>

Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 21:45:08 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?

+

It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.



This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).

Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
28th January, 2011 at 21:50:42 -

I agree with everything Eternal Man said, but I would like him to explain his fun fact about re-incarnation. It sounds interesting. I would like scripture references if possible.


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right? If it's the 100% infallible word of god, why would it need to be changed?



There are multiple versions of the Bible. The first 5 books (or Torah, or law as the Jewish people call it) was passed down from Moses and copied by scribes by hand. The Jewish scribes were taught that the world would end if they copied one letter wrong, so therefore they used a checksum to make sure that their copies were accurate. Ancient Hebrew letters can be converted to numbers, so they simply added all the letters and checked if the sum was equal to the last page the copied. If it wasn't they threw the whole section out and started over.

The Dead Sea Scrolls which were found to be at least 1000 years older than the most recent of ancient manuscripts was found to contain the book of Isiah and it matched nearly letter for letter, the only differences being the way God was referenced. Using a different version of the name of God.



Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Not all of them did that though. There were plenty of people that we're described as doing nothing that could be considered wrong, like not believing in god or having sex or there was those one guys that built a fire incorrectly and got smashed. Clearly you're leaving things out. It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.



Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?

I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.

Rehab is a good example, wouldn't you agree?

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
28th January, 2011 at 21:52:23 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

I believe that the Bible is full of contradictions if you read it in one way, but I also believe that it is completely non-contradictory if you read it in another way.
I personally read it with an intuative approach, it's easy to spot man-made political details, it's easy to spot what is an example or allegory of something (described in a context that demands that you can look past the subject of the context and see the higher meaning), it's easy to spot what is meant as an historical record, and it's easy to spot what is something else, something more hidden that would need you to really have come to an understanding of the whole concept of religion and faith to get to grips with.



I really like this statement.

I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?

One of the books I consider a marginally spiritual & boundlessly philosophical text, the Tao Te Ching, has also been translated innumerable times. Sometimes it's been the work of mystic healers; sometimes Asian history and linguistics scholars; in at least one version, it's been an acclaimed science fiction author. It's remarkable how different one translation can appear from another, although they had the same source material. All have the potential to be illuminating and mind-expanding, should you consider them in the right light.

My point in saying this is that, for all the debunking that occurs, pointing out of contradictions in the bible verses and Books, etc. it is not to be taken literally. It is apparently a spiritual guidebook, not a book of law. That's the disconnect that encourages/encouraged the various sects of Christianity to emerge, and to disagree with one another to this day: how literally shall we take the printed Bible?

And yeah, the Old Testament God was quite a rude bastard. I even made a game about his attitude problem. And if that stuff literally happened, then he wouldn't deserve anyone's respect (and the dude never apologizes...). Chances are, however, that one warring tribe attacked another warring tribe, and they dressed it up with some fanciful fish story about smiting of an entire city.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
28th January, 2011 at 22:08:16 -


Originally Posted by s-m-r
I'm of the opinion that the Bible is yet another collection of metaphors; it is poetry. It has been translated countless times. The King James version cited earlier was a commissioned translation by a Briton, and he 'edited' it later (unless I'm misinformed). But it is, in fact, impossible for someone to understand the words as they were written unless they're fluent in Aramaic. Know anyone, off the top of your head?



1st 5 books are Hebrew
and Daniel and some other books were written in Aramaic.
Rest was in Greek.

Some of the Bible is poetry, like Psalms or Song of Songs.

Some of it was law, like the first 5 books which contained law.

The whole Bible is a collection of different types of books, a list is here, but I'm sure there's a better one somewhere:
http://www.bibletutor.com/level1/program/start/books/menu.htm


The Bible is the most widely translated religious book in the world.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
28th January, 2011 at 22:12:22 -

Thanks for clearing that up, man.

 
n/a

W3R3W00F

Drum and Bass Fueled Psycho

Registered
  08/11/2008
Points
  368

VIP MemberCardboard BoxThe Cake is a Lie
28th January, 2011 at 22:42:59 -

Wait...


Originally Posted by -Adam-
"I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."



"I don't see how an animal could become a man"

No one can, it would take millions of years.



So, why did you say this?

"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"

You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?

I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 23:13:17 -

Where did I state it was impossible?

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 23:18:10 -

@A-W00f: I believe Adam meant to loosely quote your "[...]how a man would come from an ape" when he said "I don't see how an animal could become a man".

@Urbanmonk: Check Matt 11:14-ish and 17:10-ish, also Mark 1:2-ish(-ish meaning around those). They describe John the baptist being the prophet Elia re-incarnated.

@s-m-r: Nice to hear someone else on the same page!
This is one of the main reasons I don't think debates between Atheists and Christians/People of Faith regarding "what the Bible says" are fruitful. Atheists tend to read the Bible in the same way as religious fundamentalists do, i.e "The Bible literally says [insert controversial meaning]!". That's a shallow view of it, nothing more.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 23:21:58 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?

+

It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.



This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).

Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.



Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.

Can you show me this? In the Bible or otherwise?

I did leave some things out, so I'll add that God wouldn't destroy them if they had repented, as some did, and were spared.

Rehab is a good example, wouldn't you agree?<Quote/>
I listed several examples, including a website with various other examples. Hitler exterminated many people, and there were plenty of people that agreed with him and felt it was just. Was it moral for him to commit genocide? It's kind of a stretch comparing death to rehab, don't you think?

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
28th January, 2011 at 23:30:25 -


Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F
Wait...


Originally Posted by -Adam-
"I just think it's kind of corny how a man would come from an ape."



"I don't see how an animal could become a man"

No one can, it would take millions of years.



So, why did you say this?

"I do believe man evolved from ape,though"

You believe man evolved from an ape, which is an instance of an animal becoming a man, yet you state that this instance is impossible, when you believe a man evolved from an animal?

I don't know if we're on the same page, but both ideas totally contradict each other. What am I missing here? Please clarify, I'm confused.



I'm sorry, but you have a lack of understanding of how evolution works. First of all, it's been said that man evolved from apes, which is in correct, man is an ape, that's the category we all fall in. We didn't evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.

Basically, evolution never states anything about man evolving from an animation, it states that man is an animal. Evolution states that animals that are born with a trait that gives them an advantage and they are more likely to breed and pass on that trait. Over time, those species become so different that they can no longer breed with the original and thus become a new species. Most creationists like to exaggerate this and try argue that it claims the species instantly change from one to another, or meld together to make a completely different species, for instance the ever so "intellegent" Kirk Cameron and his "crock-o-duck". Here's some more info detailed in one neat package by AronRa:



His entire series on the subject is excellent, although this one really hits home.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

W3R3W00F

Drum and Bass Fueled Psycho

Registered
  08/11/2008
Points
  368

VIP MemberCardboard BoxThe Cake is a Lie
28th January, 2011 at 23:35:10 -

"No one can, it would take millions of years."

Stating that "no one can" more or less implies impossibility, and unless someone actually lives for millions of years, which they clearly won't, it is entirely impossible. The closest anyone ever came to a million that I've heard of was Methuselah, that guy from the bible who lived until 900. That's still 999,100 years till a million.

...Am I still missing something here? We could still be on two totally different pages.

Edit: This was in response to -Adam-. I was late.

Edited by W3R3W00F

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 23:39:08 -

Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
28th January, 2011 at 23:41:00 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?

+

It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.



This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).

Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.



Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.




What I point out is the following;

1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).

2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".

=

You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.

That's what I meant.

Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
28th January, 2011 at 23:46:59 -

No Werewoof, you misunderstand. I meant that people won't see evolution happening in front of them within a life time. Not that people don't see it happening because it doesn't exist. Nice attempt on twisting my words, though.



 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 00:02:17 -

I seriously doubt we need to bring in Creationism here. No one has stated that they share the Creationist belief.

Though, on an evolutionary note:

One of my favourite authors on religion, John F.Haught, makes an insightful reflection upon evolution in his book God and the New Atheism;

"As the ultimate ground of novelty, freedom, and hope, the Christian God offers the entire universe as well as ourselves the opportunity of ongoing liberation from the lifelessness of perfect design. Evolution, therefore, may be understood, at a theological level, as the story of the world's gradual emergence from initial chaos and monotony, and of it's adventurous search for more intensely elaborate modes of being. The God of evolution humbly invites creatures to participate in the ongoing creation of the universe"

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
29th January, 2011 at 00:04:32 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
You do realize that the bibles you read are not the originals right?

+

It is pretty cut and dry, but you can't argue that God was not petty selfish and immoral.



This is a classic problem. You accuse a God that you have already stated is not a true portrait of the original(that does not mean you imply the existance of a god though, misunderstand me right).

Please continue to keep this topic above low. The both of you are in such positions as not needing others help to question your beliefs. So settle at that and keep it nice.



Sorry, but I'm lost on your point. I've already stated that I'm open to the concept of a diety, although I disagree that it is a Christian god, who is petty selfish and immoral.




What I point out is the following;

1.) You lay weight at the fact that the Biblical texts we read today are not the same as the originals/the original situation/the original meaning(all three are applicable depending on passage).

2.) You point out that the God described in the Bible(as we know it) is "petty selfish and immoral".

=

You target an imagery of God that isn't neccessary equal to the God spoken of several thousands of years ago, though you dismiss the entire idea of Christianity from start to finish.

That's what I meant.

Why do you seem so hostile towards faith? I wish you would answer my first question about you instead of being snappy.



I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.

I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.

As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.

As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.


Im aware we share a common ancestor (I watched Walking with Cavemen when it aired back in 2003 ), and Ive already had this discussion with RickyG. My point really is that evolution exists, and its rather obvious in some cases, yet Ive spoken to certain christian people who swear blind it doesn't.


And I agree. I actually argued with people who try to tell me that dinosaurs lived with humans, that the earth still is flat and that every fossil that has ever been discovered is a fake. Some people just don't understand the concept of peer reviewed documents.

Edited by HorrendousGames

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

W3R3W00F

Drum and Bass Fueled Psycho

Registered
  08/11/2008
Points
  368

VIP MemberCardboard BoxThe Cake is a Lie
29th January, 2011 at 00:08:28 -

Ah, okay. And thank you, but I wouldn't say twisting words, just a misunderstanding of what you were saying. Nice try accusing me of something false (the same way you accused me of "trolling" in a newspost and "constantly spamming" (a.k.a. extremely frequent posting) in a trophy which I deleted out of sheer n00bishness about 2 years back), though.

With that cleared up, I turn my attention elsewhere to a less debatable subject. Probably pomegranate and vanilla white tea.

Edit: Once again, in reply to -Adam-. Once again, too late.

Edited by W3R3W00F

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 00:31:02 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.

I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.

As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.

As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.



I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.

It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.

Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Fish20



Registered
  03/12/2007
Points
  248

VIP MemberPS3 OwnerI like Aliens!I'm a Storm TrooperIt's-a me, Mario!I am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 01:46:31 -

No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof? Also, if God created everything, then who created him? If you say no one created him, then we could have just as easily been created by no one. If you do say someone created him, then who created his creator? If god loves us all then why would he send us to burn forever? That doesn't seem like something that a loving person would do. If God commands us to not do things, then why doesn't he get rid of those concepts from human thought? I have alot of other easons not to believe him but who cares?

And the theory is that humans didn't evolve directly from apes, but both Apes and humans evolved from another species millions of years ago.

 
All your base are in another castle, take this.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
29th January, 2011 at 02:17:17 -

Just to clarify a few things: The same way I wouldn't believe in god for what's on the bible, I won't say god doesn't exist based on it. Religion is much more than just a book, and that's how I see and that why I don't feel I need it.
You won't hear me say that god doesn't exist because in the bible it says he made our planet with his bare hands when we know that's definitely not true, even if it makes me wonder what were the intentions and the reasoning behind such a ridiculous statement.
Religiou and faith are what we want them to be.
Before we discovered that we live in a spherical planet, people believed and didn't question the bible's teachings that the earth was flat. Then it was discovered that that was not true, and people started interpreting that part of the bible differently. After that we discovered that what created our planet was the a giant explosion, not god's hands. The world moved on, and interpreted that part of the bible differently, again.
The bible is sometimes subjective, sometimes it's not, but regardless people always find a different meaning for each little bit. The way religious people interpret the bible is the same way they interpret for example an unanswered prayer. As an example, when I was in my early teens I'd study my ass off for my exams and pray for a good result. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. If it didn't I'd find all sorts of explanations. They all made sense and were very similar to some of the stuff I've read in this thread.
The point being, as I got older I started seeing things differently. I realized that perhaps when I had good results it wasn't god helping me but it was my own effort. Perhaps when I had bad results it was simply because I didn't work hard enough. It was simple and so obvious yet I complicated it so much.

I won't convince anyone that I'm right or wrong, it's impossible because it's all about different points of views. Different meanings can be taken from the same thing. The bible is a good example. What for some is a collection of fairy tales, for some its poetry and for other it's the sacred word of god.

btw chrilley, +10000 for the call of cthulhu reference.

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
29th January, 2011 at 02:21:22 -

"And the theory is that humans didn't evolve directly from apes, but both Apes and humans evolved from another species millions of years ago."

We've already established that.


 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
29th January, 2011 at 02:26:30 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.

Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.

Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )

In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"

That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.

I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.



God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.

Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 03:18:43 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look

Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Science is great, it can probably explain every worldly phenomena one day. But science isn't set up in a fashion as to be able to say anything about God or an afterlife. Science is meant to explain the physical, measurable world we inhabit. God or an afterlife are not measurable by those means.

Imagine a bucket.
That bucket contains our entire physical world down to the smallest matter.

Imagine another bucket.
This bucket contains God and the afterlife. ( a strange bucket indeed )

In the first bucket we tinker and measure, finding no proof whatsoever of any god or afterlife. But does that say anything about God at all?
We here at TDC, objective viewers as we are, can say:
"Of course you see no measurable proof of God in there! It's the wrong bucket!"

That's the main reason why there won't be any consolidation between say Dawkins and a theologist, they speak of different buckets.

I myself also find this matter interesting, that's why I study it at the University.



God is where people want him to be. Science will never be able to prove god's existence the same way it will never prove that god doesn't exist. The same could be said about any fairy tale. People only need the bucket of god and the afterlife if they believe they exist, if they don't science is enough.



I think you went past my point there.

I believe faith to hold a bigger reward than an illusion, I believe it adds a depth to our existance that science cannot. I completely understand your view though, it's typical. Though I find it quite blunt to equal religion and fairytales...

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
29th January, 2011 at 05:12:36 -


Originally Posted by Fish20
No. I don't believe in God. If he does exist, then wheres the proof?



You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.

Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)

Both conclusions require faith...

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
29th January, 2011 at 07:31:09 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

I'm not laying any weight on the bible, but if someone wants to use it as their whole argument, I have to know how to show it's irrelevance.

I'm not being snappy, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way.

As far as your question is concerned, I apologize, I missed that post as you posted while I was working on my post. When I was a Christian, I came across many things that I knew was ridiculous, but I made excuses for them, and always came up with explanations and rationalizations for them, which of course held no water. Like most Christians, I had plenty of moments and even felt like I was "speaking with god". After a while, I started doing my own research, and actually found out what evolution was, vs. what I was always told it was (which was waaaay off). After learning more about evolution, I eventually started researching some of those doubts I had about the Christian bible and found them plausible enough to not let my life be dictated by a book.

As far as my hostility is concerned, I'm not being hostile, once again, I'm sorry you're interpreting it that way, you would know if I was being hostile.



I see your point, though personally I would hardly call the Bible irrelevant to any faith.

It sounds like you had quite a religious upbringing, I truly understand your suspicion towards the kind of faith you describe. Though I don't see it neccessary to dismiss all forms of faith due to those circumstances, as I said, I'm of faith and I share your view you described. An illusion of religion is that you need to conform to a stereotypical type of "religious person" to have faith. You don't, really. You don't need to be a Christian, Jew or Muslim to believe in the God of Abraham. You can do it in your own right. That's what I do.

Sorry for misinterperating you as hostile and snappy.



It's alright.

I didn't mean that the bible was irrelevant for faith, I meant it is irrelevant to their argument that their particular god exists.

For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.


You either believe in a eternal God, or you believe in a eternal universe.

Either everything that's here now always was here (and I'm referring to the matter/energy that makes up everything, not the thing itself) or God always existed then he spoke everything into existence. (The word "spoke" being used to represent information, and not necessarily a audible voice)

Both conclusions require faith...



Anyone who tells you they know 100% for sure is foolish. Really no one knows for sure. There may very well be a god, just as there very well may not be. It is important to ask yourself if it is worth forming your life around a book based on the evidence given. If you're looking at the Christian bible as a source of morality, you might as well stop it. Christianity does not teach morals, it teaches obedience to authority.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Ricky

loves Left For Dead 2

Registered
  28/12/2006
Points
  4175

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP MemberWii OwnerHero of TimeGOTM Winner! - November 2009I am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 08:02:22 -

I figured out morality. There is only 1 right, the right to property. Everything else is a subset of that.

Don't murder, that life is not your property to take
Don't steal, again property
Don't rape, that vagina is not your property


this also means it's immoral to
tell people what they can and cant smoke
forcibly tax
tell people how to run their businesses
tell people who they can sleep with


basically libertarianism is my religion

 
-

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
29th January, 2011 at 08:17:21 -

Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.

"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 09:52:04 -

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

For the record again, I do not dismiss all faiths, and I tend to respect people who truly want to make this world a better place, regardless of their faith. However, if someone wants to use their faith as an excuse to extort money, control people, go to war or cause harm to another person, then we've got a problem. Thank you for not blowing up at me like you usually do, I really don't have anything against you.
quote>

I completely agree with you on that.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Ricky

loves Left For Dead 2

Registered
  28/12/2006
Points
  4175

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP MemberWii OwnerHero of TimeGOTM Winner! - November 2009I am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 10:08:25 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
Going into that "tell people how to run their businesses", I always like George Carlin on Prostitution.

"Selling is legal, F%@$ing is legal, so why isn't selling F%@$ing legal?"



I remember when arguing about legalized marijuana a friend brought that up. But i figured it's better if prostitution is legal. It would be a lot safer for the prostitutes as they can form unions and get protections and what not. My attitude is people are gonna do stuff weather its legal or not, but it's always safer if we make it legal.

 
-

Hayo

Stone Goose

Registered
  15/08/2002
Points
  6761

Game of the Week WinnerHas Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberGOTM 3RD PLACE! - APRIL 2009Weekly Picture Me This Round 27 Winner!
29th January, 2011 at 10:57:50 -

The only thing I can believe at this point in my life is that we probably only can know 0,1% of what there really is, and of that 0,1% we have figured about about 10% by now. All the religions I have come across are way too focused on mankind and our own questions for me to be able to believe any of it. They explain how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die. It doesn't explain much to me. That said I do realize I grew up in a atheist enclave and sometimes do envy people who do have faith in something.

 
www.hayovanreek.nl

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
29th January, 2011 at 16:16:46 -

Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.

The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.

There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.

I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.

By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.

But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.

Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 17:16:55 -

I was born and raised in a Christian household, and while my parents considred me Christian, I don't believe anyone before their teen years and really be of any faith because they can't grasp the idea of a deity, after life, and all the various aspects of religion.

I as I approached my teen years approached, I eventually admitted to myself that I was an atheist, and was quite happy with it for a while.

After many years of being an atheist, I started to regain the idea of faith in a way that works well for me and my life has felt more enlightened as a result.

I am Wiccan and wear my pentigram proudly.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
29th January, 2011 at 18:21:10 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
Interesting thread. I was coming on here expecting, like two replies, to see four whole pages of discussion is good. Keep it up TDC.

The internal doubt I talked about was not me suffering from a lack of faith in God, but the other way round; that I'm starting to believe in that idea. And by God I don't mean a judgmental creator, or some higher image of man but just the 'something else' which we can never fathom.

There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy.

I think the idea of God is co-existent with that of sin. All religions talk about sin. Even atheists talk about sin, except they say that there is none. But if there is no sin, why do we feel guilt? That's why I could never be an atheist (now, at least). We - as humans - have morals and feelings which can't, and could never, be explained by science. And what's more, we are the only beings to have these feelings, it is literally, in my view, what sets us apart from animals.

By the way, anyone believing at face value the creationism of the Bible, and dismissing the theory of evolution because of it, is missing the point. Look at the story of Adam and Eve, and the eating of the forbidden fruit and you'll find it's entirely consistent with us being from, but now seperate to, animals. Adam did not know sin before eating that fruit; so to know sin is what makes us human.

But I'd never follow a religion, or pray to a God, or believe in eternal damnation. I believe religion is personal.

Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?



On the feelings matter, I have to disagree completely with you. Love, hate, guilt and so on aren't exclusive to humans. If you ever had a pet you'd understand what I'm talking about. Not only they can feel as much as we do, they can see when you are sad or not. The difference is the way they rationalize things, not because we are god creations but simply because we are an intelligent race while dogs and cats are not. Of course, feelings aren't exclusive to pets, I think every living being with a brain has emotions, even they express them differently from us.

The notion of guilt has to do with your conscience. If you did something wrong you know there might be repercussions.
In addition, in specific situations some people feel guilt while some people don't. It's all about your background, your character and the way you were raised. For example, if some mexican drug lord killed someone he wanted wiped out he would be happy about killing said person while in his place I'd probably feel guilty for the rest of my life.
Ironically it's likely that the drug lord is more religious than I am.
By the way, the area of science that studies feelings is called psychology and trust me, not all psychologists believe in god.

"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."

I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.


 
n/a

Hayo

Stone Goose

Registered
  15/08/2002
Points
  6761

Game of the Week WinnerHas Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberGOTM 3RD PLACE! - APRIL 2009Weekly Picture Me This Round 27 Winner!
29th January, 2011 at 18:27:31 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman

Incidentally Hayo, what more do you need to know other than "how we got here, what we are doing here, how we should behave and what happens to us when we die"? Next week's lottery numbers?



That is not the point at all. I mean those questions are only important to me. Why would there be a god to solve my problems. The problems of mankind? There is so much more. All religions are self-centered and narrow-minded like that.

 
www.hayovanreek.nl

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
29th January, 2011 at 19:53:23 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look


"There are some questions to which we can not, and could never, find the answer. And so to search for 'proof' of God is self-defeating. The idea of God exists entirely within the mind. You can't prove belief. Eternal Man is right with his bucket analogy."

I went through that in two different posts. For him or someone else who believes in god he's right, but for everyone else he's not. Different points of views will generate different meanings. It's impossible to prove or deny the existence of something that was created by the imagination of someone. God's existence will never be proven to be true, nor will someone ever find proof that he didn't exist. Of course, if you believe in god, you won't assume it's the product of someone's imagination, but you get the point.



I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.

Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.

The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.

A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.

So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Alonso Martin



Registered
  29/12/2010
Points
  294
29th January, 2011 at 20:10:25 -

I'm surprised no insults have emerged. Some time ago, I'd be interested in debating against the existence of such a being. Now, I find it irrelevant to pose the question (because there's no interaction, only supposition). I don't really want to spend time explaining the view, but the conclusion, I didn't get with science. The conclusion shows up (which really leads to more questions) with non-cartesian philosophy and a bit of human anthropology. Eventually, it becomes apparent that even considering the matter of god is very irrelevant and out-of-the-way.

 
www.hfalicia.com
www.alonsomartin.mx

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
30th January, 2011 at 00:25:49 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]


I don't see how you can judge it right or wrong for anyone, it's just a stated fact.

Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying. No serious scientist would argue with that.

The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all.

A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith.
There is nothing to be gained by trying to convince a believer that his or her notion of God is just the product of someone's imagination which they just did the fault of not assuming in the first place, that's merely a form of an insult, the atheistic viewpoint is equally unproven.

So a better way of getting along is respecting each others standpoints and talk about them with a touch of respect and openness.



Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.

As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.

"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.

"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."

What sort of "evidence" exactly ?

By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.


Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
30th January, 2011 at 13:07:27 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look


Since I don't believe in god, I can only assume that he's the product of one or more people's imaginations so if I insulted someone with that I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. And I already said that I don't want to convince anyone of my point of view, I don't feel the need to and I wouldn't win anything with it.

As whether or not what you said was a fact then I disagree and I already explained why. For me it's no fact, it's a theory and a theory that don't make sense to me since I don't believe in god or the afterlife. Perhaps it makes sense for someone else, but not me.

"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?
I don't believe in god but I'm not closed mind about it. Still, I can't see how this makes any sense.

"A person of belief doesn't utilize the scientific method for his or her conviction, for them there are plenty of other forms of evidence for their faith."

What sort of "evidence" exactly ?

By the way I respect everyone's point of views on this matter and I am open minded. I was raised in a christian household, went to sunday school until the end, and believed in everything that was told to me. I did need to ask myself many questions before doubting in what I believed.
The concept of a superior entity watching over us is great, and I really like investigating religion-related stuff even if I don't believe in it. A man's belief can be a really powerful thing, it can change someone, make him see the world differently. I've been in the side of the believer and in the side of the non-believer and I can see for myself how it made me approach life in a different way. This debate has been interesting even if no one told me anything new until now, mostly because I've been there before. The reason why I entered the debate was to see if people told me something new that could change my point of view. For me that's being open minded.



First of, Yyou clearly misunderstand my post. What I stated a fact was the following (to quote myself) :

"Scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method, that's what I'm saying"

But I can rephrase it from

'it's a fact' (since the word is ever so slightly open for interpretation)

to

'it's a matter of well belayed general consencus that scientifically approved proof of God's existance or non-existance is not to be found through the scientific method.'

I stated it a 'fact' since a general concencus between opposing pairs which a vast majority of the observers can agree upon in this kind of issue is usually known as a fact.

Secondly, I was'nt really implying that you had insulted anyone, just stating that wording is a usual source of unneeded bickering and flaming. Nice to hear your approach anyway!

Thirdly, you were too quick in the following quote:

"The important aspect of the question is rather the fact that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility. For a person of belief this can be very important, for a person already mindset on the opposite, it shouldn't be relevant to argue about at all."
So people believe in god because no one proved he doesn't exist (which you himself said that it's impossible) ?


I never stated that people believe in God because no one proved he doesn't exist, I laid my focus on another way of reading the sentence, that nothing proves God's existance an impossibility.
That sense of the argument is what I said could be very important for a person of belief. I don't imply that it's vital for faith in general, I imply that it can be of importance to some people in some situations.

For example, a serious scientist's credability shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of said's belief in God, or a person's mental health shouldn't be questioned on the grounds of his/her belief in God either. But that tends to happen anyway. Do you understand what I'm pointing at?


And lastly, about the evidence.

That which leads someone to true belief in something, or that which strengthens it, is the plentiful evidence abound. One person can claim that God spoke to him, another that the world doesn't make perfect sense without God, a third by intuition. It can really be anything, then it's up to the individual to weigh the evidence and see if it gives him/her enough to stand on for true belief in something science won't ever produce scientifical proof of.

Am I clear? There really is no argument between our standpoints, just textual misunderstanding due to not speaking irl.

The rest of your post deserves a , so here you go:

//EE

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
30th January, 2011 at 16:11:49 -

Johnny Look - I don't believe animals have consciences. I don't believe they feel sad, or happy - they don't love, they don't hate either. And I have had pets. The idea that animals feel guilt is ridiculous - they are not intelligent enough even to understand the concept of guilt, or of love - and that makes the argument fall down. We are unique in that we understand the concept of self, whereas animals do not. Only humans can 'override' their senses; no animal ever committed suicide (on purpose). This - if taken to its full logical conclusion - means we are separate (or at least, I am separate).

Furthermore, I think our consciences are inherent, and not learned. A baby brought up by animals will still feel sad, guilty, happy, and is capable of love.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
30th January, 2011 at 16:52:30 -

You've clearly never had a dog, then.

 
n/a

Flava



Registered
  30/07/2002
Points
  684

Has Donated, Thank You!Code MonkeyVIP MemberThe Cake is a LieThe Spinster
30th January, 2011 at 17:16:05 -

I think animals can love and feel sadness - dogs are one example, as Adam pointed out. A lot of animals in the wild also care for their children, to an extent were they would risk their lives for them. Love, sadness, anger etc. are all natural emotions which many animals experience - you don't have to understand the concept of emotion in order to feel it.

Edited by Flava

 
This is a signature. Have this one on me.

Rob Rule

Rusten Crating

Registered
  22/12/2007
Points
  532
30th January, 2011 at 17:24:16 -

It's a tricky subject and I'm not sure which of you is right.

Adam, one shouldn't be so quick to interpret a dog's self-preservation feeling of worry at doing something wrong in the pack as having a conscience. What we interpret/translate in animals as human-specific emotions (like guilt) are commonly something else entirely - like knowing they're going to be in trouble with their owner. It's a bit more complicated than that - nothing's definite and unless a human actually become a dog there's little to suggest we currently have the capacity to understand their minds.

Of course we can (and do) project our own emotions onto our pets in a bid to understand them (we do this to the other people that we meet in our day to day life, too), but it is a fact that animals, whether wild or domesticated, have an emotional makeup that is fundamentally differently from a human's. We at least appear to be unique animals in that our level of intelligence gives us easily provable Secondary Emotions (some examples being guilt and shame). Not so with cats and dogs.

I expect the truth is somewhere between the position that Boothman and Adam would argue, with the scientific community more supporting Boothman's post. But we don't really know and it's never a good idea to assume.

 
It'll all blow over.

Hayo

Stone Goose

Registered
  15/08/2002
Points
  6761

Game of the Week WinnerHas Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberGOTM 3RD PLACE! - APRIL 2009Weekly Picture Me This Round 27 Winner!
30th January, 2011 at 17:25:30 -

The only religion I would ever join is one where cats are the highest of species. That and human sacrifice.

 
www.hayovanreek.nl

Rob Rule

Rusten Crating

Registered
  22/12/2007
Points
  532
30th January, 2011 at 17:28:08 -

(To clarify: I'd personally agree with Adam that dogs feel elation and sorrow, but not that they feel more complex human emotions like guilt and shame.)

 
It'll all blow over.

Roncho



Registered
  04/01/2007
Points
  107
30th January, 2011 at 17:33:13 -

Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.

 
n/a

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
30th January, 2011 at 17:41:56 -

I can confidently say, having had pet dogs since I was born, Ive seen anger, embarassment, sulking behaviours, jealousy, and happiness in them. Not just by how they look, but by how they interact with a human. The one emotion that isnt so obvious is sadness.

Having said that, it also takes a certain type of dog. Not all dogs are the same, facially. For example, an angry dog with dark eyes isn't so obvious, unless its growling (Schnauzer etc). A dog with whites to the eye, or amber eyes becomes more apparent when it is angry.

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
30th January, 2011 at 19:59:12 -


Originally Posted by Roncho
Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.



That is a huge oversimplification. For instance, there is a vast difference between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If that's all they think about, then why do animals bother protecting their young?

Chimps are a great example of animals with feeling and intelligence. For instance, Chimps do not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet they they hunt as often as they can, including other primates. They even divide up the kill based on the social status of their group, and most chimps will give meat to their mate as a gift.

In terms of animals not being able to feel sad or guilty, you must not be paying much attention to your pets. My god father's dog would always get smacked with a newspaper every time he took a dump on the floor. Eventually, if he did and he saw my God father, he would run away into his cage, but only if he had taken a dump on the floor first. There is also a vast difference between getting an animal as a baby, than getting an animal from a shelter. To top if off, before I was in a wheel chair and before I lost my job, I got a beagle named tish. Beagles tend to be very active and love to follow their nose. Before the chair, and even when we picked her up from the shelter, she got out a lot and was able to run around and explore, but once I went into the chair, she wasn't able to run around as much, and was always laying around with a very sad look on her face, there was more but I'm not going to go into it too much.

Granted, my observations aren't as in depth as they could be but, trust me, there are people that study this, and they would probably know a lot better than most people here.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th January, 2011 at 20:03:24 -

You know I the biggest diffrence between us and animals is the fact that we can question our existence.

And I think God put that in us so that we would search for him.

The argument that claims that humans are just better animals is just an excuse for people to give when they do something wrong.

"I'm just following my animal desires" is a common quote I hear.

But like Matt said, we as humans can overide these feelings and follow our concience instead, something an animal cannot.

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
30th January, 2011 at 20:19:02 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
You know I the biggest diffrence between us and animals is the fact that we can question our existence.

And I think God put that in us so that we would search for him.

The argument that claims that humans are just better animals is just an excuse for people to give when they do something wrong.

"I'm just following my animal desires" is a common quote I hear.

But like Matt said, we as humans can overide these feelings and follow our concience instead, something an animal cannot.



That doesn't come from god, that comes from society. You do realize people used to say the same thing about black people, right? Check that, there are still people that think that. Most of what you're speaking about comes from how we are raised into our society. For instance, many tribes outside of society act similar (yet are still a bit more advance) to the chimp society I mentioned. Are they less human? In terms of animals questioning their existence, how the hell would you know? At least with most feelings you can look at their behavior and facial expressions, but in terms of religion, you can't exactly ask an animal what they are thinking. Ever see an animal get scared of something, like a dog getting scared of a vacuum cleaner or thunder? We know the dog is scared, but how do you know that the dog isn't attributing that to a creator? How do you know that the dog doesn't think of it's owner as a creator? We all know that's a load of hooey, since you and thunder aren't gods, but with decreased intelligence and understanding of the world around you, the more likely you are to attribute something you don't understand to magic or gods, which is not to say intelligent people don't believe in gods.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
30th January, 2011 at 20:32:55 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

Originally Posted by Roncho
Eh. Of course animals don't have those kinds of feelings, EVERYBODY knows that. All they ever think of is eat, sleep and, well, humping. The rest is all in your imagination. Humans are obviously vastly superior and would therefore be the chosen race.



That is a huge oversimplification. For instance, there is a vast difference between a wild animal and a domesticated one. If that's all they think about, then why do animals bother protecting their young?

Chimps are a great example of animals with feeling and intelligence. For instance, Chimps do not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet they they hunt as often as they can, including other primates. They even divide up the kill based on the social status of their group, and most chimps will give meat to their mate as a gift.

In terms of animals not being able to feel sad or guilty, you must not be paying much attention to your pets. My god father's dog would always get smacked with a newspaper every time he took a dump on the floor. Eventually, if he did and he saw my God father, he would run away into his cage, but only if he had taken a dump on the floor first. There is also a vast difference between getting an animal as a baby, than getting an animal from a shelter. To top if off, before I was in a wheel chair and before I lost my job, I got a beagle named tish. Beagles tend to be very active and love to follow their nose. Before the chair, and even when we picked her up from the shelter, she got out a lot and was able to run around and explore, but once I went into the chair, she wasn't able to run around as much, and was always laying around with a very sad look on her face, there was more but I'm not going to go into it too much.

Granted, my observations aren't as in depth as they could be but, trust me, there are people that study this, and they would probably know a lot better than most people here.



Of course Beagles follow their noses, they belong to the hound family Bassets are also notorious for it.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th January, 2011 at 20:36:19 -

Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions.

And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.

If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept.

I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling.

 
n/a

Hayo

Stone Goose

Registered
  15/08/2002
Points
  6761

Game of the Week WinnerHas Donated, Thank You!VIP MemberGOTM 3RD PLACE! - APRIL 2009Weekly Picture Me This Round 27 Winner!
30th January, 2011 at 20:54:13 -

Did he try talking to the chimps as well? Somewhere in the middle ages, some monks picked up the idea of converting birds, they preached to the birds.

The other day one of my cats got scared by something and jumped up. He then realised it was nothing, looked around if anyone had seen him do that, saw that we did, and then performed some odd little jumps and went back to sleep. True story.

 
www.hayovanreek.nl

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
30th January, 2011 at 21:04:45 -

Eternal Man:
I did interpret you post well (I think), but perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
What I meant was that for me, if scientifically it can't be proved then it can't be proved at all, so in my mind what you said couldn't be true, at least not entirely though I understood what you meant.

To be more exact, I believe in what's real, in what I can see, hear, smell and feel. The other side of things you were talking about is something that, in my mind, simply doesn't exist. Feeling protected by god, feeling you are talking with him, interpreting random things as signs from god, from me that's all psychological, something your mind makes up because you want to believe. It feels good to believe there's something out there watching for me, that when I die it's not the end and so on. Of course these things come to a price, which usually involves behaving well but that's beside the point.

I remember feeling like I had those "god moments" more than once, I even convinced myself once I was possessed by some demon because I grew paranoid with that thanks of some horror movie I watched. Then time went by I even forgot about it. Anyway, for a while those "god moments" is what made me still believe, even though I kept asking me more and more questions. Then I started to question if those moments really existed and since then I never felt them again, and that's simply because I stopped believing altogether. The "other side" of things simply disappeared and I started interpreting things simply for what they were, not what they could be and associate them with god, jesus or anything. I felt like I've just been freed from my mental prison. Not saying religion is a prison, but I think you get the point.

I think it's hard to really be an atheist without first going through this, and I think that's why a lot of them just look retarded because they talk about things they don't know anything about. You have to see things from both sides before knowing which one is right.

Like you said it's a bit hard to explain all this without debating this face to face, I tried my best.

Matt: You don't believe animals have conscience and emotions but they do. You need to be used to them to understand their body language. Fear, guilt, happiness, excitement, sadness and other emotions are very easy to see in a dog for example.
And yes they do feel guilty if they know they did something wrong, I can't see how you find this ridiculous if you've had pets yourself. As an example, if my dog(now dead) crapped in the floor or something like that, I'd yell at him and hit him softly in the back to show I was mad at him. Usually, the first reaction he would have was to follow me and try to cheer me up, but in a really human way as if he was sorry for what he did and wanted to make up for that by showing affection. That's an example among many others, things like these are rather common in pets.

I don't know why you're even saying that animals are not intelligent enough to feel love or hate when these feelings can be recognized easily, specially in apes whose body language isn't that different from ours. They even go as far as create rivalries between themselves because of some female they both are fond of. The example of flava with animals risking their lives to save their children is also a rather obvious example.
Their emotions are similar to ours, what change is how they express them.

As for suicide among animals, you can't expect animals to grab a gun and shoot themselves or take a cyanide pill, but there are many reports of animals killing themselves on purpose, including whales mass suicides.
Of course not all animals have enough intelligence to do something like that, but when most of them fight every day for their survival, the last thought they would have would be to just kill themselves. The same can be said for a lot of people in countries plagued by wars, famine and disease.

But all this is beside the point, the reason animals don't feel some more complex emotions while we do why is simply because they aren't as intelligent as we are. That's what set us apart from other animals. I don't think god has anything to do with that, we simply had the luck to be born human and not a bird or an dog. If you want to interpret that has a gift given to you by god that's up to you, for me that's not even up for discussion.

By the way, the example you gave on the conscience part has nothing to do with conscience or the notion of "sin" you spoke about. That's only suppositions, but I'm pretty sure if he was raised by a wolf for example and didn't realize he is human, I'm pretty sure it would be ok for him to kill another human if he felt threatened without feeling guilty. Society is what make us feel that killing another human being is wrong, I can't imagine someone being raised outside an environment without a single human being knowing that stealing, killing and so on is wrong.


 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
30th January, 2011 at 21:09:57 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions.

And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.

If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept.

I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling.



THATS BECAUSE CHIMPS DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, LOL!

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th January, 2011 at 21:18:42 -

Another thing that sets us apart from animals.

A developed language.

It's a proven fact that language becomes less complex over time.

Based on that fact it's hard to imagine that language is something we as humans developed as we "evolved."

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
30th January, 2011 at 21:19:55 -

A fish cannot grasp the existence of anything above the water. Animals above the water cannot grasp the idea of what it's like to be human. Who is honestly to say that we aren't in a state of ignorance ourselves? We are just one part of the life this whole world is made up of. Something happened in the past, which gave us the advantage of higher intelligence and I think it's very arrogant to believe we are suddenly superior to other animals, just because we gained a new "feature" in our little arsenal of tools. Just in the same way as a lion is no more superior to a gazelle because it possesses sharp claws.
It's just highly unfortunate for our mother earth, that as a result of our new found ability to think on a higher level of consciousness, that we have become such a massive plague to this world. We destroy our existence with the short sightedness of our primitive strive for instant gratification and use our intelligence to aid in that instant gratification instead of using it to be guardians of the world we live in so we always have it.

Whether or not a God or Goddess exists is entirely in the eyes and heart of those who choose to believe they exist. However it seems kind of blind for us to ignore the very divine energy which exists within everything. Electricity was yesterdays magick or divine energy and figuring out how it works doesn't make it any less impressive.
Science is a fantastic tool to aid in learning about our world, but as soon as it becomes more of a destructive tool rather than a proactive tool, is when we need to stop and look back on ourselves and remember what we thought of the world before we came to the conclusion that we had it all figured out. Remember the feelings and emotions we got from something we didn't quite understand.

To try to rely on old and long since dis-proven ideas as a way to explain why your religion is right is more destructive to your heart and the world around you. Instead remember why it is you believe what you believe, and let it help you and guide you. Live on your own path.
Be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc, if it works for you then it's right for you.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th January, 2011 at 21:35:53 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
To try to rely on old and long since dis-proven ideas as a way to explain why your religion is right is more destructive to your heart and the world around you.



I would have to agree. The largest cause of atheism today is wide-spread false ideas, (from religious people) and that is very destructive.

I don't think I'll ever convert anyone by arguing with them about it. I've never heard of that happening in my life. The only time anyone's ever been converted was when they had a true experience with God themselves.

I'm not talking about "god moments" as Johny put it.
I'm talking about knowing without a shadow of a doubt that what you feel is God.

It's hard to understand if you've never experienced it before.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
30th January, 2011 at 21:53:07 -

The best and also the most vulnerable part about religion is that it's so hard to prove, but so easy to attack. So when you see real faith in someones heart, that fuels them and makes them happy, and they aren't trying to use it in major life decisions or as a predictive measure or excuse to do something destructive, it's really quite beautiful.

I think everyone could value from:
"An it harm none do what ye will,"

And really, when you look a lot of religions and different forms of faith, they all sort of agree on that.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Ski

TDC is my stress ball

Registered
  13/03/2005
Points
  10130

GOTW WINNER CUP 1!GOTW WINNER CUP 2!GOTW WINNER CUP 3!KlikCast HelperVIP MemberWii OwnerStrawberryPicture Me This Round 28 Winner!PS3 OwnerI am an April Fool
Candy Cane
31st January, 2011 at 00:01:35 -

"Another thing that sets us apart from animals.

A developed language."


Animals do have their own kinds of languages, just simplified. There's a difference between a protective bark, a growl, a happy growl etc. Just as there are differences between bird calls, dolphin and whale calls etc. I would have thought that was common knowledge. And you can say yes, but the human language evolves, or has evolved more so...but then how can you prove animal communication hasn't or won't?

(By happy growl I mean http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/Edam/?action=view¤t=WillowVictorygrowl.mp4 ) She's actually angry there.

 
n/a

~Matt Esch~

Stone Goose

Registered
  30/12/2006
Points
  870

VIP Member
31st January, 2011 at 00:17:01 -

I am not religious and "don't believe" in a God. Well to be completely accurate I don't believe or not believe because I am yet to receive a credible question. I don't know where the idea comes from. I could invent an idea that can or cannot be disproved and I suspect there are people in this world who will believe it. When somebody asks me do you believe in a god, I have to try and take that seriously as someone asking me "do you believe in the Theory of god?". Its quite easy to pass it off as nonsense, but I am open to the idea if it's proposed in a credible way with some tangible evidence. Supposing there was no tangible evidence but in any case it was true, I think it better to stick true to the tangible evidence as a guideline to maintain sanity, and the existence or non existence of a god makes absolutely no difference to anyone. The inifinite set of ideas without tangible evidence would have to be given due credit as well...

So that's my opionion of the existence of a god, and it just goes downhill when you get into the details of organised religion. Most of the time you can simply place the same argument in favour of some other religion and note that they can't mutually coexist, someone has to be wrong somewhere. All those people claiming to have personal relationships with their god don't stop to think there are people in exactly the same position having conversations with their god or gods. It bemuses me to think that this behaviour is observable under many circumstances but those of a religious inclination wouldn't for a second believe that they are a subject of the same psychology. Religion is fascinating to me because it highlights humanities tribal instincts that were vital to our evolution, and it really governs a lot of belief systems. Assigning yourself to a group of people will cause you to defend that group fiercely. No religion really stands above the rest. Note that there is a strong correlation between where you grow up and what religion you follow. If that doesn't inspire the thought of suspiscion I am wasting my breath.

Nice to see a religious thread that didn't burst into an all out flame war, though I suspect the admins will be getting nervous by now




 
http://create-games.com/project.asp?id=1875 Image


Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
31st January, 2011 at 03:11:44 -

urbanmonk:
"Dogs just do whatever they want. They learn that doing certain things bring pain, which makes then not want to do that thing, but that's all due to self preservation. Self preservation is something that's in every animal and even humans. The will to live. Running from a vaccum can't be attributed to emotions."

I can easily tell you never had a pet. Anyway we already went through this part of the discussion and I thought everyone agreed that dogs feel more than just a basic survival instinct.

"And people in tribes have conscience while the pack of chimps do not.

If you told the tribe about God they would listen, while the chimps would never be able to grasp the concept. "

That's rather obvious I think. If you spoke to the tribe about some van full of food they would probably listen to you even more closely.

"I know this because I personnally met a missionary who talks to these tribes. I seen videos of tribal people praying and crying. Youll never in your lifetime see a gorilla trying to seek God. These people didn't see an example of this. The missionaries didn't tell them to cry or tell them that they were supposed to feel anything. They just did, because God is real and that's what they were feeling. "
I don't get it, so they pray and cry after the missionaries told them about god, and that basically proves god's existence ? I've seen documentaries of entire tribes doing weird rituals, praying, yelling, going completely crazy and throwing stuff at each other because of a hunt that went well for example. They were thanking their gods, and that's because they were feeling them too.

"Based on that fact it's hard to imagine that language is something we as humans developed as we "evolved." "
I don't understand the point you're trying to make or why evolved is in quotation marks.

"I would have to agree. The largest cause of atheism today is wide-spread false ideas, (from religious people) and that is very destructive. "

What sort of false ideas are you talking about ? I think one of the biggest misconceptions religious people make to justify why so many people stopped believing in god (or never believed in the first place) is because they don't understand what it's all about, which is false in most cases.

"I'm not talking about "god moments" as Johny put it.
I'm talking about knowing without a shadow of a doubt that what you feel is God"
At least in my case, that's the same thing. I had no doubt what I felt was god. I realized later that what I felt was actually nothing, because now I don't believe in god. If I was hindu for example, I would probably have felt ganesha instead. You believe in what you want to believe.



Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
31st January, 2011 at 04:45:50 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
urbanmonk:
You believe in what you want to believe.




And I believe that as long as people can believe what they want to believe without being intrusive to others around them, it's perfectly acceptable that people believe whatever they want to believe. In fact, it should be encouraged.

I for one am pleasantly surprised to see that this thread pulled it's way to 5 6 pages without any fights. Respective quoting and responding, quoting and responding.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
31st January, 2011 at 20:01:28 -

To the people who say that animals clearly have feelings such as happiness, sadness, embarrassment and suchlike - my parents bought a dog at the same time I was born, and I grew up with Cleo until we were both 14, at which point she suffered a stroke and had to be put down. So I do know animals. My point is that humans are unique in that they understand the concept of self, and have a detachment to their feelings and senses. The best way I can put it is that a human can easily say "I am happy", but an animal (presuming he could talk) would not, because have no concept of the I. There is a famous quote about this "If a lion could speak, we still could not understand him". Animals don't know they exist, so they cannot ascribe feelings to themselves. That is my take on it.

Whether this proves God is another matter entirely.

@Johnny: Of course, society is what makes us feels that killing another human being is wrong. But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations. The baby brought up by wolves might grow up and kill a man and not feel guilty - but only if he was threatened. Your sentence even points to the fact that there is something in the baby's head that tells it not to kill humans for no reason. Animals you could say, also have this, they don't go around killing things for no reason. But humans are the only species that can override this feeling, and kill anyway. That is what sin is - knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway. Animals can't commit sin.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
31st January, 2011 at 20:57:22 -

To those who said I've never had a dog, I've got three..Thanks. (and 2 cats)


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations.



There are societies that teach that it's ok to kill and eat other humans. (In the Philippines)

Our society (USA) is based on Judio-Christian values, so many ethics/morals come from remnants of a once Christan nation.

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
31st January, 2011 at 22:17:58 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
To the people who say that animals clearly have feelings such as happiness, sadness, embarrassment and suchlike - my parents bought a dog at the same time I was born, and I grew up with Cleo until we were both 14, at which point she suffered a stroke and had to be put down. So I do know animals. My point is that humans are unique in that they understand the concept of self, and have a detachment to their feelings and senses. The best way I can put it is that a human can easily say "I am happy", but an animal (presuming he could talk) would not, because have no concept of the I. There is a famous quote about this "If a lion could speak, we still could not understand him". Animals don't know they exist, so they cannot ascribe feelings to themselves. That is my take on it.

Whether this proves God is another matter entirely.

@Johnny: Of course, society is what makes us feels that killing another human being is wrong. But what is society? Society is humans. You talk about society like it was something alien to us, something that has always been there, and it's not, it's just a reflection of us. And morals change in different situations. The baby brought up by wolves might grow up and kill a man and not feel guilty - but only if he was threatened. Your sentence even points to the fact that there is something in the baby's head that tells it not to kill humans for no reason. Animals you could say, also have this, they don't go around killing things for no reason. But humans are the only species that can override this feeling, and kill anyway. That is what sin is - knowing something is wrong, but doing it anyway. Animals can't commit sin.



I think you misunderstood what I meant.
Firstly, for me society could be defined as the group of people that surrounds you and that somehow influences you. In a barbarian society it would be ok to kill your neighbor if you felt like it, in a modern society it's not.
The baby wouldn't kill another human not because of some voice in his head telling him not to, but because he knows that if he tries to he is putting is life at risk so it's only worth if your life is already at risk- survival instinct. Put a human outside a human society and will behave like the society is in. The baby's behavior would be the same as any wolf in his group. The notion of sin is not present in a wolf society, on the other hand this notion has been present in our heads since the first human societies were created. The same way a wolf wouldn't go on and kill other wolves in his pack, the pre-historic man wouldn't kill another person in his tribe because, once again, he knows there are repercussions. A smaller tribe has less chances of surviving, same for a small wolf pack.
Once the first human societies managed to guarantee survival, they settled down in fixed locations and established laws to guarantee order in the group. Most of these basic laws remain until today (don't steal, don't kill etc..), and are taught to us by society since we were born.´
That notion of sin only exists if you believe. In reality, it's a really practical thing, for any kind of society, including animal societies: it's the fear of repercussions.

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
31st January, 2011 at 22:25:49 -

By the way, how can anyone claim a dog doesn't know he is happy or that they don't even know they exist? We can't put ourselves in their heads and talk for them. Personally I could easily tell when my dog was happy or not, and truth be told it's not that different from humans. I remembered when my neighbor's dog died. My dog used to play with him all the time, and when he noticed he wasn't around anymore he started acting really strange for a good while. He wouldn't play with me the way he used to, barely moved all day etc... Another good example would be the two canaries I had two years ago or so. When one of them died, the other died the following day. I don't think that was a coincidence.

 
n/a

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
31st January, 2011 at 23:04:20 -

Bit ridiculous to state that in a Barbarian society 'it would be ok to kill you neighbour' - in no human society ever has it been acceptable to kill without a valid reason. But that's beside the point.

My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

The Chris Street

Administrator
Unspeakably Lazy Admin

Registered
  14/05/2002
Points
  50117

Game of the Week WinnerClickzine StaffAcoders MemberKlikCast StarVIP MemberPicture Me This Round 35 Winner!Second GOTW AwardYou've Been Circy'd!Picture Me This Round 38 Winner!GOTM December Third Place!!
I am an April FoolKliktober Special Award Tag
1st February, 2011 at 00:41:37 -

I sort of want to believe in God but the fact that bad things constantly happen to good people makes me disbelieve. Like severe illnesses... cancer, motor neurone disease. Anything incurable thats afflicted onto someone who doesn't deserve it, who has worked hard through their lives and always trod the line, only to be struck down and informed by their doctor they only have days to live... it just doesn't wash with me.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
1st February, 2011 at 01:16:35 -

Good things sometimes happen to bad people too.
Life is life, we're given free choice.

"It rains on the just and the unjust"

Of course living a good moral life increases your chances of having a better life.


 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 01:44:49 -

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

From the greek philosopher Epicurus. The fact that there is an unlimitedly powerful God that supposedly loves us wants us to suffer is just plain insulting.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
1st February, 2011 at 03:50:31 -

Umm, you did it backwards.

You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.

You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.

God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.

See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.

The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.


God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.

These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.

 
n/a

W3R3W00F

Drum and Bass Fueled Psycho

Registered
  08/11/2008
Points
  368

VIP MemberCardboard BoxThe Cake is a Lie
1st February, 2011 at 03:55:13 -

I guess I'm back to offer my view on things...

I believe God loves us all. But then you have to ask yourself... why aren't we all in heaven if he does love us? This dilemma usually leads people into believing God doesn't exist. The way I see it is this: God DOES love us... but do we love him? I don't believe God would take us all into heaven if we don't love him. I think of it like this: why be friends with someone who hates you or doesn't care about you? If he/she ignores you entirely or kicks you in the teeth, then why would you bestow any kind of special gift upon him/her? Apply this to God. Why would He bestow upon us the privilages of heaven if we hate or ignore him?

The reason we aren't in heaven with God, I believe, is that God is testing us. He's testing us to see if we love him in return. And God doesn't make us suffer in our daily lives: he simply allows bad things to happen, the same way he allows good things to happen. Like UrbanMonk said, "It rains on the just and the unjust". It also shines on the just and the unjust.


That's life.


Being tested by God is definitely hard. Sometimes, though not very often, I find myself getting mad at God for something, then I snap back and realize, "God allowed it to happen, don't hate him for it". I could take the easy road by apostatizing then consider myself an ex-catholic or an atheist and go about doing whatever the heck I want, with only the law holding me back... but I don't and won't consider it. Without God I feel like my life is empty. I've often thought up scenarios what life without God would be like: It would be about being born, growing up, going to school, getting a job, going to work, retiring, then dying... if you're lucky you might do something great in your life. That's it. But if that's all I have to live for then I wonder what's the point of living? What am I supposed to do with my life? Help companies grow? Just live my life with no questions asked? Get rich or famous but never be truly satisfied?

Without God my world would be a shell. Cramped and hollow. Plus, I can't fathom the concept of completely ending. My body gets buried (hopefully not incinerated) and my soul ceases to exist. I can't grasp that concept without making myself dizzy... In fact I just can't grasp the concept, period.

My other 2 cents. I think I'm done here, I'm not sure. This thread is pretty interesting, though.

EDIT: I lied. I came back to fix one heck of a typo.

Edited by W3R3W00F

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
1st February, 2011 at 07:05:39 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Umm, you did it backwards.

You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.

You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.

God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.

See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.

The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.


God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.

These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.



This is why we need to teach religious history in school.
Not creationism, but as a complete and separate class... Religious History. It should be a part of standard curriculum in high school, but it's not. If it were, it would give people a lot more to think about when they consider a form of faith or religion to take up.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
1st February, 2011 at 12:17:46 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
Bit ridiculous to state that in a Barbarian society 'it would be ok to kill you neighbour' - in no human society ever has it been acceptable to kill without a valid reason. But that's beside the point.

My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.



Well yes the example itself didn't make sense as I put it, my point being that in some societies it's more accepted to kill for something relatively trivial while in a modern society it's not.

My point is that an animal can't choose to sin - it can't choose to go against the 'rules of the pack'. This is because it has no idea of right and wrong. We do.

A wolf won't go against the rules of the pack the same way a pre historic man wouldn't go against the rules of the group. When survival is at stake everything else is secondary. That was my point in my last post.



Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Umm, you did it backwards.

You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.

You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.

God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.

See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.

The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.


God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.

These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.



"Evil nations" ? Aren't we all supposedly god's sons ? Or only those who believe ?
If I ask god for help against an enemy, will be god be against him ? Even if he is a devout christian himself ?

By the way what supposedly happened in the 6 day war has been known to be a huge exaggeration by israel in order to motivate the troops (which worked superbly) and was denied by the nations that were supposedly afflicted by those "miracles".
Of course it's all very convenient that this happened in israel, the birthplace of the christian religion, which raises another questions: Will be god against me if israel decides to go at war and invade my country ?

All these questions considered, tell me how can't epicurus's questions be relevant, assuming I'm on the side that's supposedly being destroyed by god.

Like horrendous said, it's ridiculous to think that god would destroy me as easily as he would help. Also the idea that non-believers and sinners end up burning in hell forever only makes it all even better.

Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
1st February, 2011 at 15:51:07 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
"Evil nations" ? Aren't we all supposedly god's sons ? Or only those who believe ?
If I ask god for help against an enemy, will be god be against him ? Even if he is a devout christian himself ?



God created all of us, but that doesn't mean we all chose to honor him.

Proverbs 14:34
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people."

Christans wouldn't be each others enemies.

If these nations would have repented they would be spared, Nineveh was spared.
Sodom was given a chance but they refused, Lot told them over and over, but they mocked him.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
By the way what supposedly happened in the 6 day war has been known to be a huge exaggeration by israel in order to motivate the troops (which worked superbly) and was denied by the nations that were supposedly afflicted by those "miracles".
Of course it's all very convenient that this happened in israel, the birthplace of the christian religion, which raises another questions: Will be god against me if israel decides to go at war and invade my country ?

All these questions considered, tell me how can't epicurus's questions be relevant, assuming I'm on the side that's supposedly being destroyed by god.

Like horrendous said, it's ridiculous to think that god would destroy me as easily as he would help. Also the idea that non-believers and sinners end up burning in hell forever only makes it all even better.



America has all the best war equipment in the world, now tell me how many wars they've fought (and won) in 6 days?

Israel is so small compared to the rest of those countries that attacked them, and yet they destroyed the entire Egyptian army.

You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 15:55:23 -


Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F
I guess I'm back to offer my view on things...

I believe God loves us all. But then you have to ask yourself... why aren't we all in heaven if he does love us? This dilemma usually leads people into believing God doesn't exist. The way I see it is this: God DOES love us... but do we love him? I don't believe God would take us all into heaven if we don't love him. I think of it like this: why be friends with someone who hates you or doesn't care about you? If he/she ignores you entirely or kicks you in the teeth, then why would you bestow any kind of special gift upon him/her? Apply this to God. Why would He bestow upon us the privilages of heaven if we hate or ignore him?



So an infinitely wise god has petty human emotions? Even I don't kill or condemn someone to eternal suffering simply because they don't like me, thats the behavior of a cheerleader, not of a "perfectly" supreme being.


Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F
The reason we aren't in heaven with God, I believe, is that God is testing us. He's testing us to see if we love him in return. And God doesn't make us suffer in our daily lives: he simply allows bad things to happen, the same way he allows good things to happen. Like UrbanMonk said, "It rains on the just and the unjust". It also shines on the just and the unjust.

That's life.



What about that guy in Germany who chained up his daughter for her entire life in the basement with no human contact and barely any food. When she was found, she didn't live much longer after that. What kind of a chance did God give to her? Are you seriously considering that is a part of life and we should just accept that she'll get a better life in the next? What about the millions of people currently starving, not because food isn't available, but simply because they don't have the money to pay for it? I bet they thank god for the challenge too. This is one of my problems with religion, rather than fix the problems in society and try to prevent them, we just let them happen, because why fix this world if it's just a test and we get to actually start living in the next?



Originally Posted by Austrian W3R3W00F
Being tested by God is definitely hard. Sometimes, though not very often, I find myself getting mad at God for something, then I snap back and realize, "God allowed it to happen, don't hate him for it". I could take the easy road by apostatizing then consider myself an ex-catholic or an atheist and go about doing whatever the heck I want, with only the law holding me back... but I don't and won't consider it. Without God I feel like my life is empty. I've often thought up scenarios what life without God would be like: It would be about being born, growing up, going to school, getting a job, going to work, retiring, then dying... if you're lucky you might do something great in your life. That's it. But if that's all I have to live for then I wonder what's the point of living? What am I supposed to do with my life? Help companies grow? Just live my life with no questions asked? Get rich or famous but never be truly satisfied?

Without God my world would be a shell. Cramped and hollow. Plus, I can't fathom the concept of completely ending. My body gets buried (hopefully not incinerated) and my soul ceases to exist. I can't grasp that concept without making myself dizzy... In fact I just can't grasp the concept, period.



This is another problem with religion, it's extremely selfish. It's concerned with where "I" am going to go when "I" die and what happens to "me". A lot of Christians bring up this same issue, and I assure you, it's an argument from ignorance (not saying you're ignorant, that's just what it's called). As an Atheist, I can assure you my life is not empty, in fact when I became an Atheist, that's when I felt that my life had meaning. It kind of a odd to tell people that this life is meaningless and only a test to see if you're in god's "in-crowd", then that your life means more to you than any non-believer.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonkUmm, you did it backwards.

You were supposed to post that first, then I was supposed to respond with my previous post.

You know, it's interesting how God allowed all the evil nations that existed back during the time of Genesis when he could have destroyed them outright. He knew they wouldn't repent, but yet he allowed them to live.

God will allow evil to go on as long as it doesn't affect his people, as soon as it does he destroys them.

See Sodom and Gomorrah, a good example of this.

The Sodomites could do what they wanted, but as soon as Lot was in the city that's when God decided to destroy it. Go read it for yourself in Genesis 19.


God isn't a machine, there aren't certain buttons that cause him to react a certain way. He treats every situation differently based on the circumstances.
Which is why Epicurus questions are irrelevant.

These types of things didn't just happen in the Bible mind. Try Googling "miracles of the six day war."
Remember that God always rests on the 7th day.



But you're claiming that he's a being of infinite wisdom and power, he can't think of a different way to deal with the situation than mass murder? Epicurus's questions are not irrelevant, because it shows the Christian god for what he is, petty, heartless and hypocritical. He claims to love all of his children and wishes he can save them all, but the bible is riddled with instances of God killing whole countries because of the actions of a few of it's inhabitants. Yeah, it really sounds like he was trying.

You should probably consult this list again that was "taken out of context",
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 16:02:14 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!



Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god". If a big ball of fire appeared in the sky and God said to everyone "don't fight this war" and the war wasn't fought, yeah that might be a miracle.

Which brings up another thing. If god is able to appear to people and groups of people, why doesn't he? You do realize that if God appeared to me and the people around me, that'd be all he'd need to do to convince me, or any skeptic, therefore saving more of his children. But wait, he chooses to only visit the mentally insane, ah. Well that explains it. And how come these people only have visions of the god of their culture?

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 17:38:58 -

I think a lot of people are applying human characteristics and logic to God - God, in Abrahamic religions at least, is not like that.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 17:49:59 -

And I think that's a cop out.

How can you say that he knows right from wrong, that people are "evil", that he knows if people love him back and that he's supposed to love unconditionally, then when everything god does that is considered "wrong" or "immoral" is a different set of logic or non-human characteristics?

Sounds more like that people know the god of Abrahamic religions thinks and acts exactly like an bronze age barbarian (ironic since he was authored during the period), and using the "god is beyond human logic" as a convenient way to convince themselves that he does not.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
1st February, 2011 at 18:03:42 -

"God moves in mysterious ways." so it says. He isn't a man. He is literally beyond our concept. That what makes him a God and not a man. (Just being Devil's Advocate here (now there's irony)).

Just for the record, I'm not a believer in a God like that (in fact, like I've mentioned, I am not sure either way). I think organised religion is daft. Who needs to club together to believe in God?

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
1st February, 2011 at 18:12:14 -


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!



Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god".





Winning the war was the miracle, not the war itself.

God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.
God didn't want a war, that's why he allowed Israel to end it so quickly. 6 days...7th day God rested.

God made us in his image, and so as a result we have the same traits as God. We can feel jealous, we can hate, and we can love.



@Boothman: God ordained having tabernacles when he led Israel through the wilderness. They weren't clubbing together to believe in God so much as they were just obeying him. Many people believe in God that don't go to church, but that doesn't mean they're living right, helping one another is part of being a true Christan. United we stand divided we fall and all that.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
1st February, 2011 at 19:07:11 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by HorrendousGames

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself!



Really? War isn't a miracle. If god likes war and he can't find an alternative (like so many humans have), then clearly humans are better than this "god".





Winning the war was a miracle, and it was won in 6 days no less.

God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.
God didn't want a war, that's why he allowed Israel to end it so quickly.

God made us in his image, and so as a result we have the same traits as God. We can feel jealous, we can hate, and we can love.



@Boothman: God ordained having tabernacles when he led Israel through the wilderness. They weren't clubbing together to believe in God so much as they were just obeying him. Many people believe in God that don't go to church, but that doesn't mean they're living right, helping one another is part of being a true Christan. United we stand divided we fall and all that.



Humans cause war and humans end war. Only ignorance on the side who won, claims that God is the reason the other side lost. Do Christians ever think about anyone else's beliefs for anything other then 'wrong'? How do you think your enemy on the battlefield feels about God. Probably pretty similar to you. And that God is on his side, not yours.

And plenty of animals (anyone with truly beloved pets will agree too) have powerful emotions. Even something as seemingly emotionless as a lizard can show emotion if you show it enough attention and learn to understand how it communicates it's emotion. I think it's very arrogant to assume that WE are the image of God.

Does deity exist? Yes. I've seen enough and feel strongly enough to believe it does. But the Christian idea of God just feels so wrong, selfish, arrogant, and I just find it so difficult to believe. It's like walking around with blinders on. You see only what you want to look at, and ignore that everyone else has an idea too, and believes equally as strongly about theirs as you do.

There was an old story originating from India, I read in a book I got some time ago. I wont go into much detail, in fact I'll probably get some details wrong... but it goes something like this:

A number of blind men were asked to walk up to an elephant and describe what it was like and how it related to God.
One of the blind men had held onto the leg and said that the elephant was strong and supportive like a pillar, and that is why it was like God.
Another blind man held onto the tail and said that the elephant was like a rope, and that it would save him from danger, and that is why it was like God.
And another of the blind men who was holding onto the back of the elephant, said that it was like a mortar. Powerful and offensive to anyone who opposed him, and that's how it was like God.

After all of the blind men described their experience with the elephant and why it was correct, they began to fight about who was correct about why the elephant was like God. The man who introduced them to the elephant however stopped them and told them that they were all correct. Confused, he continued to explain that all of the ways they had described and so many more they couldn't even think of, were correct.


Just because you see one aspect of divinity, doesn't mean your way is the only correct way.

Again, this is entirely loose from memory, but I do think it gets the point across quite well.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Yai7

Peace & Love

Registered
  28/01/2002
Points
  97

1st February, 2011 at 19:08:54 -

Have you ever want a stab in your back? Because I don't. So I won't stab you.
Do not murder. Some people need belief as fish need bicycle, and I need war like I need an elephant in my bathroom.

 
(=

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
1st February, 2011 at 19:28:47 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Humans cause war and humans end war. Only ignorance on the side who won, claims that God is the reason the other side lost. Do Christians ever think about anyone else's beliefs for anything other then 'wrong'? How do you think your enemy on the battlefield feels about God. Probably pretty similar to you. And that God is on his side, not yours.



Agreed, the enemies certainly felt like they're their god would help them. (EDIT: spelling)


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
And plenty of animals (anyone with truly beloved pets will agree too) have powerful emotions. Even something as seemingly emotionless as a lizard can show emotion if you show it enough attention and learn to understand how it communicates it's emotion. I think it's very arrogant to assume that WE are the image of God.



I agree that animals have emotion, I just don't think that have a conscience. They don't have the ability to question why they feel emotion or question whether they exist.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Does deity exist? Yes. I've seen enough and feel strongly enough to believe it does. But the Christian idea of God just feels so wrong, selfish, arrogant, and I just find it so difficult to believe. It's like walking around with blinders on. You see only what you want to look at, and ignore that everyone else has an idea too, and believes equally as strongly about theirs as you do.



I know about most every other god there is. It's an interesting subject to me.
I see everyone else's ideas, and they think we're wrong.

Does that make them selfish too?


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
There was an old story originating from India, I read in a book I got some time ago. I wont go into much detail, in fact I'll probably get some details wrong... but it goes something like this:

...

Just because you see one aspect of divinity, doesn't mean your way is the only correct way.

Again, this is entirely loose from memory, but I do think it gets the point across quite well.



I've read that story before as well. It was one of those stories my parents used to read to me when I was young.

Yes, everyone knows God in different ways, but the following are incorrect. (And I think you will agree)

-Humans/Animals are God
-God lies
-There are multiple gods (Why would he be in parts?)

I wouldn't say you could logically agree with any of these. If you can, please explain why you think so.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
1st February, 2011 at 21:11:32 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.



Ouch...! That statement was actually painful to read.

Can you explain how establishing limits enables and/or encourages anyone to act in free choice?

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
2nd February, 2011 at 00:57:03 -

@Urbanmonk: On the grounds of asking you who you think you are for accusing any work of knowing God to be incorrect, I find it absolutely unnecessary to have to try and prove to you why those three methods are incorrect. Why does gravity pull things down? Why do out need an explaination for why we can't just live in a world. Without gravity? To most people, some things just are. Sort of like how you can believe some things are wrong and no one really knows why other than your God said.
So tell me, why is it wrong for someone to believe that God exists in an animal form or that's there are more than one God? I personally believe that God is a divine force which exist which everything and many wiccans will worship many Gods, most common being the living baring eternal Goddess and the sacrificial God and many of my traditions are based around just that. And I don't see anything wrong with believing in and worshiping both a God or Goddess or a divine energy which exists within everything.
Sorry if this message seems a little rushed but I'm typing it out on my phone and I need to head back because I'm at work right now.

But yeah, please explain to me why those three things you mentioned are not covered by the idea that everyone can see God their own way.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
2nd February, 2011 at 01:15:51 -

Sorry, double post. Word.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
2nd February, 2011 at 03:03:54 -


Originally Posted by s-m-r

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

God will only let humans go so far. It's part of the free choice that he gave us.



Ouch...! That statement was actually painful to read.

Can you explain how establishing limits enables and/or encourages anyone to act in free choice?



Free choice is neither encouraged nor discouraged, it's just something you do everyday.

This is of course "free choice" in the sense that the only choices you can make are those available to you at any given point.
If you don't have your hand on a door knob you can't turn it.

Our free choice is given to us because God wants us to chose to serve him, like W3R3W00F said earlier.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
But yeah, please explain to me why those three things you mentioned are not covered by the idea that everyone can see God their own way.



Well mostly for the reasons HorrendousGames gave in his post quoting Epicurus.

I'm not saying that those things aren't god's to some people, because in all honesty anyone can make whatever they want be their "god."
We're in agreement there, as we've already established.

I'm talking about that "...unlimitedly[sic] powerful God that supposedly loves us..."

If you want to trace everything back to a *first* beginning, it can only be 1..., not 3, not 100.
To say that your God lies is silly since everything that a perfect God says then becomes truth.

If you think that a human or an animal can be god then we're talking about two different things.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
2nd February, 2011 at 04:15:40 -

Anything that anyone believes is God, is God to them and if it truly does work for them, and as I said, assuming they are not harming you, then you have no right to say they're wrong. Because to them, you are wrong, and you can't say you'd be too keen to accept someone telling you that you were wrong too.

If your idea of deity is capable of lying, then it is capable of lying.
If your idea of deity is split into many, then it is split into many.
If your idea of deity is in animal form such as totems, it is still a form of deity, just in the form of an animal.

And really, I think that's a better word for it. Because when I say God, I feel like I'm kind of talking about the Christian God, and that's not the case here. I'm really talking about deity in general. So if that's cause for any confusion on my part, I apologize.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Otter

Rating

Registered
  29/06/2008
Points
  589

Wii OwnerIt's-a me, Mario!Mushroom
2nd February, 2011 at 05:33:24 -

I have always beleive in God. Even if I didn't, I would still beleive in a higher power. I don't beleive in coincidences or such, I beleive that something or specifically someone plans out our lifes. I beleive in mild-predestination, I beleive we have choices that we can take to lead us down certain paths.

But despite my relentless beleif in God, I still beleive in science and the theory of evolution. I beleive that the bible is written in a highly coded language during several of the books such as Genesis, and of course the highly debate book of revelation. I think that God would have sent down the cells that evolved into monkeys and eventually us. When the bible speaks of creation in Genisis, it speaks in days. Which may seem absurd, but what is a day to God? Time means nothing to God because he is timeless.

Don't think the bible supports evolution? Look at this little summary from the top of my head!=
God is said to have covered the earth in water during the beginning and then created the creatures of the sea. Next he made the land and creeping creatures of the sea. And then he made man.

Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
2nd February, 2011 at 06:21:21 -

Now see, Wiiman seems to be looking at the bible in an excellent way. He's taking it a lot less literal and seeing more meaning behind it instead of using it like a history book.
Thank you Wiiman, excellent input.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
2nd February, 2011 at 07:11:29 -

A problem arises in religion when you always have to be right, like most religions proclaim. While the search for the meaning of life should be a personal question, there is constant bombardment from every point of view that claims they are right. I know personally that I do not go out of my way to try to convince people other wise, but if the situation arises I will voice my opinion, which I'm sure (or at least hope) most of everyone involved in this thread does the same. I find it highly insulting when someone preaches to me how bad of a sinner I am and how I'm going to hell. I've mostly received this from Christians and Muslims. I've never been evangelized by Buddhists or Jews... and it's a shame Wicca gets such a bad rap because it's really quite harmless (well, except to Mainstream Christianity, but then again, most fundamentalists hate everyone except their own).

You can't argue that organized religion is for nothing more than money. In terms of Christianity, Jesus himself preached against wealth, yet most churches in America are huge, expensive, and guess what? They pay no taxes. It's kind of insulting to go into a rundown neighborhood and see dilapidated buildings all around while the church stands tall and gorgeous, and is still asking for more money from it's followers. Sure there are plenty of charities, but with how much goes in and how much goes out, it's depressing. Occasionally, I will attend the local church on a mission, the last one I went with was to Gulfport, Mississippi and New Orleans to help rebuild houses, mow lawns and remove damaged problematic trees. Each time I've gone on a mission, I've always had to pay my way, as with every other people attending the mission, I wouldn't be surprised if most churches functioned the same way. On top of that, most of the times I've gone, I've had to deal with ignorant elitist teenagers that think only the fact that they are going means they're doing these people a favor, when it came down to doing actual work it was like trying to organize a pack of wild retarded chickens. It's not a damn vacation, you're here to help, and telling homeless black people about your damn ipod doesn't. Doing missions should be left to people that actually care, not someone trying to get brownie points for their college (which ironically, most colleges and jobs don't care about church missions, especially for that fact).

Point is, organized religion is pointless, and all is is one more institution trying to extort money from people. I have NO problem with religion itself, but the aspect of control, extortion, evangelism and manipulating public agenda just has to go.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
2nd February, 2011 at 12:56:16 -

I just wanted to post this little link here, to aid those who have beef with Fundamentalist Christians:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Looks like the Catholic Church has a beef with them too.

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
2nd February, 2011 at 15:50:28 -

urbanmonk:

"America has all the best war equipment in the world, now tell me how many wars they've fought (and won) in 6 days? "
The US never attacked one of their neighbors for relatively tiny pieces of land, but if they did I'm pretty sure they would take less than 6 days.

"Proverbs 14:34
"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin [is] a reproach to any people."

Christans wouldn't be each others enemies. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

There are hundred more wars, and you could even include civil wars in christian countries.
In addition, allah and god is the same thing yet islamic and christian countries never got along well.
The crusades would be a good example, both believed in the same god but in the end the christians lost the war so perhaps they can claim their victory was a miracle too ?

"If these nations would have repented they would be spared, Nineveh was spared.
Sodom was given a chance but they refused, Lot told them over and over, but they mocked him. "

This shows exactly how ridiculous some supposedly "god interventions" can be and how human god is described in the bible. They mocked him, they got destroyed. Personally if I was god I wouldn't destroy and entire city even if the entire population gathered to mock and insult me in unison, yet god did it. Does it make me more benevolent than him ? It sure looks like it, specially considering every person in that city is supposedly his "son".

"Israel is so small compared to the rest of those countries that attacked them, and yet they destroyed the entire Egyptian army.

You can deny the miracles if you want, but you can't deny the fact that winning such a impossible war isn't a miracle itself! "

What miracle ? It was no impossible war, not even close. Israel can be a small country but they are definitely not weak militarily. They are actually vastly more powerful than any of the other countries involved in the 6 day war, which in addition to the US and england's financial help it's hard not to think of any other winner other than israel.
And no they didn't destroy the entire egyptian army, I'm pretty sure of that.

"Free choice is neither encouraged nor discouraged, it's just something you do everyday. "
"Our free choice is given to us because God wants us to chose to serve him, like W3R3W00F said earlier. "

How can you say that when the bible basically says we will burn forever in hell if we don't honor god ? Not only free choice is discouraged, it comes with a pretty heavy punishment. For god there is no such thing as "free choice", you either believe or you go to hell. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous threat actually.

"Don't think the bible supports evolution? Look at this little summary from the top of my head!=
God is said to have covered the earth in water during the beginning and then created the creatures of the sea. Next he made the land and creeping creatures of the sea. And then he made man.

Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me. "

The bible's definition of the creation of earth is exactly the same definition anyone would have at the time the genesis was written, it's plain obvious in some parts and simply wrong in others. We know life without water is impossible, we know we are not the first creatures on earth, and the creatures of the sea weren't the first living creatures on earth. Some slightly more complicated concepts that didn't exist at that time such as micro-organisms for example don't make an appearance in the bible. Coincidence ? I think not.


 
n/a

~Matt Esch~

Stone Goose

Registered
  30/12/2006
Points
  870

VIP Member
2nd February, 2011 at 15:50:53 -

I actually have some respect for the pagan beliefs because I can see where they are derived from. An appreciation of natural cycles classified by some deity need not be believed as a matter of fact but as a symbolism for the natural processes we rely on to exist, and to give thanks for the equilibrium we exist in.

The god of most other religions appears to be a blip in the self awareness of humanity. You can't deny the attribution of human characteristics. I always feel that the argument about these gods is too far ahead of itself. Start from the bottom and work up to the question. Observe the universe and tell me where the question of such a god comes from. It is mans disbelief of the creation of something from nothing, and the belief that "nothing" exists. There are people who will redefine what the word god means to sound slightly more logical, but I don't see any reason to do that. The universe is made out of some stuff, why call that god? I wouldn't group the two together.

In most conversations I have had with christians, the defence of their religion is often inspired by on-the-spot reasoning. May I remind you that your religion is handed down to you from the teachings and morals as depicted in a holy text, and for every word you say there ought to be a quote for your defence. Allowing yourself to be more malleable than that is clear evidence to my eyes that strong belief fuels a powerful desire to defend the group you attribute yourself to. The bible is the only place where you can discover any notion of the behaviour of the god of the christian religion, so to go beyond that would be inventing it as you go along. You can redefine the nature of god and document it, and that is somehow evidence.

Allow me to make an argument, change the wikipedia page and then reference you to it. It must be right, wikipedia says so.

Not all religions can be right. I would invite a christian, say, to argue why Islam is not the true religion. I suspect the points raised would be like putting him in an argument against himself.

 
http://create-games.com/project.asp?id=1875 Image


UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
3rd February, 2011 at 00:02:36 -

Wow, alot of stuff to comment on!!


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
And really, I think that's a better word for it. Because when I say God, I feel like I'm kind of talking about the Christian God, and that's not the case here. I'm really talking about deity in general. So if that's cause for any confusion on my part, I apologize.



Ok, yeah, we're talking about two different things.


Originally Posted by Wiiman
I beleive that the bible is written in a highly coded language during several of the books such as Genesis, and of course the highly debate book of revelation.



Ever heard of "The Bible Code?"

The Original Hebrew text lacked spaces, if you skip letters at certain intervals you can create new sentences. (Only in the Hebrew version)


Originally Posted by Wiiman
Sounds like evolution to me! Science says that the Earth started as a great mass of water. Then the creatures evolved to live on the land. And evolution the creeping creatures, including monkeys and such, evolved into hominids and man kind! Sounds like a pretty close fit to me.



Day 1- God create light and darkness (The creation of physics, or all the energy required for the universe)
Day 2- God separates the water from the atmosphere (Water canopy theory, pre-flood earth conditions, (it never rained yet remember?) )
Day 3- God separated the water from the land, and created vegetation
Day 4- Sun, Moon, Stars, Days and Nights
Day 5- Living creatures of the sea and air, blessed them to multiply
Day 6- God Created the Animals to fill the earth (land) and he created man and woman and blessed them to fill the earth, dominion over the animals.
Day 7- Rest.

So let's think about this, if a day isn't 24 hours and the things evolved over thousands of years instead...

How did the plants survive not having sun light for thousands of years?
At what point did the human soul evolve?
God made humans out of dirt according to the Genesis account. How does this tie in with evolution?

I agree that true science and the Bible are in agreement, but macro-evolution has never been observed
, unlike gravity.


Originally Posted by HorrendousGames
A problem arises in religion when you always have to be right



To me, it's not about being right. Its the fact that I actually believe it.

If you believe that your car will start when you turn the key, then you'll act on it.

Same with me.

I agree, there are lots of churches that are just in it for the money. Most of the mega churches just tell people what they want to hear so they'll get a bigger congregation.
It's a racket.


Originally Posted by s-m-r
I just wanted to post this little link here, to aid those who have beef with Fundamentalist Christians:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Looks like the Catholic Church has a beef with them too.



(I removed this comment, I might PM it to you later)


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
There are hundred more wars, and you could even include civil wars in christian countries.
In addition, allah and god is the same thing yet islamic and christian countries never got along well.
The crusades would be a good example, both believed in the same god but in the end the christians lost the war so perhaps they can claim their victory was a miracle too ?



"Allah" means "god," but it is certainly not the same god. Please refer back to my first post.

The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
How can you say that when the bible basically says we will burn forever in hell if we don't honor god ? Not only free choice is discouraged, it comes with a pretty heavy punishment. For god there is no such thing as "free choice", you either believe or you go to hell. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous threat actually.



That's assuming that "free choice" means not following God, which is not it's definition.

"Free choice" means you can chose to server God, or you can chose not to.
Repercussions for your actions are a given, whether you believe in God or not.


Originally Posted by ~Matt Esch~
Not all religions can be right. I would invite a christian, say, to argue why Islam is not the true religion. I suspect the points raised would be like putting him in an argument against himself.



I have debated one of my Muslim friends.
The Qur'an has so many references to the Bible it's not even funny. They ever talk about Jesus.

The biggest difference is that deception is encouraged in the Muslim faith, while Christians are taught that it is a sin.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
3rd February, 2011 at 00:55:26 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
but macro-evolution has never been observed



Yeah it has, do some research. The only people that claim it has never been observed are religious types, and usually they seem to think macro evolution equates to "evolution that cannot be observed". Macro Evolution has been observed in many plant and insect species, as well as the fossil record. Simply denying the data does not mean that it doesn't exist. Unlike 'miracles', which equate to a "you should've been there" story, scientific data has to be reproducible so that someone else can test the idea and get the same results, and that stays there until it is proven false.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.



There are so many different sects within Christianity that it's disgusting. So much time wasted bickering amongst each other over the meanings of a book. Obviously, they were Christians, just not your kind of Christian.

Who's to say that the bible itself wasn't written by crazy people that thought someone was talking to them? Obviously, people can't get away with that nowadays, but back before modern science, people used to believe almost anything.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
That's assuming that "free choice" means not following God, which is not it's definition.

"Free choice" means you can chose to server God, or you can chose not to.
Repercussions for your actions are a given, whether you believe in God or not.



Actually, "Free Choice" kind of means you are able to make your own decisions, it's not a duality. That's like saying "if you're not a republican, you're a democrat" or more generally "if you aren't with us, you're against us". If anything, "Free Choice" is more about choosing your own path through life, not necessarily about one single belief.

With that said, doesn't you're religion prescribe to a "divine" plan? How are we allowed to choose anything if life has already been preplanned for us? And since that's on the table, what is the point of hell? If God has already planned what we are doing, why should we be punished for what he planned for us to do? And if he has a "divine" plan, couldn't he just plan for us to not have such painful lives or does he just love watching us get punished? I bet he was a big fan of the Colosseum.

It's great that God destroyed the hell out of so many cities in biblical times, but isn't it ironic that you don't see this happen in the modern world? Don't you find it a bit odd that when modern science was developed, the amount of miraculous claims dwindled to near nothing, and those that have been claimed we're either proven fraudulent or is just the nonsensical ramblings of a madman?


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
The Qur'an has so many references to the Bible it's not even funny. They ever talk about Jesus.



LOL, like the Christian Bible has so many similarities to most of the religions that came before it? Same story, different characters, it's called plagiarism.

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Sumo148

Super amazing fantastic user

Registered
  26/01/2009
Points
  530

360 OwnerThe Cake is a LieVIP MemberPokemon Ball!I am an April FoolI donated an open source projectSanta Hat
3rd February, 2011 at 02:45:06 -

anyone see this video? They're the most hated family in america...



 
n/a

Muz



Registered
  14/02/2002
Points
  6499

VIP MemberI'm on a BoatI am an April FoolHonored Admin Alumnus
3rd February, 2011 at 10:12:14 -

I do believe in a higher power.

But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).

I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.

I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.

 
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
3rd February, 2011 at 12:41:27 -

No, free choice means free choice. God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't. If you don't he sends you to hell. You are therefore forced to believe and serve a god you can't see, can't feel, can't hear and can't touch, who is both sordid and revengeful and never did anything practical for you.

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
3rd February, 2011 at 12:44:09 -

Muz: I'd respond and say that religion is not necessary for moral behaviour. There have been several books written regarding the subject of 'ethics.' Some of the more common ethical tenets include:

Do no harm.
Make things better.
Respect others.
Be fair.
Be loving.

These need no religion to be justified. In fact, one of the foremost minds on ethics indicates repeatedly and throughout his works and public appearances that there is not some religious impetus for ethics, and that even those with a self-centered mindset could adopt ethics and live effectively ascribing to them even if motivated by their own self interest. Let me also say that he does not deny the presence of ethical tenets as part of various and sundry religions, throughout the world, history, and world history.

I'm not going to go so far as to say "religion co-opted ethics," because I'm not certain which came first; maybe someone else did research on that and found conclusive evidence one way or another. There are striking coincidences and overlaps, to be certain. But regardless of its originator, the outcome can be considered the same: religion does not require ethics, and vice versa.

Bruce Weinstein, nicknamed "The Ethics Guy," has published an excellent primer of ethics in his book Life Principles: Feeling Good By Doing Good. Here's a link for more info, should anyone be interested:

http://theethicsguy.com

I personally find ethics fascinating, and additionally it appeals to my more philosophical - as opposed to religious - tendencies.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
3rd February, 2011 at 19:42:46 -

@HorrendousGames-
I don't personally believe evolution, all the "evidence" can be taken one way or another way. It depends on how you look at it. None of the "evidence" is surefire proof, and there are hundreds of scientists with different opinions on the matter.

If you want to believe in evolution that fine, but whether it's real or not certainly doesn't disprove God by any stretch. Which is why I feel like this particular argument is a waste of time.


I'll just be repeating myself for the rest of your comments, and you can't back any of them up anyway.


@Johnny Look-
Sure, that's what it means. You make choices in your everyday life that bring you either closer to God or farther away.

You're not forced to do anything, you can live however you want obviously.


@s-m-r-
Maybe the reason morals were given to us by God was for the very reasons ethics were created.

Many of the laws given to the Israelites were there to protect them, even if they may not have understood them completely at the time.

Rules were given regarding sickness and how to tell if someone had leprosy, ect.

These weren't given to just have rules, they were given to protect the people, and most was just common sense.

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
3rd February, 2011 at 20:30:13 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
I don't personally believe evolution, all the "evidence" can be taken one way or another way. It depends on how you look at it. None of the "evidence" is surefire proof, and there are hundreds of scientists with different opinions on the matter.


No, it's pretty much a landslide consensus, the only people that say otherwise aren't even biologists...


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
If you want to believe in evolution that fine, but whether it's real or not certainly doesn't disprove God by any stretch. Which is why I feel like this particular argument is a waste of time.



Thank you! Just as disproving Evolution does not prove God exists. The only thing that conflicts with creationism is Abiogenesis, something that most of the creationist propagandists lump into evolution.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
I'll just be repeating myself for the rest of your comments, and you can't back any of them up anyway.



Actually, I have been... if you've not been paying attention.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Maybe the reason morals were given to us by God was for the very reasons ethics were created.
Many of the laws given to the Israelites were there to protect them, even if they may not have understood them completely at the time.
Rules were given regarding sickness and how to tell if someone had leprosy, ect.
These weren't given to just have rules, they were given to protect the people, and most was just common sense.



God never gave ANY morals. Unless you believe that morals are whatever God agrees with, in which case that isn't morality, it is obedience to authority. If God commanded for you to kill someone (which is prominent throughout the bible), would you do it? Even if that person clearly did nothing wrong? What if it were your own child? I'm not asking if he 'would' do it, I'm saying if he did, would you?

What about those rules in the bible to kill entire villages because one family living in the village were pagans or non-believers? Who was that rule supposed to protect?

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
3rd February, 2011 at 20:34:00 -

@ Urban Monk: that's a pretty big maybe.

[my own rant about this multi-page argument removed]

You all win. I abdicate from this thread. Internet fail. Etc. Whatever. Have fun.

 
n/a

Ricky

loves Left For Dead 2

Registered
  28/12/2006
Points
  4175

Has Donated, Thank You!Game of the Week WinnerVIP MemberWii OwnerHero of TimeGOTM Winner! - November 2009I am an April Fool
3rd February, 2011 at 23:00:39 -

Morality, God, and Science are all very different topics. So why do I always seem them together in the same debate

 
-

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 01:20:23 -


Originally Posted by Muz
I do believe in a higher power.

But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).

I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.

I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.



I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
4th February, 2011 at 05:03:05 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE

Originally Posted by Muz
I do believe in a higher power.

But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).

I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.

I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.



I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.



What? lol.

That's the complete opposite of pagan.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 07:32:13 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE

Originally Posted by Muz
I do believe in a higher power.

But I'm highly skeptical of most religions. Personally, I see a religion as a source of moral values to stick to. I choose a religion where morality is based on motivations rather than actions, one where humanity's role is to learn about the world and protect it from harm, one where usury and gambling are evils (something where you make money without contributing is evil in my book).

I don't see science and religion conflicting, though. If any religion says something that's confidently disproven by science, it's obviously false, and I'll cross it off my list. If any science claims a theory that's difficult or impossible to prove, like what many religions claim, then it becomes a matter of faith.

I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.



I completely and entirely agree. You seem to be describing a very pagan view of the world and religion. Interesting. I wonder how many more people think this way. And I use pagan as more of an umbrella term, under which wicca and many other faiths fall under.



What? lol.

That's the complete opposite of pagan.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan



By YOUR definition, which just happens to be a marked "official" definition. However the definition of paganism is extremely context based. After the bible started referring to a very specific type of religion as pagans, those people began to refer to themselves as pagans. It eventually evolved to become more of an umbrella term which encompasses a wide variety of these interconnected faiths. We essentially took the name you gave us, intentionally a "bad" word, and turned it into something much better.

I'm not entirely surprised a Christian came up and tried to correct me on that though. Most others would've understood what I meant. No offense.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism1.htm

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Yami



Registered
  23/12/2003
Points
  608
4th February, 2011 at 10:29:59 -

Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."



 
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
4th February, 2011 at 15:48:25 -

@Yami-


@silverfire-
Even that definition doesn't cover what he said.

Muz's statements agree with how I feel as well, and it makes perfect sense.
It's the same sentiments my father felt when he was searching for the truth.

My father used to be an atheist, and so was his father.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 18:18:28 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
@Yami-


@silverfire-
Even that definition doesn't cover what he said.

Muz's statements agree with how I feel as well, and it makes perfect sense.
It's the same sentiments my father felt when he was searching for the truth.

My father used to be an atheist, and so was his father.



Okay, do some more research outside of Christianity, make connections, and learn more about things like more modern takes on things such as paganism, because I'm not going to pull open and quote a whole section of a book which describes how what he said can easily fall under the umbrella of pagan theology. I gave you a short description and a link I found which disproves what you were trying to prove. You need to do some homework too, if you're going to try to discuss this kind of stuff.

I do not believe any particular religion can classify anyone as stupid, but when you don't acknowledge or open your mind to other possibilities, you do come across as stupid or ignorant. With all do respect, this is not a personal attack, but merely a heads up. Please look beyond your bible and at many other non-Christian sources before you laugh and tell other people they're wrong. I knew what I was saying when I said it.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
4th February, 2011 at 20:56:42 -

You have no clue how much I know.
Like I said ealier, I've heard just about everything.

However I've never heard anyone use pagan incorrectly until now.

I've said all there is to say at this point anyhow.
I love you all!

EDIT: don't hate me Brandon..still friends right?

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
4th February, 2011 at 21:24:59 -

There's a difference between saying that you know a lot and have heard everything, and demonstrating that knowledge is available to you. Usually those sentences are coupled with "no one can convince me otherwise". You have, in the course of these 9 pages, used certain misconceptions as fact, which inclines me to agree with Silverfire, although I wouldn't put it as harshly as he did, I would say something more along the lines of that you claim to know more about the subject than you actually do, which saying that won't actually get you anywhere anyways, it's almost like saying "I'm smarter than you, so take my word for it". But it's not your fault, I used to say the same thing when I was a Christian, despite not actually knowing a lot. Often in Christianity, pastors are given a lot of trust, and usually in that position, they'll offer quick distorted views of other religions. Take for instance, Kent Hovind likes to run around and claim that he knows all about evolution because he's a doctor and had been teaching science for 10 years. Go figure his doctorate is in Christian Education and he taught for 10 years at a school he started. That's like those infomercials that sell diet pills and the doctor that endorses it is a chiropractor. When people like this choose to spread their message through indoctrination, it's really tough to shake their propaganda as it's been drilled into your head for so long that it is "the truth".

And we love you too!

 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
4th February, 2011 at 22:17:10 -

Yes Horrendous whatever you say.

*pats head*

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 23:07:22 -

Silverfire was most certainly in his right to use "pagan" as an umbrella term, firstly since he told everyone that he was using it in that way. Secondly, since a whooole lot of people all over the world loosely credit various forms of faith revolving around the same principal ideas as "pagan" (I specifically mean when talking about forms of faith reminiscent of the form Muz posted).

In academic quarters it should have been "neo-pagan", but by glancing at the replies I guess he's off the hook there.

There is no need to steer this thread down into the realm of fire(pun intended).

I pity the FOO who will pat people without washing his hands properly!

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 23:14:12 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
You have no clue how much I know.
Like I said ealier, I've heard just about everything.

However I've never heard anyone use pagan incorrectly until now.

I've said all there is to say at this point anyhow.
I love you all!

EDIT: don't hate me Brandon..still friends right?



Absolutely, Urban. We're all having a very mature and frankly, fun discussion here. I'm in no position to hold anything you say in here, against you. You've never given me a reason to be upset with you.

I say we continue the discussion. We've gotten this far without a flame war or fighting and on this site, that's pretty impressive.

PS: Yeah, neo-pagan would've probably been a better term. I just haven't done too much research in how the prefix effects the word and was a little nervous to attach it without knowing exactly what it meant or how it could've been perceived. The first thing I think of when I hear neo-[faith here] is the neo-nazi's and ignorant as it may seem on my part, that scared me away from using it because I don't know how many other people might misunderstand me as I did when I first heard it.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
4th February, 2011 at 23:38:46 -

You don't have to explain why you didn't, and as I said, it's only viable for opposition in academic quarters, we're on the internet in a standard discussion. Better to use words/pre-/suffixes that you're sure of than those you aren't.

I too, by the by, fit into the umbrella(strange sentence when put out of context!). Though with a slightly more "religious" view/feel/[insert whatever] touch, quite hard to explain, but I don't feel contradictory being passionate about "The God of Abraham" and the "Goddess" at the same time. For me they are both shards, visions in the mist, of the same origin.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 14:43:40 -


Originally Posted by Yami
Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."




What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself. Unless you sagree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?

Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 14:47:05 -


Originally Posted by Yami
Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."




What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself.
Unless you agree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 14:54:57 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Yes Horrendous whatever you say.

*pats head*



What's wrong with what he said ? That's this sort of attitude that destroys serious discussions, you just read his post and then tried to make it look so dumb that it's not even worth replying, when we all know the reason is you simply don't have any arguments against what he said.

Also, until now you weren't able to reply a single one of my questions.


EDIT: I didn't see this post.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

"Allah" means "god," but it is certainly not the same god. Please refer back to my first post.

The crusades were not done by true Christians.
That's like those crazy people that kill someone and say that god told them to.



It's not ? Islam and christianity are both called abrahamic religions for a reason, they have the same origins. The abraham episode is in both the bible and quran and told exactly the same way.

Also, why do you say the crusaders weren't real christians ?
It seems to me that, had they won the war, you'd probably call that a miracle, but since they failed it's all very convenient that you brand them as "crazy people".




Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
5th February, 2011 at 18:18:21 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look

Originally Posted by Yami
Johnny Look - "God doesn't give you any free choice. You either serve or you don't."




What didn't you understand ?
God doesn't give you a free choice, serving or not is a choice you are giving to yourself.
Unless you agree that saying "you either serve me or go to hell and burn forever" sounds like someone's giving you a free choice ?



I think this is just a misunderstanding, your wording kind of made it easy to take out of context. I think you meant to say something along the lines of "God doesn't give you any free choice. According to him, you either serve or you don't."

I got a laugh out of it, though.


 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 18:22:31 -

I think the problem is he only took the first two sentences, without the rest of the post it's hard to understand what I meant.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 20:09:20 -

It doesn't matter.
With or without the rest it still doesn't make any sense.

There has always been consequences for your actions whether you believe in God or not.


Islam and Christianity are called Abrahamic because Arab's and Jew's are both decedents of Abraham, not because their religions have the same origin.

It's very obvious if you read the Qu'ran that it isn't talking about the God of the Bible.


Christian means "Christ-like" although the definition has changed over the years.
Would you assume that the crusaders were "Chirst-like?"

I prefer the term Apostolic since it covers the movement that was started by the Apostles after Jesus left this earth.

But yes, it's very convenient that people who do wrong like to pin the blame on God.

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 20:53:01 -

If it doesn't make sense to you, I'll rephrapse.
If you're being robbed and the robber tells you "If you scream, I kill you" is he giving you a free choice ?
If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice ?

If this still doesn't make sense for you then it's not a matter of me not making sense, but of you not wanting to understand.

"Islam and Christianity are called Abrahamic because Arab's and Jew's are both decedents of Abraham, not because their religions have the same origin.

It's very obvious if you read the Qu'ran that it isn't talking about the God of the Bible. "

What ? No offense, but you don't seem to have a clue on what you are talking about or you simply can't accept the truth.
Both religions came from judaism, christ himself was seen as a jew in the bible. Christianity began a sect of Judaism. The abrahamic religions are called this way because they all started with abraham and his supposed message from god, not because "arabs and jews are his descendents".
Islam, judaism and christianity are different branches from the same religion either you want to believe or not.
Judaism started it all, Islam preached Mohammed's teachings and Christianity preached christ and his disciples's teachings and that's how these branches divided into the religions we still know today.
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, all these characters are present throughout all three sacred books, and all of them, supposedly contact with the same god.

"Christian means "Christ-like" although the definition has changed over the years.
Would you assume that the crusaders were "Chirst-like?" "
Why wouldn't they be christ-like ? From what I know, they aren't any different than most christians of today.

"But yes, it's very convenient that people who do wrong like to pin the blame on God. "
What point you are trying to make ? If that's about the crusades you're talking about, they were done in the name of god BEFORE they knew they were going to lose. I thought this was obvious.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 21:28:15 -

Ok, I get what you're saying.
You still have a choice in that circumstance though. You could still scream, or not, or try to run, or whatever.

You feel like discouraging certain actions == no choice.

I don't feel that way though.

You make whatever choices you want everyday, and I believe that God allows us to.
Not everyone seems to be much afraid of the consequence for their actions these days though.



I know what I'm talking about, geez.

Go look back at my first post on this thread...I mentioned it in the first post because I knew someone would bring it up.
I've heard all this before.

Muslims have some of the stories from the Bible, but they have some slight differences.
In the story of Abraham, Ishmael was the chosen son and not Issac. (contradiction)
UPDATE: I'm not one to use wikipedia, but I can varify that this information is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael

"Ishmael is a biblical person first mentioned in the Book of Genesis and later referenced in the Qur'an."

Judas died on the Cross and not Jesus. (Contradicts many historical documents, not just the Bible)

and some other silly ones...not to mention deception and murder are some of the key components of Islam.
Christ taught forgiveness and truth. (Don't bring up God's destruction of the evil cities again, they could've had forgiveness if they wanted it, this has already been established earlier in the thread. )

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 22:20:47 -

When someone says "free choice" it usually means feeling free to chose something. In this case, god strongly discourages not honoring him so he's not giving you a free choice.
I know what you mean, but I strongly disagree. I make my own choices simply because I can, not because "god allows me to".

As for god/allah not being the same... they are, the difference is they are both described differently in both books, the same can be said for some of those passages. If some of what's in the quran can be proven as false, the same can be said for a lot of what's in the bible put people still manage to find subliminal messages or meanings of all sorts.

Not being muslim and understanding their culture and principles, it's probably hard for you to read the quran and say you understand islam perfectly. From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.
The difference is how the quran is interpreted. You have all sort of islamic sects, some will tell you that dieing for the islam will grant you heaven while some will tell that you'll go straight to hell for doing such a crime in the name of allah for example. Christianity is no different in any aspect from islamism. Islamism is no more correct or wrong than christianity.

Also you keep avoiding my questions, you still haven't answered me why crusaders are not christ-like (not to mention the hundred other questions I asked you but got no reply).

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
5th February, 2011 at 22:29:27 -

I'm quite sure he means "resembling Jesus Christ in actions and spirit", or something close to that.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 22:34:08 -

If that's the case then very few to none christians are actually "christ-like".

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 22:48:51 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
If that's the case then very few to none christians are actually "christ-like".



Yeah, I know, I wish they'd stop calling themselves Christians when they aren't.
So if it was that easy for you to see, then you should be able to tell when a real one comes along.


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.



Of course they'd tell you that! Their Qu'ran teaches them to lie if it furthers Islam.

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran5.html

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
5th February, 2011 at 22:52:17 -

That's true. But the strive is encouraged, that should be appreciated. Though it ultimately boils down to your own personal interpretation of what that means('resembling Jesus Christ in actions and spirit' that is).

Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 22:55:12 -

Yes, striving to be Christ-like.


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.



So to say that they are the same is wrong then.
It's not a different interpretation, they're are total opposites.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
5th February, 2011 at 23:06:11 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Yes, striving to be Christ-like.


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Also, J-Look is right about the Abrahamic religions. They are all focused on the same God, though their inert interpretation of God and what God want's us to do differ. There is no arguing about that, simple facts.



So to say that they are the same is wrong then.
It's not a different interpretation, they're are total opposites.



That does not make them two, separate Gods. It's the same God, the only God. The problem lies in humanbeings' interpretation.

EXAMPLE:

Person A: I'm in the mood for some lovin'!

Person B hurries to the bedroom, person C starts writing a love poem.

Conclusion: They interpreted person A differently. However, person A is still just one person.


It's a stupid example, yet highly enlightning.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

HorrendousGames

Sourpuss

Registered
  31/10/2009
Points
  481

VIP MemberEvil klikerGame Of The Week Winner
5th February, 2011 at 23:11:10 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]

Conclusion: They interpreted person A differently. However, person A is still just one person.





 
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/That-Really-Hot-Chick/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d80258550942

http://www.create-games.com/project.asp?view=main&id=2160

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 23:11:40 -

A better example would be this.

Person A: Hey Person B, I love chicken.

Person B: yay!

Person C: hey person B, Person A hates chicken.

Person B: What? no he doesn't, you're obviously talking about someone else.

Person C: nah, you're just interpreting him differently.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
5th February, 2011 at 23:18:26 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
A better example would be this.

Person A: Hey Person B, I love chicken.

Person B: yay!

Person C: hey person B, Person A hates chicken.

Person B: What? no he doesn't, you're obviously talking about someone else.

Person C: nah, you're just interpreting him differently.



Well, no.

A better way to put your example would be;

Person A: Hey Person B, I love chicken.

Person B: yay!

Person C: hey person B, we should serve Person A chicken.

Person B: What? no, Person A loves chicken!

Person C: Exactly! So let's give Person A what he wants!

Person B: No! He loves chicken, so we should cherish and take care of chickens, not eat them silly..

Person C: nah, you're just interpreting him differently.


That's a better take on it.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
5th February, 2011 at 23:20:33 -

So how would you equate that to be deceitful vs. telling the truth?

God: thou shalt not lie

Allah: Lie



 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
5th February, 2011 at 23:25:20 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
So how would you equate that to be deceitful vs. telling the truth?

God: thou shalt not lie

Allah: Lie




I have no responsability to try and justify differing imageries of God. I haven't read the entire the entire Qu'ran, or lived in Islam since year 600~. It's just the way it is, all three religions are striving towards the same God.

Edited by Eternal Man [EE]

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 23:28:37 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by Johnny Look
If that's the case then very few to none christians are actually "christ-like".



Yeah, I know, I wish they'd stop calling themselves Christians when they aren't.
So if it was that easy for you to see, then you should be able to tell when a real one comes along.


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
From what I understood from some of my muslim friends, the islam is the exact opposite of what you said. They advocate truth, peace and forgiveness, not the opposite.



Of course they'd tell you that! Their Qu'ran teaches them to lie if it furthers Islam.

http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran5.html

You know how ridiculous what you are saying is ? So all muslims like to be lied at, murdered etc.. ? Is that what islam is all about ? They are the bad guies while christians are the good ones ? See, that's exactly why both can't get along, muslims see christians exactly the same way.
I'll say it once again, you can't believe in what you read in the quran, take it word by word and think you know all about it. It's actually much more subjective than the bible. You can't also believe in everything you read in the internet, specially when it's written by people with less-than-clear intentions.

If you think about it for a second, my muslim friends would have little gain by trying to convince me of their religion by lying, once I'd found out it's completely different from what they told me, I'd give up on it and they would lose my trust. Makes no sense at all, it's just...dumb.



 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
5th February, 2011 at 23:30:37 -

By the way, urbanmonk what does make crusaders less christ-like than you for example ?

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
6th February, 2011 at 03:34:55 -

Everyone percieves and worships the same divine entity no matter how they perceive it. Even polytheistic Gods are all many names for a single divine entity. Christians seem to have an incredibly hard time grasping this concept.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
6th February, 2011 at 05:23:48 -

Sorry, my phone has a bad habit of double posting when I minimize the browser and come back to it later. Haha.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
6th February, 2011 at 11:37:33 -

Just a side-note on the Crusades - they were first and foremost a financial campaign, under the guise of a religious conflict (the religious angle was included to get support for them from Christian Europe). So to talk about them in a purely religious context is a bit misleading. It was a bit like going to war with Iraq under the guise of "a war on terror", which itself has religious overtones, rather than the simple grab power and resources it is.

As regards that hyperlink, the stuff about Muslim lying, I turned off after the sentence, "All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work" - because I know from experience that this isn't the case. From what I gather, al-taqiyya is a concealing of your true faith under extreme duress, like under the threat of torture or persecution, not just 'lying'. I would expect better from you UrbanMonk.

It's true that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all interlinked (monotheistic, same prophets, same events, very similar laws). I'm sure the differences between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and say, for instance, Mormonism, can be as large as the differences between Shia Islam and Roman Catholicism (in some respects). Baha'i is another Abrahamic faith which recognises Judaism, Christianity and Islam but considers those corrupted - look it up. What Islam was to Christianity, Baha'i is to Islam.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
6th February, 2011 at 17:09:01 -

That's not true, the crusades were mainly religious wars, but there was of course some financial gain to be had, just like in any other war. Seeing how much money was lost in that war it's hard to think of it as a financial campaign, at least not the in the sort that the so called War on terror was. There were indeed some extra "motivators" to engage such wars, like glory and money but all this is beside the point.

When I say crusaders I'm not referring to the popes and kings who ordered the crusades while seating in their comfy thrones, I'm talking about those who fought and gave their lives in the name of christianity. They didn't risk their lives for financial gain, they did it because they were devout christians and believed god would help them conquer the jerusalem, the "holy land". The muslims won and they attributed the victory to allah's protection. If it was the other way around christians would claim it was god and I highly doubt urbanmonk would say they were not "christ-like".
They were no less christ-like than the israeli soldiers who won the 6 days war, of that I'm pretty sure.



 
n/a

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
6th February, 2011 at 18:26:30 -

Well we'll agree to disagree here. There's some good stuff knocking around on t'internet about the economics of the Crusades - what I would say about the Crusades is that even if they did start as religious wars (which I very seriously doubt), then they achieved nothing towards that aim. However, the opening and expanding of trade routes through the Middle East did help Europe prosper. Is it coincidence that the famous House of Medici (which produced numerous popes, think it's about four) in the booming trade city of Florence established itself just after the Crusades ended? And the Muslims didn't 'win' the Crusades as much as it's impossible to 'win' a series of largely incontiguous battles over a hundred years - but what's clear is that the Byzantines lost.

But I'll agree with you on the last point - nobody who fights in any war is 'Christ-like'.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
6th February, 2011 at 18:49:38 -

At least in theory, it was a religious war. Of course I believe very well that some people involved had their own agendas, the popes themselves being a good example of crooked old men sending the young to war under the false promises of heaven and dieing for a greater good for their own personal gain (very much like the modern "crusades" some islamic fundamentalists such as bin laden organize and support).

As for who won and lost, since ultimately the crusaders didn't reach their objective I'd say they lost and therefore the muslims won. After all who started the crusades were the crusaders not the muslims.

 
n/a

Yami



Registered
  23/12/2003
Points
  608
6th February, 2011 at 20:31:55 -

Johnny Look- "If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice?"

God doesn't send people to Hell, so your entire argument is based upon a misconception that completely ignores the entire concept of what it means to have free will. So all that logic really means is that you don't have to face responsibility for your own actions as long as you believe that God isn't giving you a choice. Even though your entire belief system points to you being a living contradiction to that type of thinking.


I think the point UrbanMonk is trying to make is a very simple one. Christians are people who "try" to be like Christ. So if you're going to question Christianity it doesn't make sense to attack Christians, because in truth they can never be just like Christ. There are plenty of people who have become atheist simply because of the actions of a Christian than something that had to do with Jesus. So the issue then becomes being able to make a clear distinction that Jesus is the one who represents Christianity, not Christians.

 
Image

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
6th February, 2011 at 20:51:09 -

Moot point there. The Turks moved into the Byzantine Empire and they appealed to the Holy Roman Empire to intervene. So it was a bit of both. It wasn't simply "They have our land, and we want it back", it was more of a natural war due to empire expansion.

I say the Muslims didn't win because - like I said - the Crusades weren't a single contiguous war, it was a series of conflicts between various different groups, fighting for different aims and fighting over an extremely long period. Some Muslims won, some lost - Jerusalem was conquered, and won again, but Iberia was lost forever. Even the Mongols fought in the Crusades, and at some points competing Muslim states allied themselves with the Crusaders to conquer neighbours - which I think refutes the idea that they were a religious war between Christianity and Islam; they were a lot more complicated than that.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
7th February, 2011 at 01:27:42 -


Originally Posted by Yami
Johnny Look- "If god tells you "you either honor me or I'll send you to hell" is he giving you a free choice?"

God doesn't send people to Hell, so your entire argument is based upon a misconception that completely ignores the entire concept of what it means to have free will. So all that logic really means is that you don't have to face responsibility for your own actions as long as you believe that God isn't giving you a choice. Even though your entire belief system points to you being a living contradiction to that type of thinking.



Who does then ? St. Peter ? If god supposedly created everything, that includes hell, the purgatory etc... and it does say in the bible that the unworthy will pay for his sins in hell after death. When you sum up the parts you reach the conclusion that it's not so much of a "misconception".
If free will for you is living believing in god and knowing he will punish you if you stay away from the path he wants you to walk on then great for you. I wouldn't call that free will or free choice but that's just me perhaps.
"Free" for me means just that, being free to choose whether to believe or not. Christians/muslims/jews/whatever know that if they stop believing they will go to hell/be punished/whatever when they die.
Bible: You either believe and venerate god or you go to hell.
Me: I either believe or I don't. I can choose freely=free choice.

If you believe in god you have the choice to believe or not, but that's not a free choice, you're told that you can't go that way or else you face severe punishment. Notice the difference between "choice" and "free choice". What I find a rather astounding is that people feel grateful that god doesn't obliterate someone instantly for not believing in god but that's an entirely different discussion.

Anyway I don't even know why I'm still discussing this I thought this was pretty obvious, sometimes I wonder if people are in denial or if they simply don't understand.

"I think the point UrbanMonk is trying to make is a very simple one. Christians are people who "try" to be like Christ. So if you're going to question Christianity it doesn't make sense to attack Christians, because in truth they can never be just like Christ. There are plenty of people who have become atheist simply because of the actions of a Christian than something that had to do with Jesus. So the issue then becomes being able to make a clear distinction that Jesus is the one who represents Christianity, not Christians. "

The only thing we know about the crusaders is that they went to war in the name of god/christ, everything we might claim to know about them (way of life etc...) is only speculation.
Christ was supposed to be god-like. God destroyed entire cities because the people there chose not to follow him. The crusaders did the same, so I could even say he was christ-like AND god-like.

Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous.




 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
7th February, 2011 at 05:39:11 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous.



He did say many, not all. That clear distinction is unfortunately quite true. However most atheists came to the conclusion entirely on their own. He left that part out, probably because it didn't make sense to mention it. Regardless, this point specific of his has no real argument against. He's correct. Many Christians do act in a way that can sway some people into a very weak atheistic point of view.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
7th February, 2011 at 08:55:42 -

That might happen some times, but that's definitely not common. I never met an atheist who said he started doubting god/christianity/etc because of what one christian did or said. On what do you base your affirmation that he is correct and can't be argued against ? If you were atheist you'd realize how ridiculous what he said was let alone state it's a fact.
I'm pretty sure that's his way of saying that atheists stop believing in god is because they are wrongly lead to, and not because they started asking themselves genuine questions.

 
n/a

~Matt Esch~

Stone Goose

Registered
  30/12/2006
Points
  870

VIP Member
7th February, 2011 at 11:48:52 -


Originally Posted by Muz
I do believe in a higher power.


I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.




I think there is some severe lapse in logic here. Consider the things that we are currently trying to discover. For example, we are still looking for the higgs boson to complete the standard model of particle physics. The proposition of such an idea is fairly recent, yet particle physics dates back to 6th century BC. Does the higgs boson exist? The answer at the moment is we don't know. You couldn't argue that we are close to the answer because we have spent centuries studying it. Indeed our search for the higgs boson might suggest that there is a fundamental and serious flaw in our understanding of matter, which would put to question the model we currently have.

Religion is a hypothesis without foundation. There is a lot of evidence against religion and well founded theories in psychology that suggest how and why humanity acquired this. Those with religious interest don't study the religion. For those of you who think "well I guess there could be a god", could also be thinking "well I guess the psychology of the human brain favours this". Study requires objective criticism. There are people who study religious texts but that is a literary matter, and a book on its own can't act as the foundation of any significant theory that can be taken seriously. I am intrigued as to why you think there might be a "before it was stolen by politics". Perhaps it was invented by politics?

Edited by ~Matt Esch~

 
http://create-games.com/project.asp?id=1875 Image


Yami



Registered
  23/12/2003
Points
  608
7th February, 2011 at 13:03:45 -

Johnny Look - "When you sum up the parts you reach the conclusion that it's not so much of a 'misconception'."

Johnny Look - "If you believe in god you have the choice to believe or not, but that's not a free choice, you're told that you can't go that way or else you face severe punishment."

Yeah, because one choice is good and the other is bad. haha Look you can either believe or not. God isn't some "robber" that's holding people at gun point telling them to believe. Now if everyone believed in fear of going to Hell you would have a better argument of not having a choice. However, you're a perfect example of that not being the case and whether you believe in God or not does not matter. You do have free will and people should be held accountable for their own actions. Without the concept of judgment, there's the idea of "well I can get away with it".

Johnny Look - "Christ was supposed to be god-like. God destroyed entire cities because the people there chose not to follow him. The crusaders did the same, so I could even say he was christ-like AND god-like."

Christianity is based on the life of Jesus and is presented in the writings of the New Testament. Judaism is based on the Old Testament and is the God you just described. Jesus addresses a lot of issues with the Old Testament.

Johnny Look - "Also I don't know where you got that idea that people become atheists because they met a christian who acts like a moron. You don't just throw all your beliefs and faith behind your back because of one or two morons who happen to be christians, that's just ridiculous."

Whether it's the reason they stop believing or not, there are plenty of people who use Christians as a means to argue against Christianity. Talking about the Crusades is a perfect example. Even though common sense tells us anything can be used for evil through deception.

Johnny Look - "That might happen some times, but that's definitely not common. I never met an atheist who said he started doubting god/christianity/etc because of what one christian did or said. On what do you base your affirmation that he is correct and can't be argued against ? If you were atheist you'd realize how ridiculous what he said was let alone state it's a fact."

All I can do is speak for myself, and through my personal experience. Most Atheists that I talk to were originally Catholic or had some religious background and I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence. Especially when I talk to them and see that their reasons have nothing to do with Jesus. During this entire debate no one has really talked about Jesus.

"I'm pretty sure that's his way of saying that atheists stop believing in god is because they are wrongly lead to, and not because they started asking themselves genuine questions."

The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light.

Edited by Yami

 
Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
7th February, 2011 at 13:37:35 -

"Yeah, because one choice is good and the other is bad. haha Look you can either believe or not. God isn't some "robber" that's holding people at gun point telling them to believe. Now if everyone believed in fear of going to Hell you would have a better argument of not having a choice. However, you're a perfect example of that not being the case and whether you believe in God or not does not matter. You do have free will and people should be held accountable for their own actions. Without the concept of judgment, there's the idea of "well I can get away with it". "

I was specifically talking about christians, people who, I assume, believe in what's in the bible. Therefore they are aware that not believing or not honoring god will send them to hell. I thought this was obvious.

There's no need to hell or final judgment to be punished for your wrong doings. There is law, and there is people. Killing or robbing someone will put you in bad situation if you're not caught. You'll disappoint who cares for you and who you are for and you might be sent to jail. If you're not caught and you don't regret what you did, there's a chance you'll keep doing the same thing which sooner or later will have repercussions. No need to wait until you die to be punishment. Once you're done for there's no need for further punishment, I think being dead is just enough.

Even if you don't look at it that way, the robber example isn't that far off. If you don't do god says, you'll get punishment. If you try ignoring what the robber says there's a pretty high chance of you getting a bullet in your head.

"Christianity is based on the life of Jesus and is presented in the writings of the New Testament. Judaism is based on the Old Testament and is the God you just described. Jesus addresses a lot of issues with the Old Testament. "
So what's in the old testament is meant to be ignored ?

"Whether it's the reason they stop believing or not, there are plenty of people who use Christians as a means to argue against Christianity. Talking about the Crusades is a perfect example. Even though common sense tells us anything can be used for evil through deception. "
That's completely different things, and personally I don't think that talking about christians as a means to bash or elevate christianity is a good argument at all. My point about the crusaders was that they were no less christ-like than the isreali soldiers urbanmonk believed were graced by a miracle.

"All I can do is speak for myself, and through my personal experience. Most Atheists that I talk to were originally Catholic or had some religious background and I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence. Especially when I talk to them and see that their reasons have nothing to do with Jesus. During this entire debate no one has really talked about Jesus. "

I was catholic too but that as nothing to do with me losing about my faith because of what one or more christians did or said. If a christian stop believing in god, there could be a hundred reasons, the one you mentioned is probably one of the less likely of them. When you stop believing in god, you stop believing in jesus, mohamed, moses etc... An atheist has nothing against christianity itself, they simply don't believe in religion of any kind. Not mentioning jesus or mohamed is completely irrelevant.

"The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light."

My point being, religious people always find all sorts of explanations to explain why so many people stop believing. Not that they are trying to mislead other people by implying atheists stopped believing because they are ignorant, but simply because they can't understand how that process is made without going through it themselves.



 
n/a

Yami



Registered
  23/12/2003
Points
  608
7th February, 2011 at 16:57:07 -

"If you're not caught and you don't regret what you did, there's a chance you'll keep doing the same thing which sooner or later will have repercussions. No need to wait until you die to be punishment."

That's a big assumption to make. Point is, it opens the door for that type of thinking. Which to me is a scary thought.

"Even if you don't look at it that way, the robber example isn't that far off. If you don't do god says, you'll get punishment. If you try ignoring what the robber says there's a pretty high chance of you getting a bullet in your head."

This is also under the assumption that God, like the robber is a bad person. The problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores all the good things that God asks of us.

"So what's in the old testament is meant to be ignored ?"

It shouldn't be ignored, but here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In the Old Testament they did animal sacrifices. If you read the New Testament you would know that there's no need to keep doing that, because Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like I said, the Old Testament has issues and Jesus answers them. As far as why do people read the Old Testament and not just the New Testament, well Jesus quotes the Old Testament a lot and it helps to know what he's referencing. Plus I believe the Old Testament has a lot of Jewish history within it that is good to know.

"Not that they are trying to mislead other people by implying atheists stopped believing because they are ignorant, but simply because they can't understand how that process is made without going through it themselves."

I don't necessarily agree with that. Other than it just depends on the person. I know some people who believe blindly and others that don't. I will say that I believe that everybody has or is filled with doubt. To me doubt is good, it means your questioning those ideas and searching for the answers which in turn will make your belief stronger.

 
Image

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
7th February, 2011 at 18:15:20 -


Originally Posted by Yami

The funny thing is an Atheist would try to say the same thing to me for believing. That I didn't ask myself genuine questions; however, I don't believe either side should be seen in that light.



Most people who believe, generally never do ask themselves genuine questions. Just because you do, doesn't mean that the point isn't valid. You can be educated and still believe in something. I just have a difficult time viewing any HIGHLY educated person, as still maintaining a strong interwoven faith with something like Christianity, unless they purposely ignored some very key questions in lieu of not wanting to consider the possible answer.

I was once an atheist, and I know a lot of that viewpoint, because not much has chanced since I became wiccan. I just discovered that even as an atheist, many of the answers to questions I asked, were based upon the biasness of people above me. Scientists are not always right, but their track record is significantly better. There are still many questions however that they're asking and cannot answer, but still continue to build philosophies off of the 'highly assumed' answers of their unanswerable questions. Which leads me to believe that for as logical and rational minded as science is and for as trust worthy and reliable as it has defiantly proven itself, many of us still find ourselves hung in a position of shear trust, not in the science, but in the scientists ability to interpret the science correctly. And I've seen enough scientist misinterpretation to believe that it's more common then people think.

So while I use science as a tool to help explain the world around me, it is not my bible. The universe is my bible and science is only a tool to understand and interpret it. And just like a hammer head falling off, it's not always right, and can sometimes do significant damage if handled incorrectly.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Muz



Registered
  14/02/2002
Points
  6499

VIP MemberI'm on a BoatI am an April FoolHonored Admin Alumnus
7th February, 2011 at 21:08:20 -

So many walls of text. I'll just respond to the one addressing mine


Originally Posted by s-m-r
Muz: I'd respond and say that religion is not necessary for moral behaviour.



I'm not saying that it's necessary for ethics. There's always a black and white area in ethics exactly like what you wrote - make things better, respect, love, etc.

Religion addresses the grey area of morality. Does alcohol cause more harm than help? Abortions? Is theft justifiable? Capital punishment? Some religions prioritize forgiveness as a virtue, others may believe in "an eye for an eye". Religions often split into different sects just because they choose different positions on these things.

Similar to labels like "conservative" and "socialist", religion's also good for identifying what kind of philosophy you follow. A Buddhist will not be too attached to worldly possessions, preferring spiritual attainment. A Christian views the sacrifice of others highly. A Muslim believes in devotion and submission. An atheist shuns those who belief in things without solid facts and force their beliefs on others.

It's in no way a solid representation of anyone's behavior, especially for the non-religious. I mean, you could have a Christian who's completely selfish or an atheist who is superstitious, but it goes against the religious beliefs they claim to follow. But it shows why Christians are likely to crusade, why Muslims are more trusting of authoritative figures, while Confucians believe that the authoritative figure should be loyal to their subjects, or why atheists are more likely to follow a scientific path.



Originally Posted by ~Matt Esch~

Originally Posted by Muz
I do believe in a higher power.

I believe that one of the religions out there must be true, because people have spent centuries thinking about this kind of thing, and I'm sure someone got it close to the truth before it was stolen by politics. Religion's always been sort of the highest morality, and anything which gives you the moral high ground gives you a strong political advantage.




I think there is some severe lapse in logic here. Consider the things that we are currently trying to discover. For example, we are still looking for the higgs boson to complete the standard model of particle physics. The proposition of such an idea is fairly recent, yet particle physics dates back to 6th century BC. Does the higgs boson exist? The answer at the moment is we don't know. You couldn't argue that we are close to the answer because we have spent centuries studying it. Indeed our search for the higgs boson might suggest that there is a fundamental and serious flaw in our understanding of matter, which would put to question the model we currently have.

Religion is a hypothesis without foundation. There is a lot of evidence against religion and well founded theories in psychology that suggest how and why humanity acquired this. Those with religious interest don't study the religion. For those of you who think "well I guess there could be a god", could also be thinking "well I guess the psychology of the human brain favours this". Study requires objective criticism. There are people who study religious texts but that is a literary matter, and a book on its own can't act as the foundation of any significant theory that can be taken seriously. I am intrigued as to why you think there might be a "before it was stolen by politics". Perhaps it was invented by politics?



First, I'd assume that the higher power cares about us knowing of its existence, not too much, not too little. If it didn't care, then there's no evidence at all to prove a higher power exists and no point in finding out. If this higher power really cared (e.g. everyone who disbeliefs would be thrown in hell), this higher power would send down angels and other messengers to lead us as despots and law enforcement.

So, I'd assume it's somewhere in between - someone or a group of people being told the truth. It'd have to happen early on in humanity, like the first man or the first communities and would have to be developed in that time. While you can learn science from experiments, the only way to figure out this higher power would be from history.

I'd believe that if the history was told wrong, there'd be some other truth sent down to correct the previous falsehood. So either the truth should be contained in some scripture out there or it'd lie in a new religion linked to the old. Maybe it would be passed down by word of mouth, but I'd think that any divine being would be intelligent enough to at least teach its messiahs to write, but it's not guaranteed.

Religion can't be invented by politics - it's as unlikely to work as if I suddenly said that the President had an affair with his secretary. There has to be some very strong basis to believe in before it can be politicized. It'd have to catch on long before it becomes a part of the state.

Of course, it could be entirely possible that there's no higher power, but then it ruins the fun of the search. There's no harm in searching for something that isn't there, aside from wasted time, but hey, I learn some things along the way.

 
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

Image

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
7th February, 2011 at 23:30:33 -

"That's a big assumption to make. Point is, it opens the door for that type of thinking. Which to me is a scary thought. "

"This is also under the assumption that God, like the robber is a bad person. The problem with your analogy is that it completely ignores all the good things that God asks of us."

Just because someone robs and threatens people doesn't mean they don't do good things themselves. According to the bible god even committed mass murder just because people wouldn't listen to him, that's nothing compared to a few petty thefts.

"It shouldn't be ignored, but here's a good example of what I'm talking about. In the Old Testament they did animal sacrifices. If you read the New Testament you would know that there's no need to keep doing that, because Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice. Like I said, the Old Testament has issues and Jesus answers them. As far as why do people read the Old Testament and not just the New Testament, well Jesus quotes the Old Testament a lot and it helps to know what he's referencing. Plus I believe the Old Testament has a lot of Jewish history within it that is good to know. "

I know that, but still I always saw the old testament as an integral part of christianity, laying it's early foundations among other things. It's much more than just being a book of references, at least that's what one of the pastors of the church I used to go used to say.

"I don't necessarily agree with that. Other than it just depends on the person. I know some people who believe blindly and others that don't. I will say that I believe that everybody has or is filled with doubt. To me doubt is good, it means your questioning those ideas and searching for the answers which in turn will make your belief stronger."

When I said genuine questions that's what I meant. I'm sure that even the most devout priest out there has doubts, but I highly doubt he would dare to questions his entire faith because of them. The exact reason why there are so many atheists out there is because those doubts became actual questions, and a lot of those questions never got an answer or the answer wasn't satisfactory. When the unanswered questions start to pile on top of each other, more and more questions appear because you start to realize certain things you wouldn't realize otherwise. That's when the "what if" questions start to pop up, culminating in the ultimate question: "what if everything I believed in was a lie ?" That's not an easy question to ask yourself believe me. I was even afraid to ask that myself to be honest because it felt like a huge life change and it's always hard to leave your comfort zone.

Searching for questions with easy answers will always make your belief stronger, and when you strongly believe in something even the most ridiculous answer makes perfect sense.

Not that I want to insult anyone with this, most of you proved to be very mature while in other places everyone would go apeshit because of what I just said. Feels great to be able to express myself freely, I hope it keeps up this way.

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
14th February, 2011 at 12:25:16 -

Not to reopen a done-and-dusted "discussion," but here's an editorial authored by a rabbi, entitled "An Open Letter to Atheists."

More support for the faithful, I reckon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-open-letter-to-the-ath_b_818489.html

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
14th February, 2011 at 16:20:27 -

It seems to me that the people who hate religion the most are the ones that are the most immoral.

Nice editorial btw.

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
14th February, 2011 at 17:34:48 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Nice editorial btw.



Yeah, I had a pretty hearty laugh myself; figured it would be nice to post here.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
14th February, 2011 at 19:02:13 -


Originally Posted by s-m-r
Not to reopen a done-and-dusted "discussion," but here's an editorial authored by a rabbi, entitled "An Open Letter to Atheists."

More support for the faithful, I reckon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-open-letter-to-the-ath_b_818489.html

I'd hate to consider this a done and dusted discussion though, because it really is/was a good thread topic and will probably not be brought back up without someone saying "It's already been done."

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
14th February, 2011 at 19:34:11 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
It seems to me that the people who hate religion the most are the ones that are the most immoral.

Nice editorial btw.



Where did you get that idea ? Where I'm from I can tell you right away it's the exact opposite, I can't stand most of the people who goes to the church I used to go as a kid. Phony people with huge egos who have no problem lying and stabbing each other's backs, but hey who cares they go to church every sunday their seat in heaven is more than secured. In the other hand, most of the best persons I know don't believe in god/don't care. I would give my two arms to save their lives and I'm sure they would do the same for me. I can't say the same for any religious person, except for my mother.

Also that article is downright ridiculous, he's basically taking several swipes at atheists (basically calling them ignorant and posers along the way) and then saying "but hey let's discuss this peacefully and please stop trolling religion-related blogs".
I chuckled several times while reading the article, but the part where he says that no one can call themselves "atheists" because they don't know everything and never observed god is pure comedy gold.

Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
14th February, 2011 at 20:23:03 -


Originally Posted by s-m-r
Not to reopen a done-and-dusted "discussion," but here's an editorial authored by a rabbi, entitled "An Open Letter to Atheists."

More support for the faithful, I reckon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-adam-jacobs/an-open-letter-to-the-ath_b_818489.html



Right off the bat:

"The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe - seen and unseen - and I don't think any of you guys are ready to make that claim."

As soon as I read this, I just walked away. Because I knew that I was going to be slapped in the face with a ton of extreme ignorance and arrogance. He couldn't even get the definition of an atheist right. An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, not someone who knows for a fact that he doesn't exist. That's like saying no Christian is truly a Christian because he doesn't know for a fact that God exists... and he doesn't.
Everyones beliefs are just that, beliefs. Whether or not you choose to be ignorant and/or arrogant or you choose to educate yourself and try to figure out what works out best for you, is your choice. But if you're going to set up a discussion, the worst thing you can do is make your first statement completely and utterly foolish.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
15th February, 2011 at 02:33:59 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
I can't stand most of the people who goes to the church I used to go as a kid. Phony people with huge egos who have no problem lying and stabbing each other's backs, but hey who cares they go to church every sunday their seat in heaven is more than secured.



Just because someone goes to church doesn't mean they're not immoral, neither does it mean they're going to heaven.

There are phony people everywhere, so what's new?

I saw a professing atheist praying before.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
As soon as I read this, I just walked away.



I knew you would.
I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic.

 
n/a

Jacob!



Registered
  17/06/2011
Points
  153
15th February, 2011 at 06:09:59 -

Whether you believe in God or not (unless there is a religion I'm not paying attention to ) then it is pretty much certain pets won't be going to heaven (apparently they don't have souls ).

If you have pets you care about, consider signing up here! http://www.postrapturepetcare.com/ (I think it's a joke, but I found it quite hilarious reading through it )

 
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
15th February, 2011 at 19:09:09 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
As soon as I read this, I just walked away.



I knew you would.
I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic.

A couple years back is irrelevant though because a couple years back, I was an atheist. A lot can change in a couple of years, but for me, becoming a Christian was not and will not be one of them. But I know what it's like to think like an atheist and despite not being one anymore, it really does piss me off to see people use incredibly weak arguments against them. Most of them really are incredibly intelligent and well thought out people. They just tend to be arrogant, narrow and close minded.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
15th February, 2011 at 20:11:28 -

What are you now?

A humanist?

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
15th February, 2011 at 20:44:18 -

"Just because someone goes to church doesn't mean they're not immoral, neither does it mean they're going to heaven."
Sure, but neither does it mean that atheist people are immoral just because they are atheist.
From what I can see however it seems a lot of people are too confident that believing in god and going to church is all you need to be a good person.

"I think it was you that posted something a couple of years back that said you hated it when someone called you an agnostic. "

Are you saying you agree with what the author of the article said ?

edit:

"What are you now?

A humanist?"

I don't know if you're trying to mock his faith or not, but if you are I hope you're aware that his beliefs are as valid as yours.

Edited by Johnny Look

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 01:24:00 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
What are you now?

A humanist?



Wow, really? I can't tell if you're being ignorant or an asshole.

Either you paid absolutely no attention to anything I've said in my previous posts (reading only what you wanted to respond to) or you're trying to make fun of me. Neither of which, I can assure you, go over well.

This post has gone 13 pages without any real immature fighting or bickering. Don't ruin it now.

And on the off chance that you truly didn't catch yet it... I am Wiccan.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
16th February, 2011 at 01:44:32 -

Yes, I don't usually read a whole page of text, I just skim and reply.

So what made you decide to be Wiccan?

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 02:13:17 -

Edit: If you're serious about asking me why I decided on Wicca, please do not just skim through this. I assure you, it's not a painful read. I tried to keep it short and sweet. I separated a lot of my individual thoughts so that it wouldn't seem like one huge paragraph.

Long story short, after being a strong atheist for years, a very good friend who was initially Christian (through family), picked up a book and after reading it, started telling me all about Wicca, what it really was, what it really meant, and how it made so much more sense then anything she's been lead to try and believe in the past. Most notably in her situation, Christianity. The first thing she said about Wicca was that it encompasses the idea that every form of faith, no matter how abstract, is correct. That is of course, if you aren't trying to convince other people that they're wrong, and that you're not using your faith to harm anyone. Also keep in mind that theres a difference between your faith being correct, and using your faith to be correct. If it works for you, it's right. That doesn't mean you can use it to predict or get what you want. If you think that's going to happen, it's not right for you.

I had done my own research into Wicca myself around the same time, coincidentally but I was still very hesitant to believe any of it. The internet is a horrible research for Wicca. I have yet to find a good solid source online.

Eventually after hearing her talk about it for a little bit, it started making a lot of sense. And mind you, she is incredibly intelligent, especially when it comes to the human body, psychology, and is a very deep thinker. Rarely ever makes a fool of herself.


I decided to get the book she told me about, which in case you're interested, is: Wicca Demystified, by Bryan Lankford
http://www.amazon.com/Wicca-Demystified-Practitioners-Friends-ebook/dp/B002B557D2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1297821823&sr=8-1
It's a very open minded read, and explains not just Wicca, but the whole idea behind why people might choose to become Wiccan, fact from fiction, it goes into the holidays, and history, science, death, etc. In fact the table of contents itself is basically like one big FAQ.

After reading through the book, it didn't take long to realize, that was exactly what I was: Wiccan. It was like finding my name, finding home after being lost my whole life. It was truly amazing.

I continue to read books on it, to expand my knowledge on it, and I'm always asking questions and looking into things. After officially feeling comfortable calling myself Wiccan, I was impressed to find out how many of my friends were actually Wiccan and I never knew it. They were very collective and kept to themselves about their faith.


Both a pro and a con to Wicca is how unlikely a Wiccan is going to approach you and tell you about it. Many Wiccans, including myself, believe that the way people choose to worship divinity is entirely their own so to try to convince someone our way was the "correct" way would be arrogant. This leads a lot of people to either have no idea what it is, or have a lot of misconceptions about it. Most aren't even exposed to it enough to even consider that it might be right for them. Especially since the response from most people is so negative.

PS: It's also important to note that Wicca is only one of many forms of faith which are all encompassed under pagan or neo-pagan theology. Wicca itself is a very new faith and today, has almost no real structure, just a set of idea's that most who consider themselves Wiccan, tend to follow, such as the Wiccan Rede: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

Wicca today, is more or less is a preservation of the rituals, beliefs, and myths, that were held by many pagans before The Burning Times.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
16th February, 2011 at 02:53:32 -

I didn't skim.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
...has almost no real structure, just a set of idea's that most who consider themselves Wiccan, tend to follow, such as the Wiccan Rede: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"



Ok, so I have heard some things about Wiccan, since I know someone who was Wiccan.
She said that Wiccan teaches spells and such, I don't know if it's true or not.

I will refrain from Googling it since I prolly wouldn't get a direct answer.

"The Burning Times" - Are you referring to the book burnings?


I would have to agree with: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Religions that don't hurt anyone don't bother me.

Religions I have a problem with are one's that teach their followers to harm others, either to convert or just for the heck of it.

Or religions that twist what the Bible says (Writing their own version of the Bible, changing things, ect.)
This may not seem like much, but it's a pain because it creates misconceptions about Christians.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 03:22:23 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
I didn't skim.


"The Burning Times" - Are you referring to the book burnings?



No, I'm referring to the time whenever the Catholic church convinced the world that witches were evil and anything relating to pagan theology was branded as devil worship.




Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Ok, so I have heard some things about Wiccan, since I know someone who was Wiccan.
She said that Wiccan teaches spells and such, I don't know if it's true or not.



This is true but it's not the same as what you see in the movies. We do typically use things such as wands, a cauldron, etc but again, not anything like what you see in the movies.

See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.
A good example: You can do as many love spells as you want, but nothing will happen if you never actually try and talk to someone with the intent on finding love. And even then, nothing may still happen. Same with if you find a penny heads up and you put it in your pocket or sock or whatever. If you truly believe if will bring you good luck, it will bring you good luck.

In addition, many of the items you find at a Wiccan altar, tend to serve a more symbolic function, rather then literal. Gerald Gardner said it himself, the tools you use for magick are only tools until they're no longer needed.

There are a lot of theories or explanations for why this works, but one thing is certain. It does work. Otherwise we wouldn't continue to do it. Just like prayer. Would you continue to do it, if you honestly didn't believe it were possible? And furthermore, would you continue to pray if it never worked?

Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous. You can be both, but just because you're one doesn't mean you're the other. Typically Wiccans who do perform spell or witchcraft are more likely to consider themselves a witch, which is fine because it's still true and usually opens the opportunity for further investigation by whoever is obviously going to want to know more. And typically Wiccans who don't tend to make spell or withcraft a part of their life, will just refer to themselves as Wiccan.

I personally have tried a little spellcraft but every time I read more, I learn more about how it works, why it works, and what it actually is, and I'm just not confident enough with myself to expect results from anything I do. But then again, no one ever stops learning, we're always trying different things and experimenting. Hence the term practicing witchcraft.

One thing that almost every reliable source will tell you however, is that Wicca is not some kind of fashion statement, role play, or fad. Anyone who treats it as such, is disgraceful and not a true Wiccan. If you see someone walking around with black clothes, white makeup, pentacles handing all over place so they're impossible to miss, and threating to put hexes on everyone, chances are pretty good, they're just an attention whore.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
16th February, 2011 at 04:05:03 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.



So are you saying it's just a placebo?

I agree that the human mind is a powerful thing.
There are many mind tricks out there that can help people to overcome emotional stress, or to help one become more confident, ect.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous.



Traditional Witchcraft and the Spellcraft you described above are indeed very different.
Do you consider yourself a Witch as well as a Wiccan?

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 04:22:36 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
See, how spellcraft works is entirely bent around intent. In a way, it's kind of adjacent to prayer. We may use things such as colored candles, burn specific herbs, or perform special rituals, but it's largely as an aid to help the human psyche. The human mind is a powerful thing. Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it.



So are you saying it's just a placebo?

I agree that the human mind is a powerful thing.
There are many mind tricks out there that can help people to overcome emotional stress, or to help one become more confident, ect.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Also, contrary to popular belief... Wiccan and Witch are not synonymous.



Traditional Witchcraft and the Spellcraft you described above are indeed very different.
Do you consider yourself a Witch as well as a Wiccan?



No. Magick is very real in the world, it's just not supernatural.
Think of electricity. Even today, unless you know how it works, it still seems magickal. However before it was even mainstream, electricity was just one of the many things in our world, which could only be described as magick.
Yesterdays magick is todays science. We're always learning more and more about the world and there are so many things just in our every day life that we either cannot or choose not to try to understand. Unlike something such as electricity though, magick in the form of spells and witchcraft, are controlled through intent. Your mind is the tool which manipulates it. It's part of divinity, which exists within everything.

I would highly recommend reading the book I linked to you above. It's very informative and explains it all a lot better then I can. However that's just one source. No single source should be taken for it's word. Like I said, Wicca has very little structure. Ask 5 Wiccans what Wicca is, and you'll get 6 different answers. It's subject to opinion, individuality, and biasness.

Would I consider myself a witch? I don't know if I'm confident enough to call myself a witch. But I am most defiantly a Wiccan. I tend to do more self-meditation at my altar, than spellcraft.

PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
16th February, 2011 at 05:37:08 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?



I were referring to when you said "Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it."

But since you came back and compared it to electricity I'll take that back.


However there is a difference between prayer and spells.

Prayer is talking to God.
Performing spells makes you the god.

It's really funny that you compared it electricity though, so tell me was that in the book?
I'm asking this question because of something someone told me once. I'm just curious as to where this information came from.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 06:54:05 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
PS: For a Christian to ask if magick is just a placebo effect would be hypocritical, especially after I just got done comparing it to prayer, which I'm sure you would not admit to simply being a placebo effect. Would you?



I were referring to when you said "Nothing supernatural is happening however the second you doubt yourself or the spells your performing, the magick is instantly lost and nothing will come of it."

But since you came back and compared it to electricity I'll take that back.


However there is a difference between prayer and spells.

Prayer is talking to God.
Performing spells makes you the god.

It's really funny that you compared it electricity though, so tell me was that in the book?
I'm asking this question because of something someone told me once. I'm just curious as to where this information came from.



When performing spells, you're using your mind to basically in a sense, communicate with divinity because divinity exists within everything including yourself. It tends to be a rather hard concept to grasp unless you dedicate a lot of thought to it. That's why most people like to assign either a single God, many Gods or in the case of Wicca and many other pagan faiths, a God and Goddess, which represent the masculine and feminine attributes of divinity.
So to classify yourself as God because you're doing a spell, would also be incorrect. At no point do I ever think of myself as God. If need be, during spells, I'll imagine myself as though I was communicating to the God and/or Goddess, whoever I feel can help me the most. It really varies, not just from person to person, but per situation too.

I don't remember if the comparison to electricity was in the book, or if I thought about it after reading something in the book. I do know that in the section of the book which talks about the Wiccan view on science, that say something very close to what I just said, which was that yesterdays magick is todays science and that nothing in Wicca can necessarily be disproven because we take things as they come. We follow our own path and for the most part, we don't pretend to possess knowledge we don't actually have.
One section of the book when it asks about whether or not Wiccans have a sacred text, describes that Wiccans generally refer to the universe as their sacred text. To that, I add. This is where science can come in - as a tool, a scope or a pair of reading glasses, to help us read what the universe tries to tell us, when traditional or ritualistic magick just isn't working the way we hope.

Which brings me largely to the point of how we live our lives and what we know about the world. Science, in a matter of speaking, when it isn't being used to manufacturer things to destroy others who don't agree with us, in a lot of ways, comes back to what many pagans used to believe about the world. Living in harmony with it, understanding the cycles, understanding that the whole world is in a sense, or at least acts very much like a living thing.

Instead of believing in a single God or deity, Wiccans typically look at divinity as being something neither good nor evil. Completely unbiased and natural. We look at divinity as something a lot more abstract. So much so that in order to understand it, we create an image of either a God or a Goddess, or the many other images of God which many other cultures have used to describe various aspects of life, such as life and death.

In fact, I believe that this is how the Christian incarnation of God probably started out. As being an abstract idea that was given a face to help relate. Over time and many attempts at depicting what the text was saying, and so many passing down their opinions of what the text was saying, that the words of the bible started being taken a lot more literal then symbolically.

Did Jesus exist? Without a shadow of a doubt, he must have. However what we know about him, I feel is extremely vague. He was a man, not born to be great, but grew to become great through his love and passion, his ideas and his messages.

But this isn't about comparing Wicca to Christianity. I'm just saying this because I hope it might help you understand a little more about how Wiccans view the world, and why we are generally very open and unopposed to accepting other faiths for being more or less, just different variations of the same general idea.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
16th February, 2011 at 19:47:28 -

Wicca is NOT a 'preservation' of rituals and beliefs held by Pagans many moons ago, and it is arrogant to think it is. Because you are practising Wicca knowing that its myths and legends are hand-me-downs, mixes and matches, and are anachronistic in nature, it becomes less of a living religion and more of a celebration of times before Christianity; times, let's not forget, we have no experience of. Wicca is as synthetic as Scientology. I'm not sure if a fossilised Pagan would consider the Wicca to be a 'preservation' of his beliefs.

That said, I have no beef with anyone practising it. Just don't misrepresent it.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
16th February, 2011 at 22:30:07 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
Wicca is NOT a 'preservation' of rituals and beliefs held by Pagans many moons ago, and it is arrogant to think it is. Because you are practising Wicca knowing that its myths and legends are hand-me-downs, mixes and matches, and are anachronistic in nature, it becomes less of a living religion and more of a celebration of times before Christianity; times, let's not forget, we have no experience of. Wicca is as synthetic as Scientology. I'm not sure if a fossilised Pagan would consider the Wicca to be a 'preservation' of his beliefs.

That said, I have no beef with anyone practising it. Just don't misrepresent it.



How are you going to try to insult what I know to be Wicca, as a Wiccan and then call it synthetic and compare it to Scientology. Forgive me for coming off blunt here, but your ignorance is very insulting. Do some research before you try to accuse a real religion for being something fake like Scientology, just because it's a more modern incarnation.
Wicca originally started out as a witch coven run by Gerald Gardner and it grew from there, to be something more independent. The believes we have are very close to what pagans believed.
Hell man, present day Christians are a laughing insult to what their faith started out as. Wiccans are a hell of a lot more true to their pagan roots than present day Christians, and they still call themselves Christians. Please do more informed research before you pretend to know Wicca. And like I said, the internet is a horrible source to find any information of Wicca. God forbid you might have to buy a book or two to get any real information.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
17th February, 2011 at 04:59:07 -

"I would have to agree with: "An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
Religions that don't hurt anyone don't bother me.

Religions I have a problem with are one's that teach their followers to harm others, either to convert or just for the heck of it. "

It's ironic that you say that given that you're christian. In case you don't know, a lot of people got tortured and killed for stating they didn't believe in specific parts of the bible, jews and homosexuals were persecuted and burnt alive, etc... History is full of this sort of incidents, ordered by christian bishops and popes.

 
n/a

Jacob!



Registered
  17/06/2011
Points
  153
17th February, 2011 at 06:17:46 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look

It's ironic that you say that given that you're christian.



Erm... no. It isn't. Just because others of that religion behaved that way does not mean that behaviour encompasses his own behaviour.

And Silverfire, although I don't believe in spiritual or religious divinity, my mom is Wiccan and the way I see it, it is more or less a placebo. Not that it has no effect, but that the meditation and the belief of what you are doing is going to help you puts you in the correct mindset to help yourself. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy; someone tells you you'll do well so you're more confident and end up doing well, which makes the prophecy true. It's not that there was anything supernatural there, but if the prophecy hadn't been made then it wouldn't be true. A bit recursive, actually. I never get sick because I never get sick; even when I start to develop a cough or runny nose my mindset is determined that I'm not sick because I've convinced myself that I don't get sick, so the symptoms go away very quickly.

 
Have you even been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
17th February, 2011 at 11:07:41 -

@Silverfire: I do know a little bit about Wicca, and I have read books that touch on the subject; just I have read stuff on the origins of Scientology. I, of course, do not know more than you about Wicca, but I have the advantage of being impartial in disliking all organised religions. What I want to know is; how is Scientology any more fake than Wicca? (As any Wiccan will know, religious tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs is paramount.) Scientology and Wicca were invented at similar times, from similarly humble beginnings, and each have grown to be substantial minority religions - so how is Wicca 'real' compared to the 'fake' Scientology. Is it because Wicca is supposedly ancient and naturalistic? Because that doesn't automatically grant creditability, the same as something being more modern in outlook doesn't have to be automatically debunked. Would you be as immediately insulting to something like the Baha'i faith, which by its own admission, is a modern religion?

If I start to practice the religion of the ancient peoples of Ethiopia, do I get to call your religion a 'fake'? No. And is your religion and more or less valid simply because it's based on practices you deem to be ancient and magical? No. Presumably your "Pagan" beliefs don't extend to animal, or human sacrifice, and tell me, do you still bury your dead in ceremonial mounds, stuffed with treasure?

Forgive me for coming across as overly harsh, but Wicca gets an easy ride from some people because it is seen as 'harmless'. Pagan roots, my arse.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
17th February, 2011 at 17:35:15 -

"Erm... no. It isn't. Just because others of that religion behaved that way does not mean that behaviour encompasses his own behaviour."

In case you don't know, those acts weren't isolated incidents, those killings and tortures were ordered by the church's highest ranked religious leaders, namely bishops and popes.

In addition, the bible does speak of a few episodes were people were butchered by god himself because they refused to believe him, like the sodom and gomorrah episodes we talked about earlier.

 
n/a

Jess Bowers

Cake > Pie

Registered
  09/01/2009
Points
  310

Has Donated, Thank You!GOTM FEB - 2010 - WINNER!GOTW Winner!
18th February, 2011 at 15:47:25 -

I believe... in FSM and the IPU. Who's with me?

R'amen!



 

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
18th February, 2011 at 19:23:44 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
In case you don't know, those acts weren't isolated incidents, those killings and tortures were ordered by the church's highest ranked religious leaders, namely bishops and popes.

In addition, the bible does speak of a few episodes were people were butchered by god himself because they refused to believe him, like the sodom and gomorrah episodes we talked about earlier.



The people of Sodom and Gomorrah loved to roast and rape babies. Yeah, let's let them live.


And no, if anyone kills and tortures in the name of Christianity is messed up in the head, and certainly isn't Christian.

And for the record I don't believe Catholicism is a Christian religion at all.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
19th February, 2011 at 10:27:43 -


Originally Posted by Jacob!
It's not that there was anything supernatural there,



No Wiccan would(under ideal circumstances) admit that their faith is supernatural. I would like to believe that most Wiccans like myself, would consider that it is more or less mental but that the reason it works is in regard to something we don't yet understand. I do believe in divinity but I don't believe it's something supernatural, it's just undiscovered. Sort of like how lavender is used in certain forms of spellcraft to help reduce anxiety, only to have later discovered that there was in fact a reason for why it worked.

There is a significant study to, perhaps not explain or support theories of the external powers of the mind, but the placebo effect has defiantly shown to effect more then simply ones own body, and the fact that science is unable to explain that and a variety of other reasons why our rituals tend to work for us, leads me to believe that something here is real.

If Science can explain it to me, amazing. I love to know more about my world. But if we all lead our lives by what Science told us was true, then Science would be stuck in a linear path of only traversing the knowledge it thinks is true and not the knowledge that it might be expected to challenge.
For example, if we never considered that life existed off of earth, and we simply assumed that through science, it wasn't possible (for some reason), we'd probably never care enough to actually explore it.
At the same time however, in a lot of ways, Science can be more destructive to both the natural world, and the natural imagination we all originally possess. Instead, replacing fascination with expectation. Risk with confidence. Perception is reality. Religion is for you and you alone. So what one person might scientifically call the placebo effect, another person can easily call magick and be absolutely content if not a lot more satisfied with their life, accepting it as such. I'm not admitting to anything here, I'm just hoping I've made a point.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
19th February, 2011 at 10:44:44 -


Originally Posted by Matt Boothman
What I want to know is; how is Scientology any more fake than Wicca? (As any Wiccan will know, religious tolerance and respect for other people's beliefs is paramount.) Scientology and Wicca were invented at similar times, from similarly humble beginnings, and each have grown to be substantial minority religions - so how is Wicca 'real' compared to the 'fake' Scientology.



Scientology is a company disguised as a church. It manipulates people, acts exactly like a cult, and runs like a business. No faith should operating under money. The simple fact that people are afraid to try to stand up to it because it's got a force of lawyers that sometimes seem to have more funding then the US army itself, seems to say a lot about how much it's got to try to defend itself against obvious truths.
No, being modern does not make you fake. But whenever your religion acts more like a cult/corporation and less like a church, something is seriously wrong there.
Wicca isn't even a church nor is it an organized religion. It's a form of faith that is loosely structured around a set of commonly held beliefs which are largely based on the ideals held by pagans prior to the burning times. It's a more modern interpretation of course, but so is every other faith today. With so much science, it's hard for most structured religion to keep itself relevant. The beauty of Wicca is that it doesn't start back peddling and try to erase it's tracks the next time a big scientific advancement is made. Typically in most creditable writings you find about Wicca, they typically keep themselves very up to date and realistic on current science and help explain how it's helped them better understand.

I have nothing against other religions, but when you have something that bleeds into the lives of others through harassment and destructive behavior like Scientology, and you try to compare it to something completely opposite such as Wicca, and assume that because they're both modern, they're comparable, that's just outright offensive.

In fact, this world needs more modern interpretations of religious history. Religions like Christianity have more bandages ripped and reapplied with every new discovery to disprove their sacred texts then anyone could probably count.

Mind you, I stand up for my own Wiccan beliefs. As I've said in previous posts, Wicca is quite unstructured and varies quite differently from person to person. I cannot speak for every or even most Wiccans, I can only tell you what I've read and picked up from speaking with many friends who are Wiccan. I'm basing my words on the idea that despite how different many Wiccans can be, theres a thin guideline that most Wiccans tend to follow, otherwise they wouldn't put themselves in the potentially harmful spotlight of even calling themselves Wiccan. I take pride in calling myself Wiccan but as many customers at work who see my necklace will try to lead me to believe, it's likely to garnish more ignorance then friendship.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
19th February, 2011 at 12:38:41 -

"The people of Sodom and Gomorrah loved to roast and rape babies. Yeah, let's let them live."

LOL according to the bible god wiped the whole city, including babies (which I don't think raped and roasted themselves) and children. Why wouldn't they be allowed to live ?
And I don't recall the bible talking about people "raping and roasting babies".


"And no, if anyone kills and tortures in the name of Christianity is messed up in the head, and certainly isn't Christian."

Does that mean god isn't christian ?

"And for the record I don't believe Catholicism is a Christian religion at all."
Why not ? It's definitely not a muslim or hindu religion as far as I know.


 
n/a

Deaval

It's my lap

Registered
  06/02/2008
Points
  146

360 Owner
28th March, 2011 at 05:25:20 -

Dang, these kinds of topics always gets walls of text and debates.

I wonder what would happen if I were to do a Politics thread hmmz.

Anyways, to answer the question without actually writing a long, long long text, I'm gonna say I belive in Aum. So that's more a "I believe in a higher power" kind of answer.

 
Image

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
29th March, 2011 at 22:00:04 -

Woah, I never knew guys at TDC could think farther then the next GOTW. you have proven Me Wrong, and I am ashamed.

I Believe in God- that He is three unities in one, that He created everything in seven literal days, that Adam was a historical fiure; That we have sinned, That God sent his son Jesus, Fully Man and Fully God, to die for our sin.

I believe that Jesus is coming again To take Christians with him to heaven, and of course, that if you are not saved,
Your sins send you to hell.

those are My core beliefs, and Science actually backs up those Beliefs.

 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
29th March, 2011 at 22:08:01 -


Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac
Science actually backs up those Beliefs.



Source plox.

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

DeadmanDines

Best Article Writer

Registered
  27/04/2006
Points
  4758
29th March, 2011 at 22:55:44 -

Everyone's entitled to their opinions and stuff, but I just thought it'd be nice for people to know a bit about the people that the Israelites displaced before questioning God's motives:

Some examples of life in Canaan:

Any female child, once she began to menstruate, was required to sacrifice her virginity as a temple prostitute. So every little girl in the entire nation for generations had been sexually abused by law, and every man in the nation was a paedophile. Regarding their bizarre religio-sexual habits, even animals weren't safe. So if you were a cow, and you lived in Canaan, it would have been advisable to moooove (sorry!).

Another charming accent to Canaanite culture: The male firstborn of every family was to be offered as a burned sacrifice. This was generally done via a metal statue with a furnace in its stomach and counterbalanced arms. Child was placed on arms, weight would cause imbalance, statue would push child into open mouth, etc. Now it's also worth noting that metal tends to get fairly hot if you stick a furnace inside it, and it's rumoured that the screams of the babies being placed on the iron statue's arms caused great discomfort for their parents.

...Which is why they had a rule, whereby if the parents showed any emotional reaction to their child's agonised pleas, then their next child would be forfeit... and the next... and the next, until the parents could endure it unflinchingly.

We know this from the archaeologists who've studied the region, and not from the Bible's record. Even those archaeologists have often commented that they're stunned God didn't get rid of the Canaanites sooner.

It's also worth noting that He waited over 400 years for them to get better first. So at least the decision wasn't rushed, I guess.

 
191 / 9999 * 7 + 191 * 7

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
30th March, 2011 at 00:01:21 -

Ok, so you're saying that just because part of it is accurate then the whole thing must be?

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th March, 2011 at 03:01:51 -


Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Ok, so you're saying that just because part of it is accurate then the whole thing must be?



Nope, actaully the whole thing *is* accurate, that just so happens to be the part that's attacked the most.

Listen, if you can prove one thing in the Bible wrong I'll stop believing it.

Good Luck! You're going to need it.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
30th March, 2011 at 07:17:41 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Ok, so you're saying that just because part of it is accurate then the whole thing must be?



Nope, actaully the whole thing *is* accurate, that just so happens to be the part that's attacked the most.

Listen, if you can prove one thing in the Bible wrong I'll stop believing it.

Good Luck! You're going to need it.



Evolution =/= Adam in Eve

I rest my case. lol

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
30th March, 2011 at 10:25:25 -


Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac
Woah, I never knew guys at TDC could think farther then the next GOTW. you have proven Me Wrong, and I am ashamed.



Since GOTW is standing so still we had to busy our heads with something.
(We could be making games, but that would mean we wouldn't have full knowledge of the going-ons in the forum)

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
30th March, 2011 at 13:31:21 -

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk



Listen, if you can prove one thing in the Bible wrong I'll stop believing it.

Good Luck! You're going to need it.



I may be taking things out of context here but...

Weren't you the person who confirmed that part of the bible text was poetry? Are you considering that accurate?

And did that Jonah guy actually live in a big sea-borne animal (mammal, fish, or otherwise) for so long? Three days and nights seems like quite a long time to me.

And I always wondered about Job, and how the "tests" he was forced to endure seem consistent with the alleged atrocities of the Canaanites mentioned earlier in this thread. Were these actually cultural norms of the time, or the myriad "tests" put forth by the divine? Might they instead be attributed to a local ruler testing the loyalty of one of their subjects?

I also noticed that reading and interpretation of the bible appears to be incredibly subjective (owing to - or perhaps responsible for - the existence of several different schools of thought/cults/etc. within the umbrella of the christian faith). Here's a decent explanation of this, essentially attributed to "misinterpretation of biblical truth" but still convincing enough to bring forth a school of thought:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm

Granted, this does not indicate that anything in the bible is necessarily untrue, but it does point out that the bible can be misinterpreted. This flies in the face of other biblical scholarly work and direct quotes from the bible, stating (in so many words) that "[g]od intentionally made the bible and its teachings to be easily understood by anyone." Here's a link to more info:

http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f953.htm

There's also some information about how god is infallable, that it is a sin to lie, and yet god encourages others to lie or lies him/itself. Also, the content itself was apparently so riddled with lies and untruths that it inspired Thomas Jefferson to edit his own version of it. Here's a wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Belief_systems

[full disclosure: I did a quick search for "bible untruths" to uncover these links.]

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
30th March, 2011 at 16:23:19 -

Those are some very good questions smr, I'll answer them when I get home today.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
30th March, 2011 at 16:32:14 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by Phredreeke
Ok, so you're saying that just because part of it is accurate then the whole thing must be?



Nope, actaully the whole thing *is* accurate, that just so happens to be the part that's attacked the most.

Listen, if you can prove one thing in the Bible wrong I'll stop believing it.

Good Luck! You're going to need it.



I didn't say it was wrong, I said that didn't prove it true.

If you ask me there may or may not be a higher power, and if one exist it is beyond the understanding of mortal beings.

This may sound weird, but I found this song very spiritual.



 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
30th March, 2011 at 18:44:14 -

I think the fact that one group of Christians can proudly say that 'they' are the ones who are correct, and other groups might have their beliefs but are the ones actually going to hell.. shows some creedence to the legitimacy that not even two groups of Christians can really agree on whose actually got it right.

If Christians can't even agree with each other, how on earth can they expect anyone else to do anything but just sit back and laugh.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
30th March, 2011 at 18:56:51 -

@ Silverfire: Not to say I support Christianity (or for that matter, any organized religion), but politicians have been doing the same thing for nearly as long, just in a different arena...Some people still lend them loads of credibility for some strange reason.

But honestly, that's a completely different discussion.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
30th March, 2011 at 21:11:58 -

Politicians are also notorious for being liars and are given a very hard time over it by any and everyone, even their supporters. Religious leaders, if compared to politicians, should be granted the same.

"There are two things you should never talk about in public, religion and politics."
It's just unfortunate that politics is kind of necessary to talk about because it's the future of your society and civilization as you know it. Religion however, as long as it's not being allowed to conflict with anyone else's lives but your own, especially in scientific endeavorer, should not be actively spoken about unless it's asked about and further, communicated as a discussion of opinions, facts that could influence opinions, and a topic of curiosity rather then furious debate.


Cenk Uygur of TYT (The Young Turks) gives an excellent speech about this, where in which he believes that we should actually have classes in school where instead of teaching any specific religions beliefs, we should instead have a class similar to History, which teaches strictly religious history. How the bible came to be, how religion formed over the years, and how ideas came to be the way they are today. It's sad to think how few people actually know where the days of the week come from, how the months are divided up, who and where the bible was edited or changed by.

I will admit full heartedly that I am a victim of ignorance when it comes to a lot of religious history and I am astounded by how much the people on this site actually know. I'd like to think that I know a little more than most people who go to church but I for one would love to take part in a class dedicated specifically to religious development across the generations.

If instead of teaching people a specific religion, we teach people the roots of religion itself, I think people would be a lot more intelligent about how they choose their religion and a lot less arrogant toward other peoples choice of religion. Even if this leads to a greater amount of atheism, at least people would be choosing what works best for them - not everyone needs to believe in divinity to have moral fiber or a good grasp on the world. Religion should be something self-beneficial, not a tool of power.

PS: My right ear is clogged and my mind is kind of staggered right now, so I apologize in advance if this post seems kind slapped together.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
31st March, 2011 at 01:25:55 -

@Phredreeke

What's A source plox?

And, some more explanation of Science, did you know that the compartments of a (normal) conch shell
grow larger precisely according to the fibonacci sequence? it's true; Also, in all the Scientific experiments to "jumpstart" life, Three of the most necessary Amino Acids failed to be made.

 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
31st March, 2011 at 01:47:50 -


Generally used by the more veteran users of games and the internet. Used generally as a parody of stupid users who say plz or pls.



You said science backs up your beliefs, I'm asking for which specific sources/studies back those up. (science not only requires you to provide your conclusion but just as importantly how you came to that conclusion)

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

3kliksphilip

Crazy?

Registered
  20/11/2007
Points
  5698

VIP MemberGOTM - MAY 2009 - 2ND PLACE!The SpinsterGOTM -NOVEMBER 2009 - 2nd place!
31st March, 2011 at 16:24:14 -

This is the one thing that gets me with religion. Once they can prove something, I'm totally fine with what ever it is that they've proven. Because it's been proven. Simple enough.

Image

 
Don't aim for perfection- you'll miss the deadline

'~Tom~ says (16:41):
well why does the custom controls for the keyboard palyer even affect the menu controls at all whats thep oint jsutm ake it so for the keyboard palyer on the menu screens everything is always up down left right enter regardless of the controls they set'

-Mr Tom, 2010

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
31st March, 2011 at 18:27:22 -

Ok, Good points. I'll get to work on that. throw you some articles pretty soon here.

 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
31st March, 2011 at 18:28:57 -

There are scientific evidence for a life after death.

This thread was most certainly dead, but now it's alive and kicking again.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
31st March, 2011 at 18:48:49 -

Ok, 'twas a nautilus shell I was thinking of, but it's there in a conch.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/feb252005/555.pdf

read the second page, it has the Nautilus.

 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Pisarz Ksiazkowicz (Maciej Janiszewski)

Borg drone

Registered
  06/12/2007
Points
  61

I like Aliens!I am an April FoolVIP Member
2nd April, 2011 at 00:11:33 -

Hm... Do I believe in God... you mean that extremely powerful being that controls everyones lives?
No. I don't. And I still can't understand why people want to believe that they actually don't have any control of their lives and they are just a part of someone's great master plan...

I believe, that every our decision has consequences, everything is relative. Every event is result of our previous actions (and decisons of other people).
I believe that future is flexible but of course predictable.

The afterlife? I believe, that it actually exists, but in other form. Ascending to a higher plain of existence, leaving organic body behind.

 
Resistance is Futile.

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
2nd April, 2011 at 16:09:26 -

Well, If you Really boil it down, We have two choices to make. Who are you Going to follow,(God, or satan/man)
and, far more important; Who will you trust to get you to heaven.(God, or yourself)

A Human Being Naturally wants to serve. And the sense of being rebellious and "finding your own way"
is simply serving The flesh, which works in concert with satan.


 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
2nd April, 2011 at 16:16:30 -

Image

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Pisarz Ksiazkowicz (Maciej Janiszewski)

Borg drone

Registered
  06/12/2007
Points
  61

I like Aliens!I am an April FoolVIP Member
2nd April, 2011 at 20:57:39 -

Satan? You mean - your human nature, that forces you to do things, that are potentially wrong if you aren't self-disciplined enough?

 
Resistance is Futile.

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
2nd April, 2011 at 23:53:51 -


Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac
Well, If you Really boil it down, We have two choices to make. Who are you Going to follow,(God, or satan/man)
and, far more important; Who will you trust to get you to heaven.(God, or yourself)

A Human Being Naturally wants to serve. And the sense of being rebellious and "finding your own way"
is simply serving The flesh, which works in concert with satan.



A human being naturally wants to serve? I bed to differ. A human being has a natural curiosity beyond his own existence because we are conscious enough to acknowledge that there is a beyond our own existence. This lead us to question how our existence came to be... and well, humans can build stuff, so they took what they knew best and said that we must have been built or 'created', but who has the power to create the builders? An almighty creator. A God.
This is the basic philosophy from which the building blocks of early Christianity was built. It has nothing to do with a natural want to serve. In fact, the entire prospect of hell and Satan was completely devised with an attempt to scare people toward God. In early monotheistic religions, there was only a marked distance from God. You were either very near him, warm, happy, and within the company of his greatness or you very far from him, alone, cold, and scared. How far you were was a result of how well you followed him.

A single all powerful creator is just one of many archetypes that can be used to feel yourself close to divinity as a whole, just as the God and Goddess are two generic archetypes used widely in Wicca and how many other Gods are used in other forms of polytheistic faiths. When you start building a book and try to create literal history (as opposed to metaphorical or symbolic legends and stories) about how and why these mere archetypes came into existence is when you start polluting the entire idea of faith, which is to bring comfort to an always searching human soul for the existence beyond our own existence.

The study of real human psychology does wanders when it comes to explaining and understanding religion and why so many people believe what they believe.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Resident-Pyromaniac

More than a talking head

Registered
  04/02/2010
Points
  1440

VIP MemberSnow
4th April, 2011 at 00:18:25 -

Yes, I meant that we do not Want to serve, but we do serve. however, the fruit of service follow only two paths.
no matter how righteous you are, apart from Christ, the Bible says your works are as "filthy rags".

Only in Christ can anything of eternal value come to fruition. in fact, no matter what I say, the only way any of you will be convinced is if the Holy spirit works through what I post here.

 
Saving the world, one crisped critter at a time.

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
4th April, 2011 at 02:02:54 -


Originally Posted by Resident-Pyromaniac
Yes, I meant that we do not Want to serve, but we do serve. however, the fruit of service follow only two paths.
no matter how righteous you are, apart from Christ, the Bible says your works are as "filthy rags".

Only in Christ can anything of eternal value come to fruition. in fact, no matter what I say, the only way any of you will be convinced is if the Holy spirit works through what I post here.



Which probably wont happen, because the entire idea of "The holy spirit" or Jesus Christ, or God, or however your denomination of Christianity decides to perceive all of this - is just that, Christian. Just one among many other faiths: a handful of which are widely more popular in different areas of the world, many even in your own country - but none barely as outspoken since their goal in life typically isn't to try to convert "save" everyone.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Don Luciano

Heavy combat pancake

Registered
  25/10/2006
Points
  380

VIP Member
7th April, 2011 at 09:02:21 -

I didnt want to involve myself into this topic, but since i am, i just want to say how pointless is to prove God.
You can believe he exist or not. -"it's that simple" -quoted Bob "i know lame" - didnt really cause its not a quote" unquote.

Religion and belief in God are not the same. Some people may believe in God, but at the same time they do not support certain religious beliefs or church as an institution. In many times in history wars were fought because of it (mostly over which laws, political decisions, etc.. should be applied, changed). Thats why today we have catholics, protestants, etc...

Bible has been rewriten many times although the principle of it is basicly the same. The church occassianly added/changed parts as the church through history acted in politics, wars, law, diplomacy and education.

If someone is trying to convert, save you, eat a vaffle and think about it. or don't i don't care.

The good thing today is that at least you don't get killed anymore if you say you dont believe in God. So be happy about that. (though some third world countries still do it)

And personally I don't believe in the stereotypical God. But i do believe in existence of some kind of a higher force. And it would be cool if it had a hammer, now when i think about it.

And the point is it's pointless to argue whetever God can be proven if you can't prove it. So stop doing it.

And i have no idea how to embed a youtube video, so thats it! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Edited by Don Luciano

 
Code me a sausage!

Muz



Registered
  14/02/2002
Points
  6499

VIP MemberI'm on a BoatI am an April FoolHonored Admin Alumnus
7th April, 2011 at 10:14:35 -

I think the religious arguments are rather interesting. It eventually boils down to:
- That you don't need to prove God for him to exist
- That God doesn't exist without proof
- derail derail religion is bad atheists go to hells we dont need religion no we need religion it is pointless and ur stupid for believing it in it no if we dont have relagon then we all burn in hell and the world collapses into anarchy and everyone gets sodom'ed

Now if you filter out the 80% of arguments which is that last point, you actually get a good debate. The funny thing is that people, theist or atheist, will actually pick a conclusion first, THEN choose points that support that conclusion.

Also, it's interesting that it eventually boils down between "theist" and "atheist" sides, with all the various monotheist people clumping into the theist group and the agnostic group basically just shaking their heads and walking away.

 
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.

Image

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
7th April, 2011 at 10:30:04 -

I agree, once you boil out the senseless initial "he exists, just believe me" and the "prove it or he doesn't exist" argument, theres generally an interesting discussion. I try to keep an open mind on this discussion and I've improved vastly over the past year. However when someone starts declaring their ideas as facts and more so, dismiss any further discussion by simply stating that their God will eventually give me reason to believe them, it does really irritate me to the point of dismissing their side of the argument entirely and ultimately dismissing them as a narrow-minded fool.

I must say though, Don Luciano made some of the most rational sense I've heard in this discussion so far... and Muz summed it all up pretty damn well in under 160 words.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
7th April, 2011 at 11:52:14 -

Exactly, you can't prove God doesn't exist... Nor can you prove that Odin, Zeus or Ra doesn't exist!

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
7th April, 2011 at 17:02:22 -

Nor does anyone try to prove they don't exist.

My logic doesn't revolve around believing God exists because I can't prove he doesn't, that's just silly.
People who use that logic use it because it's a easy one liner.

However, if you're going to say that you *know* he doesn't exist as an atheist I think that argument is equally silly.

-One of the biggest convincing factors is that the Bible agrees with history.
The historical parts of it. (The poetry that's in the Bible is obviously that, poetry)

The cities mentioned in the Bible actually existed,
Archeology has uncovered many of them, as well as the pharaoh that drowned in the red sea.
(His body was covered in salt when he was embalmed, hieroglyphs told the story, ect)
The drowning was caused by God when he closed the sea over the Egyptians after the Israelites escaped.

-Then there are scientific statements (depending on how you look at it) that are completely accurate even though years earlier people thought differently.

There's a scripture that states that "the life is in the blood,"
yet after this was written some thought that it was possible to bleed a person to help cure them.

There is more but it would take up too much space.
Google them if you're interested.

On top of all this I've actually felt God, now one could argue that I was feeling something else and it's easy for someone on the internet to type this.
And to that argument there is nothing I could say to convince you otherwise except that you felt him yourself.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
7th April, 2011 at 19:58:04 -

@UrbanMonk: The problem with a Bible scripture is that the things that can be proven from the bible, can also be proven to have been natural disasters that had no hand from God. This is one reason why I really do not like any sort of religious scripture that tries to explain the history of people and then rationalize parts of their lives they couldn't understand as being irrefutably the hand of God. In fact there was a whole show on the History Channel about Noahs Ark and why so many religious texts from that area mentioned a great flood. The area was prone to flash flooding.
So while I believe that faith in God/divinity is true and that people who do believe it need no proof because they can feel or see it around them, it's entirely a matter of perception. One mans perception of God is just an excuse for another man to call him a fool. So to call him a fool is not believing your perception of God, makes you, especially in his eyes, even more of a fool. A religious text is not necessary to believe in God or divinity because it's essentially the story/science book of their time. It's old, it's outdated, and if you like it that's fine, but it's a horrible reference to use in any sort of argument. You'd be better off telling a college professor you used Wikipedia.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
7th April, 2011 at 21:30:12 -

What area was prone to flash flooding?

The indians that lived in America have a similar flood story.
In fact I don't know of one ancient civilazation that doesnt have some sor of flood story.

The fact that it's so old and yet still agrees with modern science is what makes it even more believable.

And regarding someone thinking anyone's a fool for thinking in a certain way has been around for centuries and doesn't prove a thing. Especially since it could apply to anything and not just the beleif in God.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
8th April, 2011 at 08:24:21 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
What area was prone to flash flooding?

The indians that lived in America have a similar flood story.
In fact I don't know of one ancient civilazation that doesnt have some sor of flood story.

The fact that it's so old and yet still agrees with modern science is what makes it even more believable.

And regarding someone thinking anyone's a fool for thinking in a certain way has been around for centuries and doesn't prove a thing. Especially since it could apply to anything and not just the beleif in God.



In small isolated communities, a big flood would practically be worldwide from what they could tell. Then some elder would find it to be a good story to instill respect of God.

What says the Genesis version of the story is more accurate than any of the other ones? (for example the Epic of Gilgamesh)

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
8th April, 2011 at 09:10:18 -

The Epic of Gilgamesh was written after the Torah.
And The Epic of Gilgamesh was a heavily edited set of ancient poems.

That's not to say that it wasn't inspired by the actual flood that took place though.

I know I mentioned this already but the Torah (which is the Hebrew law, or the first 5 books of the Bible)
was copied letter by letter by Jewish scribes who used a checksum system to make sure they didn't make a mistake when copying.

The Ancient Hebrew "letters" also represented numbers, so the scribes simply added all the letters up at the end and checked if the sum matched. If it didn't they threw the whole thing out and started over.

They also did some other rituals while copying the Torah that I won't get into here, but needless to say they considered their law to be very important. Wouldn't you agree?

On top of that they believed that the world would come to an end if they copied it wrong.

Taking all these facts into account it's not likely that the Torah (which contains the flood story) was changed much since it's original transcription.

And it's quite a feat that if this document has lasted (3500-4000 years) so long without being contested by neighboring communities who might not have experienced any flash flooding. (here's a hint, the neighboring communities drowned so they couldn't. )

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
8th April, 2011 at 12:23:30 -

Urban, the point I'm trying to make is not that the bible wasn't inspired by real events. It's that the bible is way too quick to judge that God was the soul purpose for every single last thing that they could not explain themselves. Instead of just saying "we don't know yet", they just wrote it in the bible as being "See? Told you God exists" and many people still do this today. And those people are quick to be dismissed as babbling idiots. Yet people like yourself, no offence, worship a book that was written in a time where virtually everyone, especially people of the church, were in a sense, comprised of nothing but what today would consider babbling idiots - not men of science or archiving.
Also, the point I was trying to make about one mans idea of God leading to another mans excuse to call him a fool... was not an attempt to dismiss God all together, as you seem to have taken it. What I meant was that no ones perception of God is going to be the same, nor is anyones perception of God going to be technically wrong since no one truly knows God, nor can anyone truly prove his existence or not. So to try to insist that your idea of God is right and wave around a book as evidence is foolish. Divinity is to each individual, what they decide to perceive it. It's a force that we cannot [yet] comprehend and until then, any and every single view of this force is merely an archetype that we use to emotionally attach ourselves to something that is otherwise too complex for us to understand. So in that sense, everyone's view of God is correct as long as it works for them, because it's helping them emotionally connect with the divine energy that we all perceive as a deity.
Now if you're going to sit there and deny that... I trust you can provide me more meaningful evidence than YOUR religions sacred holy text, the bible. Because like I said, you trying to explain to me (or anyone else whose not Christian) anything you read out of the bible as proof, as as meaningful to any of us, as trying to tell a college professor that you wrote an entire essay off of a Wikipedia page... that you might have adjusted a little bit in your favor.

PS: And this includes not going around saying "Look, this happened and the bible said this so the bible must be accurate," because anyone can take and perceive two things as being similar with the right attitude. That's just like saying "Look, this happened and Wikipedia said it happened too... so Wikipedia must be accurate, right?" No.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
8th April, 2011 at 18:16:53 -

That depends on what you mean by "explain"
If you're talking about how things happen (science) or why the system for these things exists in the first place.

And please don't talk about the big bang or any other theory that tries the explain the beginning of everything, because in retrospect someone who proposes such things is just as much a "babbling idiot."

No human observer witnessed the beginning, and besides many of these theories contradict other scientific evidence, and laws.
(assuming any of the other evidence was accurate in the first place, we discover new things everyday)

So to ignore God's existence requires someone to ignore the deficiencies contain within man made scientific guesses, and try to embrace them as an explanation since it's the only alternative.
To me that requires just as much faith if not more than just believing in a God. (A being outside of time and space that existed before anything and created everything)

And if I were to chose a God to believe in I would go for the one whose holy book makes the most sense.
If there is at least one contradiction, or misquotes of known historical facts then I'll dismiss it.

I love logic, which is why I love programming, math, and physics.
I'm a very skeptical person and I question everything, even the Bible, whenever I read something that I think may not be correct I check surrounding scriptures, historical references, and the original Hebrew/Greek meaning. I'm a student of the Bible, I've taken Philosophy classes and Bible lit classes at my University, and I have yet to discover any contradictions (within the Bible itself, not other religious denominations of Christianity), inaccurate historical information, or known scientific information (Discovered through observation).

All that in the midst of other "holy" texts that have contradictions, scientific impossibilities, or historical inaccuracies.

I don't see God as something visible to the human eye or mind, I see God as a being that permeates everything. The reason that everything maintains it's balance. (The laws of physics, electrostatics, quantum physics, optics<-my favorite) God is a spirit, he exists on a different plane of existence than us. Yes I'm a monotheist. I only believe in one God like the Jews, and I believe that Jesus was flesh that was being controlled directly by God, and so in turn *was* God.


Anyway I guess I've laid too many cards on the table at this point, but it doesn't matter. It's rock solid.


 
n/a

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
8th April, 2011 at 19:28:46 -

I don't see how the Bible and factual correctness are at all relevant to each other. Seriously, it's okay if your book isn't backed up by historical or scientific records, isn't that the point of it?

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
8th April, 2011 at 20:40:12 -

It has history in it, and where it talks about History it's correct. The events actually happened and archeology backs it up.

I would think that if it were fictional that people wouldn't still be reading it after so many thousands of years. Wouldn't you say?
It still remains relevant, and was created by God to be so.

So with that in mind the Bible and factual correctness are altogether one and the same.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
8th April, 2011 at 22:06:45 -

None of the bible is actually split into "what's actually real" and "what's poetry" so that leaves it entirely up to your perception. So while you supported your point well and I applaud you, it's still flawed.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
8th April, 2011 at 22:28:32 -

Well first I don't know what you mean by using "real" and "poetry" like they are antonyms.

Secondly the Bible is literally split into history, poetry, letters (the epistles), and prophesy.
So basing your argument on that is entirely useless.

So no, it isn't a perception thing, it's pretty straight forward.

The Bible isn't a single book, it's a collection of books, and most of the time it literally tells you whats going to be in each book on the first sentence.

In Proverbs 1:1 "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;"
It lets the reader know that this won't be history, but a list of proverbs that Solomon wrote.

Also if you just read the titles of the books it's pretty obvious.

The book of Psalms, or songs is just that, a book of songs.
If you expect to find a romance novel in the book of songs then I can't help you.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
8th April, 2011 at 22:36:29 -

Can't we all agree that the bible can't be proven true and that it doesn't need to be?

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
8th April, 2011 at 22:45:29 -

No one needs to prove that it's true.
It does a good enough job of that on it's own.

Read it, you'll see.

I recommend Olive Tree:
http://olivetree.com

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
9th April, 2011 at 00:51:45 -

Close enough. Have a pixel Jesus

Image

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
9th April, 2011 at 02:37:45 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
So no, it isn't a perception thing, it's pretty straight forward.



No, your entire religion, in fact, you're entire division of your religion, the entire bible, is one single perception of the real thing. Just because you think it's the only truth, does not mean that it is. It's only a very small fragment of a much bigger picture, the likes of which absolutely no one in the world can actually perceive. Which is why we use archetypes and stories/myths behind those archetypes. To help us to perceive something far greater than ourselves, not in a way that's accurate, but in a way that's comfortable.
The second you start declaring your religion as being the one true religion, you've immediately lost any and all credibility from me. No offense to you personally, it's more a broad statement that you just happen to, at the moment, be falling into.

Btw, I hope we're not killing the topic or anything with these back and forth debates. I personally think the topic, though brought back from the dead, is pretty healthy and I hope none of what we're saying is sending a red flag to the admins and making them consider locking it. Admins? How're we doing?

Also, Urban. I would like to point out once more, just to make sure we're on the same page here... that this discussion/debate is entirely based around the topic at hand, not personal. Nothing I'm saying is reflecting what I think of you personally, and I hope nothing I say will influence what you think of me personally. I just formally but strongly disagree with you on this particular topic.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
9th April, 2011 at 05:01:39 -

You're correct, even the Bible states that "... we see through a glass, darkly;..." 1 Corinthians 13:12

The Bible only scratches the surface of what God is, but it scratches deeper than any other religious text while staying historically, and scientifically accurate at the same time.

Now with regards to the "only truth" I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Certainly the Bible is true, and there are of course other truths, and none of them disagree with the Bible. Otherwise they wouldn't be called a truth.

Now if you want to make the "entire bible" and "single perception" interchangeable then just swap "the Bible" with "this perception" in my earlier posts and that's pretty much my argument.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
9th April, 2011 at 05:27:29 -

What parts of the bible are you so positive are actually true? Especially since a lot of the stories told in the bible, are taken from other pre-Christian myths. In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like a completely transformed version of the myth which the Goddess gave birth to God after he sacrificed himself for the fall harvest. In fact, the timing is conviniently almost in perfect sync with the myth, and the myth is in sync with the natural season cycles. In fact, if you distiled everything that wasn't rooted in pagan faith, from Christianity or the bible, you wouldn't be left with much. The bible just adjusted the stories and changed names and re-associated it with a single all knowing God.

I would suggest reading some books that had no Christian affiliation, about paganism and also broaden your horizon to other faiths. You might quickly discover how Christianity is just one of many other religions that all make just as much sense (complete sense to those who believe, and no sense to people who don't believe).

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
9th April, 2011 at 06:02:28 -

The idea of Christianity didn't come about until after Jesus was born, and his birth was prophesied in many other ancient texts prior to the ones included in the Bible itself.
Jesus's birth fulfilled over 400 prior prophesies that existed in texts much older than the Gospels contained in the New Testament.

Mary didn't stay a virgin her whole life, she had other children with Joseph after Jesus was born, and she wasn't the mother of God. God existed before Mary, and in fact created Mary. She was a human just like the rest of us. She was overshadowed by the God and allowed her to conceive a child which was then simply a manifestation of God. All of this information is in the books Matthew and Mark.

His name was Jesus because Jesus is also God's name.

John 14:8-10
"Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. "

Those passages pretty much speak for themselves.

Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
9th April, 2011 at 08:02:27 -

I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all. Like I've said many, many times in the past few pages... your bible references are as valuable to me as Wikipedia is to a college professor. It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people. I don't really care how historically accurate it is. I will not take anything you say as credible unless you can cite it outside of the bible. If the bible is so historically accurate, than you shouldn't have too hard a time finding me real, unbiased, historical evidence or records.

Forgive me if I come across as an asshole, but I assumed I was pretty clear before. Unless you can find me an unbiased source of everything you're telling me, outside of the bible, I'm not going to take anything you say as credible. I do not believe in the bible, I don't care how historically accurate you claim it is. I simply do not believe in it. It's not a history book, it's not a science book. Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are? Don't answer that, it's just a vague example - not a direct challenge.

My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me. Surely someone with such a strong faith can find a source that's unbiased toward your specific religion, to actually support what you believe, and not be easily dismissed through some other, potentially more rational explanation. Right?

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
9th April, 2011 at 18:55:16 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
I've said this at least three times now, so maybe I should be a little more straight forward. Unless you can cite me a source besides the bible, it wont mean anything to me and wont support your argument at all.



When I cited the Bible I was correcting your false statement about Jesus's birth that you mentioned in the quote below.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
In fact, the whole idea of Jesus (God) being born by the virgin Mary sounds like...



So to make things more clear next time you chose to use a story in the Bible as an example to compare to something else make sure you quote it too.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
It's sourced material edited many times from other sources and edited limitless times by too many people.



This is false, as I've already showed a few posts up. The Bible was not edited. Please show me where it was edited and give solid proof and I might be inclined to agree, and please don't cite the History channel, they're bias against any kind of religious worldview, so that "source" is as credible as Wikipedia as you like to put it.



Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Of course cities written about it, actually existed. We have movies about aliens attacking New York. New York is real, does that mean the aliens are?



Ok this made me laugh,

Jericho an actual city that existed was found. The walls of the city were found underground, so not only was the city real, but the destruction of the city existed as well and matches the Bible's description exactly.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
My point is... the bible is NOT a credible source, so please stop referring to it, at least when you're trying to discuss this with me.



I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found. At what point does something qualify as "credible?" I'm sure your answer will be something along the lines of anything that agrees with your worldview, or something about being un-bias which by the way is a matter of opinion.

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
9th April, 2011 at 19:54:44 -

ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God. You want a better example? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but God came before us and provided us with the technology of nuclear weapons... so we bombed them, twice. Sure, the evidence of all three bombings actually exists, but that does not mean Gods intervention had absolutely anything to do with it.

Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about. You trust so well that your bible is telling you the truth all the time, that the instant you read it in the bible, it must be true. And yes, I will cite the History Channel, because the history channel is about as unbiased to any religion as you can get. Why? Because they need to be so that they can tell as much of the whole story as they can.

In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is. The History Channel explains religious history, not bible history... but you don't like that, do you? Because it might actually mean that your bible isn't as perfect as you thought it was. It might be a blemish on your religion's credibility. I've watched enough of The History Channel to know for a fact that what they talk about in their shows, though biased toward attracting the ignorant mainstream watcher into questioning things so they sit through commercial breaks, is extremely reliable to someone who actually knows and see's past the commercial tricks and cares to learn the information - and I've learned a lot of information.

I mean hell, if you're going to dismiss The History Channel as being too biased against any kind of religious worldview, you mid-as-well dismiss Discovery Channel's Planet Earth as being too biased against the world logging and petroleum organizations, since they show the beauty of the real world and try to convince people to stop destroying it. Oh no! That's biased!

"I don't see any reason not to refer as long as no inaccuracies have been found." Then you, my friend, won't have any problem... delivering me the information from which the bible was checked against, to be found for potential inaccuracies, and proven to be so right. Because unless you can find me information outside of the bible, I don't care. I do not believe in your bible, it's as simple as that. Prove to me what you're saying, without using the bible.

Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

MasterM



Registered
  02/01/2002
Points
  701

I am an April Fool
9th April, 2011 at 20:25:28 -

18 pages and still people debate. gee

zes

anyways then thats something people are already doing for hundreds of years and guess what they wont stop so this might as well get 500 pages. all of which i won't read a single word of so i just post a somewhat related cartoon that might offend people



 
Image

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
9th April, 2011 at 23:41:51 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Remember that other pre-Christian myths were created by people who were descendents of Noah and thus heard the same stories that had been passed down from generation to generation. It's not too difficult to imagine that these pre-Christain myths were heavily influenced by them.



This blows my mind. Every pre-Chrisitan myth was seeded by a descendant of Noah?

I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version:

For generations, the Norse believed that one day, there would be a great battle that would shake the heavens, rattle the earth, and change the world as they knew it. Christians come along, study the Norse religion, and then introduce another character named Gimle, or light. Then the Christians convinced the holdouts that Ragnarok (the end of the world) already happened, and that Gimle arose from the world's ashes. Those who did not believe attempted to defend their faith, but were suppressed by the Christians through militaristic means.

How does that coincide with your explanation that "it's not too difficult to imagine" Noah's descendants first coming up with the Norse mythos, then centuries later re-writing it to suit their own ends?

In other words, Gimle was completely fabricated by Christians to co-opt the Norse faith. The only equivalent to this occurring for Christianity is if there was suddenly a race of Greek god-worshiping people that somehow erupted from the earth itself and presented a heretofore undiscovered book of the bible stating that, in fact, the world had already experienced Armageddon and that from the ashes the Greek gods emerged, like seedlings from the soil, and ascended to Mount Olympus to rule over the world, unseen.

I'll re-state my opinion again: religion was created to keep the masses in check. It is a "happy idea" that rationalizes some things of historical significance as acts of divine retribution. By persuading or coercing people to adopt the belief system, religious leaders gain prominence and influence in their respective civilizations; their own beliefs of "what is right" are combined with common-sense doctrine to lend legitimacy and become adopted as fact. It is not legitimized coincidentally because some of the beliefs "make sense" or are "the right thing to do." Rational thought is blended with the magical thought of those who want to advance the religion to make it more appetizing to the masses. Those who resist have historically been marginalized and/or subjugated through militaristic means.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have experienced success and proliferation due to their access to resources. Other belief systems have been crushed under their heel for not having the resources to "spread the word" and simultaneously defend themselves from religious invasion.

You want my opinion? It's "not too difficult to imagine" that the truth of the world (in whatever shape it may come or have come) has long since been crushed by invasive faith systems such as Christianity, and the earth's inhabitants have been robbed by the imperialistic maneuvering of humanity.

...I really should have written off this thread back when I said I did.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
9th April, 2011 at 23:50:00 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
ANYONE can write about stuff that ACTUALLY HAPPENED... that DOES NOT MEAN that everything that's written, also happened too. ESPECIALLY when it talks about encounters or stories about God



I also contains prophesy which were written prior to the actual events occurring.

Danial received visions from God about our modern war machines before they even existed, but of course he didn't know what they were so he had to explain them using terms he knew.

Revelations 9:13
"And thus I saw the Horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone."

A horse as in the animal doesn't issue "fire and smoke and brimstone" out of it's mouth.
Modern-day war "horses" refer to tanks or transport vehicles.



Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Also, your references to the bible and how Jesus was born, is exactly what I'm talking about.



You're still misunderstanding me. When I referenced to when Jesus was born I was correcting your original statement about what you thought it was about. If you're going to try and compare a passage in the Bible to a mythical story then at least make sure you know what the passage actually says and not what you think/remember it saying. So yes, if you incorrectly recall a passage in the Bible and try to use that to justify your argument, then of course I'm going to quote what it actually says. Just so we're clear.



Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
In fact, your complete unwillingness to stand in front of an argument made by the History Channel, single handedly proves to me how weak your argument is.



What argument are you referring to?
There was no argument, just a misrepresentation of history.



Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Also, your stab at the History Channel is making it increasing, if not impossible to feel like I can continue on with this discussion because it single handedly proves to me that you're completely dismissing an extremely rational, very credible source of information, simply because it spits the truth right in your face.



Ok well go ahead and cite it if you must. If you really need it that badly.



EDIT:


Originally Posted by s-m-r
I'll give you one example of a non-Christian faith that was co-opted by Christian converters. The Norse mythos. This is the short, short version



Very good. There are countless other mythical stories, and religious rituals that have been modified by "Christian" believers.

Such as replacing gods of other religions with "saints" that believers could pray to...ect. This was all done to help them convert people of other religions.
I however do not agree with, or support such nonsense, and to make it clear I don't believe that praying to a dead person will do any good.

Ecclesiastes 9:5
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing..."

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 00:59:57 -

This thread was a very good thread through most pages! Too bad that it had to boil down to wall-to-wall-nyeha-I'm-right-your-not-because-[non-sensical babble].

Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source. That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.

I for one won't engage in this thread, but just believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. I've spent the last several years at uni studying these things with the aim of becoming a lecturer on the subject, so I wouldn't say things I'm not 100% sure off.

With that said, can we let this thread move on now? TDC has got quite a clear view of your opinion on the subject. Perhaps others would like to enter and share their views instead?

//EE

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
10th April, 2011 at 02:22:21 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source



I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.




Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.



Actually it isn't heavily edited, and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=dead+sea+scrolls

They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.

Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.

So it sounds to me sir that you're just making things up off the top of your head, so I'll have to carefully examine any father claims from you.
At least Brandon (silverfire) researches his replies.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 03:27:59 -

First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.

Secondly, before replying in an overly rude manner, make sure you have COMPREHENDED the post you're replying to. Twisting words and implying other intentions =


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards. However, you won't catch me trying to prove the vast majority of the world's view on history wrong by ONLY referring to one source


I haven't tried to prove any history wrong. To what are you referring?
I've simply showed that the Bible agrees with the history we already know, quite the opposite from what you've stated I've tried to do.



Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B

You: A<B


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
That, plus the fact that the bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture (claiming otherwise is simply proving a serious lack of facts) makes your argumentation very weak to readers of this thread. Regarding pointing to the Jewish way of copying the Torah; that doesn't apply to the bible you hold in your hands. The old testament was not treated with the same respect by early Christians, it is indeed also edited.




Actually it isn't heavily edited, and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=dead+sea+scrolls



Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)


They match our modern Bible by %99 and they're significantly older than any known copy of the Bible.

Not only that but the Jewish method of reproducing the Torah does indeed apply to the Bible we hold in our hands because the Torah is in fact the first 5 books of our modern Bible, which is what contains the history that we've been talking about this whole thread.



This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.

//EE

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
10th April, 2011 at 03:57:10 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
First off, I have to say that your tone is quite reeking with the thick headed discussion approach common for most self-appointed, elitist, religious zealot would-be's.


You're tone is quite the same, so I don't know why you even made such a statement.


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Worlds view on historical event = A
The bible's view on same historical event = B
A<>B

You: A<B



Please quote me where I did this and I might be inclined to agree.
You won't be able to find any good quotes however since I've yet to make any statements that disagree with history.



Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Me: "The bible is indeed a heavily edited scripture" (bible>OT)
Me: "The old testament [...] is indeed also edited" (edited<>heavily edited)


So, what's your point?
Whats the difference between heavily edited, and simply edited?
%5 ? %10 ?

Regardless it wasn't edited, so this is a moot point.

If you can't prove any of your claims and back them up with evidence, as I have, then why make them?



Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
This whole thread has not been about the bible, this thread is about people's view on the matter of God. And that statement is inaccurate, OT, Torah and the bible are not interchangeable words. Stop using them in such a manner. Read my post again.



And?

The Old Testament and the Torah are contained in the Bible.
The Old Testament is the first 39 books, and the Torah is the first 5. Happy?
I figured you would already know such a thing, so I didn't think I'd have to clarify it for you.

The first 5, of which I've been referring to the majority of this thread, and of which were copied by the Jewish scribes.
The New Testament wasn't edited either, and are significantly younger since some of the original documents still exist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=original+documents+new+testament+bible

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 05:05:22 -

There is a real breakdown of communication here.

It's pointless of me to answer your first bit, I'll let the public decide that on their own.

For your second bit, see-->[insert almost entire latter dialog with Silver] and apply what I actually said, not your misinterpretation of what I mean.

FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.

Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.

But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.

Good day to you.


 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 05:43:33 -

Urban, those men and women you typically see in between cuts, being interviewed during shows on the History Channel? Those are REAL scholars who actually know what they're talking about. They study the bible in aways you couldn't even imagine, make connections you couldn't have ever seen, and dig up truths you wish didn't exist.
"Brandon Cassata I find the History Channel very enlightening and entertaining. Especially when they focus on religious subjects only because it gives me more perspective on things. But you did say "most," and sadly I think you might have it right there. There are too many Christians who are just ... stupid."
A Christian friend of mine even whole heartedly admits that not only was the bible edited, but that the History Channel is a very reputable place to get information. And no, I'm not saying cite "The History Channel", you obviously need to go deeper and cite the people that The History channel got their information from... but I can tell you right now, the information I get from The History Channel is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate than your interpretation of history. The fact that you single handedly refuse to acknowledge the bible was edited, is a major red flag of your ignorance - and the first real red flag I've seen from you. Sure I've disagreed with you and I was willing to work with you to find out an agreement, but this is just a major red flag and you have no idea how wrong you are.

"Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.

You can't even agree with other people of your own faith, how in the world can you expect me to believe you?

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 05:49:18 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
FYI: Editing=editing to some degree, heavy editing=editing to the degree that it has impact on the actual context of the contents. And if you, as a Christian, don't even know how your holy book has come to be in the state you find it in your hands, then you have homework to do.

Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.



But rest assured, I won't spend my time arguing to a self-blind brick wall, so you'll get the last word.

Good day to you.



Sir, you just won the conversation. I don't care how much further it goes on, and I'll put my two cents in edge wise simply because I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to make points which I see as valid, and hopefully learn from points I thought were valid but might not be. But you sir, have managed to single handedly step in, sucker punch, and walk out with pride.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 18:46:10 -

Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.

The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.

The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).

This is common knowledge.
Even with the Torah and the scribes meticulous copying rituals there is a room for error, however slight.

And since you so badly need a source to understand this I'd recommend The Secular Bible by Jacques Berlinerblau, you can check him out here--> http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/jdb75/

I recommend you read the entirety but with special attention to the term "supplementation". If you need specific pagenumbers then I suggest p.62, 67 and 75-77 to name a few.

The fact that I use a self-proclaimed non-believer as source should add some creditability to the source since my major inclination in religious studies have been the criticism of atheism.

So why do I use Berlinerblau as source?

Simply because he puts aside every aspect of belief(in any inclination, be it faith or non-belief) and scientifically approaches the subject. He wants to straighten it out for real, partly due to the fact that atheists commonly aren't that well-versed on the different aspects of the Bible. Read it, you would benefit.

Over and out.
//EE

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
10th April, 2011 at 19:15:33 -


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Shame on me for not holding up to my decision to leave this derailing topic, but I would like to clarify something.

The common rule for providing a source is if the statement made is not selfevident or common knowledge.

The Bible, in it's entirety (meaning I include every text ever to be associated to what is commonly known as "The Holy Bible"), as ALL documention preceding the computer(and even those fault at times!), is in varying degrees edited(i.e more or less edited, meaning different states of being true to the original - if such a thing ever existed in the same composition - in letter, word and meaning. Do you understand or shall I continue?).


I think what the big misunderstanding here between SiLVERFIRE and I is his definition of edited.

Technically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.
However since they had multiple authors (Peter, James, John, Mark, Matthew all wrote their own experiences with Jesus from *their* point of view) most people take that as meaning that the New Testament was modified to have a different meaning, which isn't so.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
"Tell him to read about King James and how he just decided to edit out what he didnt like and put in what made it look better. Some say all he did was translate it, but im sure he did more than that. Plus, if you translate something enough times, information will be lost anyway." Another friend of mine, also religious, who disagrees with you.


Your friend is wrong, and him being religious doesn't make him any more of a source of information than you.

King James didn't translate the Bible nor did he have any say in how the translation was done. Go ahead and search for yourself.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=did+king+james+translate+the+bible


Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Your last bit is incohesive and incorrect.


That's what someone says when they can't stand up to a solid argument.
Since you know I'm right you have no other choice than to simply resort to insults.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
10th April, 2011 at 19:48:05 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonkTechnically the books of the Bible in the New Testament (is that exact enough for you?) are still in their original form as they were originally written.



What about the ending to the gospel of Mark?

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
10th April, 2011 at 19:51:02 -

The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.

There are a couple of differences between the gospels in the way that they are worded and their descriptions, but as SiLVERFIRE has said those are all separate perspectives of the same events (or in this case the same God).

EDIT: The upside to these fun little debates is that I've earned some dc points!

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
10th April, 2011 at 20:08:37 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
The gospel of Mark was originally made to be oral, however since it matches the stories in the other gospels it's perfectly reliable.



1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
10th April, 2011 at 20:19:50 -


Originally Posted by Phredreeke
1. I was referring to the oldest copies of Mark lacking the last 12 verses.
2. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are generally considered to be based on Mark (and a second lost source)


That because as I said the book of Mark was oral, and so many scholars listening to it being preached by Mark simply copied it as *they* heard it.

There are hundreds of Greek manuscripts with slight changes in wording of the story contained in Mark.
This is something that was taught in my Bible lit class at my University.

For your 2nd point I just don't believe it. There are far too many differences, and there are no inconsistencies in prospective.
At least in the original Greek translations, which you can read word for word (using cross references) in PC Study Bible.

http://www.biblesoft.com/

UPDATE:

There are 5600+ copies of the New Testament in existence.

They are 99.5% accurate to one another, and only have a 100 year span from when the originals were written to when the copies were made.

And from those manuscripts the translation to English to the Geneva Bible was made.

And then the 51 years later King James commissioned the King James Bible to be written, 54 men were chosen to translate it and to follow a strict set of rules for translation. Many of them were proficient in ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
10th April, 2011 at 23:24:30 -

Do you ever read any information that isn't affiliated with your religion? Better yet, have you ever considered the possible accuracy of skeptics or do you just try to find something wrong in everything they're telling you. Do you ask your church every question you have or do you consider asking a real scholar or scientist? I know a lot of Christians and absolutely none of them are as close minded as you are. You swear by a book that's NOT that's been changed, tweaked, adjusted, translated, you name it, it's been done. It's like saving a JPEG over and over and over again, it's going to lose quality and accuracy every single time.

Look, with your dismissal of The History Channel, a very reputable source of information, you've proven how bias you are against skeptical information that might prove your religion wrong. You're just being ignorant and close minded.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
11th April, 2011 at 00:03:19 -

Yes I read all about all different types of religious, and of course science. Although I wouldn't look to a scientist as a source of moral insight.

The facts about the origins of the Bible come from many sources, and to be quite honest is something I've picked up on my own and didn't learn from my church.

Basing your argument on whether I agree with *some* of the History Channel's programming is hardly any kind of solid proof aginst my argument.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
11th April, 2011 at 02:49:20 -

Tell me, what makes you think so high and mighty of your religion that you believe you're the only one right. Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently. Who are you? I mean really, who are you to say that you're RIGHT about all of this? At any point in your life, do you ever sit back and suggest to yourself that maybe these could just be your individual beliefs, that they you don't truly know (because you don't) the truth, and this is just what you believe?

Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Why? Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it. I tell you what I believe, why I believe it, and I'm willing to admit when I might be wrong about something, but you dig up information from your bible, or from sources that are biased toward you bible, and ignore sources that tell you that your bible might not be entirely as accurate as you think it is.

You claim you've heard all the arguments. Have you? Have you actually heard a word and invested a moment of your time to think about it? Or spend all your time thinking about comebacks or information that all connects, hoping that whoever argues with you doesn't care enough to invest time in researching and debunking you. You remind me of Ray Comfort right now.

And the reason I've stopped facing your arguments head on is because like I said, the very instant you turned down a good reliable source of information that's not biased toward your religion as being biased against it, you lost my respect in this particular discussion. People whose ideas are conceived through irrational thought processes are impossible to convince with rational means. Until you start accepting information that you don't particularly like to hear, you will always be close minded. And that my friend, is my last word of this discussion.

Take your last word and let someone else argue you on it, because I cannot continue frustrating myself by arguing with, as EE so well put it, a self-blind brick wall.

I bid you adieu.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
11th April, 2011 at 02:55:46 -

Amen to that! Image

(sry, couldn't resist the ultimate pun)

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

vetmora120



Registered
  07/01/2010
Points
  273
11th April, 2011 at 04:07:08 -

Very interesting article here. A huge range of beliefs, had no idea TDC was so dispersed

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
11th April, 2011 at 16:21:01 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
I bid you adieu.


Please don't leave just yet, I want to hear all your arguments.

You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Especially when many Christian churches can all look at the same bible and perceive it differently.


It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.

I've already explained why I put so much faith in the Bible, and so I see it as a credible source for moral insight as should you. Even EE agrees that the Bible deserves some respect.

Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE]
Urban: I hold the bible in very, very, high regards.





Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Because I'll tell you right now, one of the biggest differences between you and me is that my beliefs can't be debunked. Because I don't try to claim facts. I don't wave a book around swearing by my perception of it.


It's funny that you say that your beliefs can't be debunked, and then turn around and say that you can't be sure that what you believe is true. Of course if don't have any kind of solid stand then no one can disagree since you aren't sure yourself.

Now as soon as someone actually believes in something it makes you upset, but yet you claim to be open-minded towards anyone's beleifs.

I know exactly why you're getting so mad, because unlike most people who claim to be a particular religion I actually believe what I say.
I don't just say I believe in it but go off and do what I want. I actually follow the Bible as close as I can, and pray to God to give me wisdom to do what's right.


So please don't take what I say the wrong way, I don't feel like I'm better than anyone else, and I certainly don't think I'm perfect, but what I am doing is striving to do what's right.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
11th April, 2011 at 16:46:10 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

You can quote the History channel if you want, but please use their sources and not just them as a source.



I actually agree with that.


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

It's funny you should say this, fact is most "Christian" churches don't read the Bible at all. They just simply listen to their priest or pastor and take his word for it.
This is a sad state when people can't think for themselves. If someone tells me something I want them to show me why they believe that way.



And I really agree with that. It made sense hundreds of years ago when hardly anyone could read. Nowadays it just speaks of laziness and apathy.

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
11th April, 2011 at 18:04:22 -

To stand your ground and claim to be absolutely sure about something you have zero proof for, is stupid. However I do have beliefs and ideas about the world, about divinity, that can't be debunked because for as much as we discover, there will always be a chance the divinity is just outside of our lines of discovery or just around the corner, always alluding science.

And you telling me to quote the sources on The History channel is exactly like me telling you to quote the sources of the bible, and you seemed pretty reluctant, so forgive me if I do too. I haven't seen the show that I gathered all this information from, nor do I even know the particular name or even the particular show it was from, so for me to gather my sources - though possible, would be way too much effort for someone who's not going to return the effort but instead just run his finger down the bible and quote it.

And no, I'm not getting upset the second someone else expresses a different believe. I'm getting upset that in the face of an argument, you're using irrational points to debate rational idea's. Not all the time, but half the time and it's frustrating.

The bible deserves as much respect as any other book, it's a good book when it comes to describing the histories of people, the troubles they faced, etc. It's basically an autobiography of the people, by the people, at their present time of living. That much I am not disagreeing with. What I'm disagreeing with is the stories they claim are absolutely true. At no point has a hard core Christian ever admitted to me that the stories they live their moral lives by, could be symbolism for how they should live their lives, and that while they can believe in a heaven and hell as their after life or an almighty God, that's fine... you cannot let this book derail your grasp on the reality. It may be accurate, but the people who wrote it were ignorant of anything beyond what they knew at the time, so you need to admit that their ideas on reality could be skewed and that anything they couldn't explain and claimed to be God, could have actually been something completely natural and rational. From what I gather, you've not admitted any of this.
You still seem to claim that these are all works of God. Funny God's name being placed as the cause for things happening, decreased as fast as science and understanding grew. I'm sure you've heard this argument before but do you understand what it means? I mean truly understand. It does not mean science is leading more people away from religion. It means that people are more inclined to believe something that can be proven to them, because to prove it's existence, shows us that it actually existed beyond speculation. If we still based our lives entirely on speculation and incorrect coloration between two things which really weren't connected at all, we'd still be drilling into peoples heads to release pressure on their brain, in an attempt to cure depression - instead of a much more proven sound method of anti-depressants.

Do you really think the whole world flooded? Do you really think that God had anything to do with any flooding at all that might have caused, particularly in area's where in which the stories actually derive?

And you'll have to excuse me, but my discussion with you started, probably a lot earlier than you realized. It started back when you first dismissed a need to believe in more than one God. Much earlier in the discussion. So if it seems as though I've been blindly swatting debate toward you, it's really been quite consistent and focused on you in particular. I've said a few things here and there, but I don't typically go out and start disagreeing with people with faith - anymore, I used to when I was an atheist. So I've not really been necessarily close minded or sensitive in this topic, I've just been discussing the topic of faith with you for longer than you probably knew, especially since in the beginning, my voice was just one of many people who were talking and replying to you.

Edited by Silveraura

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
11th April, 2011 at 19:21:20 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
To stand your ground and claim to be absolutely sure about something you have zero proof for, is stupid.


Oh I agree.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
And you telling me to quote the sources on The History channel is exactly like me telling you to quote the sources of the bible, and you seemed pretty reluctant, so forgive me if I do too. I haven't seen the show that I gathered all this information from, nor do I even know the particular name or even the particular show it was from, so for me to gather my sources - though possible, would be way too much effort for someone who's not going to return the effort but instead just run his finger down the bible and quote it.


Yep and the History channel knows this, they can tell you what ever they want and you'd believe it.
You can get anyone to believe anything as long as you mix a little truth in it too.

I know you'll prolly try to use this argument against the Bible too, but here's something to think about.

In the book of Revelations Danial had a vision that foretold of Modern war machines, tanks, helicopters, and other predictions. This was thousands of years before they existed, so explain to me this. If God didn't give him the vision who did? I quoted one of the scriptures a few posts up for your reference.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
So if it seems as though I've been blindly swatting debate toward you, it's really been quite consistent and focused on you in particular. I've said a few things here and there, but I don't typically go out and start disagreeing with people with faith - anymore, I used to when I was an atheist.

No it's fine, I'm glad you're interested. You're one of the more knowledgeable people on this subject on this thread anyway.


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
you cannot let this book derail your grasp on the reality.

I have quite a grasp on reality thank you very much. lol.

But on a more serious note, I cannot honestly say that the stories in the Bible aren't or could not be true. You see, I know too much. I've seen too much. I saw a man die on the alter, and he was dead for 10 minutes, according to the paramedics. The church who had all seen him dead began to pray, as soon as the noise of prayer went up his heart monitor came to life. It was the craziest thing that I ever witnessed. I can still see the look on his face, he was white as a sheet and blood was coming from his mouth. It was hard to sleep for a little while after that.

He's still alive today.

Another time, in fact 3 days ago, a friend of mine was healed of lupus. She was diagnosed with it a year ago, we prayed and prayed for her, and three days ago she text me that after going to the doctor to do blood tests they called her and said that they couldn't find the lupus anywhere, nor where the anti-bodies present. The doctor doesn't know what's going on.


Now I'm not saying it happens like this all the time. Certainly there have been times where a healing didn't happen. I don't know why, and I don't question God, that's up to him.

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
11th April, 2011 at 20:03:03 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

In the book of Revelations Danial had a vision that foretold of Modern war machines, tanks, helicopters, and other predictions. This was thousands of years before they existed, so explain to me this. If God didn't give him the vision who did? I quoted one of the scriptures a few posts up for your reference.



The book of Revelation can be interpreted in many different ways.


Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.



Neron Kaisar, when transliterated into hebrew, has the number 666.


And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.



Guess whos face and name was on the roman coins?

Image

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
11th April, 2011 at 21:31:11 -

The scripture I posted has no alternate interpretation.
In fact most didn't understand a lot of it up until recently. Now that the prophesies are coming true.

What are you trying to say with the rest of your post?

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
11th April, 2011 at 22:32:24 -

That Nero was the beast.

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Silveraura

God's God

Registered
  08/08/2002
Points
  6746

Game of the Week WinnerKlikCast StarAlien In Training!VIP Member360 OwnerWii OwnerSonic SpeedThe Cake is a LieComputerChristmas Tree!
I am an April Fool
12th April, 2011 at 04:22:33 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Yep and the History channel knows this, they can tell you what ever they want and you'd believe it.
You can get anyone to believe anything as long as you mix a little truth in it too.



That is EXACTLY what I'm saying about you with the bible. Thing is though, it makes a lot more sense to believe that a book, over hundreds of years old, has been edited and changed many times to suite the needs of the current day society at the time, than it does to believe that the word of the bible is absolutely positively the word of God, spoken through the mere morals who wrote it.

 
http://www.facebook.com/truediamondgame

MasterM



Registered
  02/01/2002
Points
  701

I am an April Fool
12th April, 2011 at 06:45:12 -

So I didn't read any of this thread. Can somebody sum it up for me? Who believes in God and who doesn't?

 
Image

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
12th April, 2011 at 16:56:28 -


Originally Posted by SiLVERFIRE
Thing is though, it makes a lot more sense to believe that a book, over hundreds of years old, has been edited and changed many times to suite the needs of the current day society at the time, than it does to believe that the word of the bible is absolutely positively the word of God, spoken through the mere morals who wrote it.



Brandon, the Bible hasn't been edited.
Every known copy of the individual books of the Bible from the Torah(1312 BCE) to the New Testament (AD 50) to the Geneva Bible(1599 AD) to the KJV(1604 AD) are %99.9 accurate of one another. The only differences being the wording of the same information. This is more or less a condensed form of the information, but the point is that the information itself hasn't been changed. No sign of editing anywhere.

On top of that the dead sea scrolls ( http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/ ) are %99.9 accurate to the Bible we have today. And according to carbon-14 dating they are dated to originate from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E.

There is absolutely no sign of editing anywhere in any known copies of any of the books contained in the Bible.


The only thing you seem to have a problem with is the existence of the God mentioned in these books.

 
n/a

Simon Czentnár



Registered
  11/05/2007
Points
  659

VIP MemberMushroomI am an April Fool
13th April, 2011 at 18:17:54 -


Originally Posted by Phredreeke
That Nero was the beast.



Nero was dead when John wrote the Revelation, wasn't he?

By the way, there could be many explanations for a prophecy. The first can be found in the age of the formation of the prophecy (for example: the beast was Nero).
The interesting thing is that there are better explanations for many prophecies that happen(ed) in the far future. Like Isaiah 53.
The prophet thinks that he made a statement about a man, about his age, or about the society. He did not know that he'd got a forecast from the future.

Sorry for my poor English! This's an interesting thread, by the way!

 
Simon Czentnár
http://czentnar.try.hu

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
13th April, 2011 at 19:27:04 -

As I said, it can be interpreted in many ways. That applies to any prophecy and not just Revelations. For example here's a bit from Nostradamus



Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers:
The greater part of the region will be against the Hister,
The great one will cause it to be dragged in an iron cage,
When the German child will observe nothing.



The treaty of Versailles put post-WWI Germany in huge debts, which allowed Hitler to come to power.
Hister sounds like Hitler. GREAT Britain was one of the first countries to declare war on Germany after the invasion of Poland.
Iron Cage could refer to the bunker in Berlin where Hitler killed himself. Alternatively, after WWII many eastern european countries became soviet satellite states, placing them behind the IRON curtain.
The germans were blinded by Hitler's propaganda.

Edited by Phredreeke

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Simon Czentnár



Registered
  11/05/2007
Points
  659

VIP MemberMushroomI am an April Fool
13th April, 2011 at 20:38:34 -


Originally Posted by Phredreeke
For example here's a bit from Nostradamus



Yeah, that's an interesting thing with Nostradamus. As I know, he has made so many predictions, that there SHOULD be some of them that could be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy. I am not quite learned in this topic, so I could be wrong.
By the way, prophets in the Bible and Nostradamus are quite different. In the age of Nostradamus and also in our thinking are prophets people who can make predictions. That's not so simple in the Bible.
That wasn't an objection on your reply, it's only a comment.
The reason for multiple explanations could be the nature of predictions. They aren't concrete. But sometimes one explanation fits the best. That's because I mentioned Isaiah 53. In this case there are many interpretations. Somebody says: that's about Isaiah. Others say: it's about Israel. But there's always something that calls the association into question. I think the New Testament answered the question the best.

Edited by Simon Czentnár

 
Simon Czentnár
http://czentnar.try.hu

SoftWarewolf

Crazy?

Registered
  18/05/2002
Points
  4271

Wii OwnerVIP Member
16th April, 2011 at 00:01:29 -

the fact that people are still religious, astonishes me..

i wouldn't really get involved here.. but what exactly is god supposed to be?
and what does "higher force" mean? is it similar to any other force?

if god or that force disappeared right now, how would the world be different?

 
http://www.gameyey.com

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
16th April, 2011 at 00:56:28 -

The bible is so subjective people will find countless meanings for the same thing and use that as an answer to almost everything you'll throw at them. I even read in here someone talking about tanks and helicopters in the bible, wtf ?
People even manage to take subliminal meanings from the genesis, the adam and eve story and other stories which are now clearly proved as false.
Having lived and been taught sunday school in two countries with distinct cultures but following the same faith, I've heard completely different interpretations of the same stories. Muslims have one interpretation, jews another, christians another etc...
This discussion was interesting until people started bringing the bible to the table constantly. It's pointless and that's why some people feel like they are discussing with a wall. I gave up on this thread because either no one wasn't able to answer any of my questions or answered with the bible. There's got to be something else that leads someone to believe in god other than what's written in the bible, so I think this would be a much nicer and healthier discussion for both sides if the bible wasn't constantly being brought up.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
16th April, 2011 at 04:39:11 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
People even manage to take subliminal meanings from the genesis, the adam and eve story and other stories which are now clearly proved as false.


Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false. Anything supernatural that happened doesn't need to be explained since God can control has creation anyway he likes.
As for everything else such as history, and true science there are no contradictions.

As long as you discuss God with anyone that actually knows God you're going to hear about the Bible.

And yes, there are multiple meanings to most everything in the Bible, that's what's so great about it.
No matter how many times you read it you'll always find something you didn't notice before, or something that's relevant to what you might be going through.


Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf
the fact that people are still religious, astonishes me..


Even in China where religion isn't allowed, they still have underground churches, there's more to this that just "heaven insurance."
(ignoring the state sponsored church, which is a joke)


Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf
i wouldn't really get involved here.. but what exactly is god supposed to be?


God is a spirit, a being beyond time and space that existed before anything and created everything.


Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf
and what does "higher force" mean? is it similar to any other force?


"higher force" is one of those silly politically correct terms that people use when they talk about religion.


Originally Posted by SoftWarewolf
if god or that force disappeared right now, how would the world be different?


I don't know, but I'm sure the answer to that question would be the same as the answer to this question:
What if no one had any morals, or a conscience?

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
16th April, 2011 at 15:22:13 -

"Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false. Anything supernatural that happened doesn't need to be explained since God can control has creation anyway he likes.
As for everything else such as history, and true science there are no contradictions."

I really didn't want to enter this discussion again but... how can you even say that ?
You can't just deny evidence when it's in front of everyone's eyes.
For instance, god didn't create adam and eve, humanity evolved from the monkeys during millions of years we didn't just pop out from nowhere. God didn't create earth with his bare hands either, earth and every planet on the universe was formed through accretion. The bible states earth is immovable and flat, we know both theories are clearly false.
No contradictions between the bible and science you say ?

"I don't know, but I'm sure the answer to that question would be the same as the answer to this question:
What if no one had any morals, or a conscience?"
I don't believe in god or religion in general, does that mean I have no morals or conscience ?
The question softwarewolf asked and yours have nothing to do with each other. We have morals and conscience because we are an intelligent race, even pets have a small dose of both.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
16th April, 2011 at 17:53:36 -

Who was created first, Adam or the animals? Well it depends on if you read the first or second chapter of Genesis!

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

AndyUK

Mascot Maniac

Registered
  01/08/2002
Points
  14444

Game of the Week WinnerSecond GOTW AwardHas Donated, Thank You!VIP Member
17th April, 2011 at 16:17:06 -

If everything was created by God what created God? And If God is the only exception to the rule that God created everything why is God the only exception to the rule?

 
.

Matt Boothman

The Nissan Micra of forum members

Registered
  20/09/2002
Points
  106

Game of the Week Winner
17th April, 2011 at 20:11:27 -

But that argument doesn't work if you consider that simply being the exception to that rule makes God what it is. i.e. God wasn't created.

 
http://soundcloud.com/normbo - Listen to my music.

Eternal Man [EE]

Pitied the FOO

Registered
  18/01/2007
Points
  2976

Game of the Week WinnerHero of TimeLOL SignI am an April Fool
17th April, 2011 at 22:50:14 -


Originally Posted by AndyUK
If everything was created by God what created God? And If God is the only exception to the rule that God created everything why is God the only exception to the rule?



The idea of a creator isn't applicable to God, since that idea is inherent to our universe. For the notion of a creator to be of interest one must first assume that God is inherent to our universe too, in turn going against the very presumptions of the initial question, i.e God being the creator of the universe.

God doesn't need a creator since the very idea of a creator was created by God, to speak theologian.

 
Eternal Entertainment's Code'n'Art Man

E_E = All Indie


...actually Ell Endie, but whatever.
Image
Image

Jon C-B

I create vaporware

Registered
  23/04/2008
Points
  237

I'm an alien!VIP MemberWii OwnerI donated an open source project Santa Hat
17th April, 2011 at 22:53:14 -

kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
18th April, 2011 at 18:49:16 -


Originally Posted by Jon C-B
kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.



One might as well ask why people believe in just one god.

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
18th April, 2011 at 21:57:50 -


Originally Posted by Phredreeke

Originally Posted by Jon C-B
kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.



One might as well ask why people believe in just one god.


Let's think about this.

Using the standard definition of God, a being that permeates everything, set's everything into motion, existed before time, and basically makes the rules.
If you're to believe that the existence of God is absolutely true, then you must also believe in absolutes. And that the idea of perfection exists in such a being. And that idea is the only true one, since after all this being is God.

Now let's just say there are two of such beings,

Now let's say they disagree, but if they're both all powerful ect. what happens then?
And how could they disagree if they are both perfect?

So then let's just say they both agree on the same things, and they both are exactly the same, and they both exist in the same places.
Why not just call these "two" God's one, since they are essentially "one."

I do believe that their exists other "gods," but they are not the God, and they only have the power God allows them.

EDIT: "they're" to "there are"

Edited by UrbanMonk

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
19th April, 2011 at 00:23:16 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

Originally Posted by Phredreeke

Originally Posted by Jon C-B
kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.



One might as well ask why people believe in just one god.


Let's think about this.

Using the standard definition of God, a being that permeates everything, set's everything into motion, existed before time, and basically makes the rules.
If you're to believe that the existence of God is absolutely true, then you must also believe in absolutes. And that the idea of perfection exists in such a being. And that idea is the only true one, since after all this being is God.



And why would god be absolutely powerful ? Why would he be perfect ?
In antiquity people believed in that idea because they thought of god as an answer to all their biggest mysteries and attributed their creation to a god (I'm not necessarily talking about the christian god, curiously every religion, pagan or not has a superior figure who supposedly created us and the world) so to us, it made sense to worship him and see him as a powerful figure since he was our creator supposedly.
But nowadays, now that we know it wasn't some superior entity who created us or the world, what would lead me to think he's a powerful being ?
Because in the bible it says he wiped two entire cities because they didn't believe in god ?


 
n/a

AndyUK

Mascot Maniac

Registered
  01/08/2002
Points
  14444

Game of the Week WinnerSecond GOTW AwardHas Donated, Thank You!VIP Member
19th April, 2011 at 00:30:41 -


Originally Posted by Jon C-B
kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.



Lack of evidence.

 
.

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
19th April, 2011 at 00:49:13 -

Actually I don't believe because I don't see any reason to. Lack of evidence doesn't help but you could ask the question "why don't you believe in allah ?" "Why don't you believe in Ganesha?" "Why don't you believe in Zeus ?" and the answer would be similar.
I used to believe in god, but I grew tired of making excuses and justifications to myself to justify my beliefs, in the end I realized whatever religion you pick doesn't make sense. They are so different yet so similar but you will never find any kind of proof of it's existence. I can understand why people would follow a religion, specially if they were raised by religious people but I've grown to realize in the end it's just a mental prison you refuse to leave for no reason at all.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
19th April, 2011 at 03:43:09 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
And why would god be absolutely powerful ? Why would he be perfect ?


We're not talking about the same thing here, you're defining something else. It might be your "god," but it's not God.

Perfection is in the sense that he created everything, and even created our very plane of existence.
God isn't something that is confined to physical constrains.
This is the very definition of God.


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
But nowadays, now that we know it wasn't some superior entity who created us or the world, what would lead me to think he's a powerful being ?

And we know this how? Have we seen every dimension? Have we been everywhere in space? Did we have an eye witness who saw the beginning of everything? Do tell.
Sorry but science isn't the answer to these questions. It's only our human explanation for the origins of the evidence we find.


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Because in the bible it says he wiped two entire cities because they didn't believe in god ?


This isn't true.
Care to specify your source rather than making things up?


 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
19th April, 2011 at 03:43:31 -


Originally Posted by AndyUK

Originally Posted by Jon C-B
kind of late to the party, but om kind of interested as to specifically why people dont believe in God.



Lack of evidence.



I second this guy (with apologies to AndyUK should he find this unsettling... ).

 
n/a

game guy



Registered
  20/04/2011
Points
  3
21st April, 2011 at 01:24:12 -

Firstly, to make it clear. I've been catholic/christian before for quite some time. And I always thought “well, if God's got this infinite goodness and justice they all say, what's up with all the uneven opportunity on the world different people experience? I couldn't accept the fact everyone's going to either heaven or hell and stay there forever, not if there's a God who's infinitely just”

So I started going after some explanation and came across spiritsm. I was skeptical in the beginning thinking it would be just another “me too!” religion. But no, just to start with, it's not a religion but a study and finding of facts. It by far explains better all the things we don't quite know when it comes to the afterlife matter. Make yourself a favor and read the ‘book of spirits' no matter what your religion is, whether you believe in God or not. You will find it to be interesting. The book answers several question written by advanced spirits. After searching and reading it all you'll be convinced it is not invented by men.

I'm no expert on the matter but have read all the basic work of Allan Kardec(he didn't invent spiritsm, only put together what spirits from different levels have said) The doctrine is formed by the spirits. And all the ritual, candle, black chicken whatever you hear about it. Forget it! Then it's not it!) If you don't believe in spirits(we're spirits/souls), just search on Chico Xavier to start with. Hell! Even Arthur Conan Doyle(Sherlock Holmes creator) went ahead and tried to unmask spiritsm and became a believer himself. And by studying the whole thing you will understand why many spirits communications aren't phony!
believe me when I tell you there's WAY too much proof out there about mediumship, psychographics therefore spirits!

Ok, just to summarize my opinion on what I've concluded so far after reading A LOT on this.
-There's a God, he's the primary cause of everything.
-Incarnation exists, we evolve (spiritually) through many incarnations (not only on earth)
-We ‘pay' for everything we do, be it here or afterlife or in the next incarnation or even later. Thus, learning from our experiences.
-Do all those good things Jesus have said. Love the next person! Forgive etc. Which we all know is the right thing but we still fail to do so quite often.
-That men pride gets in the way of believing what he doesn't understand yet.
-You religion doesn't matter. It's all about your intentions, what you do(gets judged on your current ignorance/circumstance of course).

There's just way too much that could be discussed about it. I just want to throw these little out there and make one curious enough to go after it. You won't regret.

 
n/a

Phredreeke

Don't listen to this idiot

Registered
  03/08/2002
Points
  4504

You've Been Circy'd!VIP MemberPS3 Owner
21st April, 2011 at 01:58:01 -


Originally Posted by UrbanMonk


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Because in the bible it says he wiped two entire cities because they didn't believe in god ?


This isn't true.
Care to specify your source rather than making things up?



I think he's referring to Sodom and Gomorrah. However, their sin wasn't as much a lack of faith as a lack of hospitality.

 
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -

Make some more box arts damnit!
http://create-games.com/forum_post.asp?id=285363

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
21st April, 2011 at 05:28:54 -



We're not talking about the same thing here, you're defining something else. It might be your "god," but it's not God.
Perfection is in the sense that he created everything, and even created our very plane of existence.
God isn't something that is confined to physical constrains.
This is the very definition of God.



And who choose that definition, god himself ?



And we know this how? Have we seen every dimension? Have we been everywhere in space? Did we have an eye witness who saw the beginning of everything? Do tell.
Sorry but science isn't the answer to these questions. It's only our human explanation for the origins of the evidence we find.




This isn't about science or religion this is about facts, about what's real not about stuff from some other dimension or some ridiculous garbage like that. And why do you need a eye witness for that when there are ways even more accurate than that to take information as a fact ?



This isn't true.
Care to specify your source rather than making things up?



What if instead of accusing people of making stuff up you just did your little investigation ?
How many cities did god destroy in the bible exactly?

In any case I was talking about sodom and gomorrah.

 
n/a

s-m-r

Slow-Motion Riot

Registered
  04/06/2006
Points
  1078

Candle
21st April, 2011 at 13:01:55 -


Originally Posted by Conan of Cimmeria

I have known many gods. He who denies them is as blind as he who trusts them too deeply. I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content.



 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
21st April, 2011 at 18:21:12 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
And who choose that definition, god himself ?


It's just the best way to describe God in human terms. It wasn't so much chosen as it was an attempt to describe the being that created everything.
Nothing chooses it's own definition since the definition relies on what the thing actually is.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
This isn't about science or religion this is about facts, about what's real not about stuff from some other dimension or some ridiculous garbage like that. And why do you need a eye witness for that when there are ways even more accurate than that to take information as a fact ?


You're right, it is about facts, so what's your point?
I don't need an eye witness, but some people seem to think I should.
Feeling God, and seeing his effects is enough for me, just like feeling the wind is enough for me to believe it's real.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
In any case I was talking about sodom and gomorrah.


Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't destroyed because they didn't believe in God.
How do you know they didn't believe in God?
Do you agree with how the Sodomites lived?

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
21st April, 2011 at 18:48:53 -


It's just the best way to describe God in human terms. It wasn't so much chosen as it was an attempt to describe the being that created everything.
Nothing chooses it's own definition since the definition relies on what the thing actually is.


Then who created that definition of what god is supposed to be?



You're right, it is about facts, so what's your point?
I don't need an eye witness, but some people seem to think I should.
Feeling God, and seeing his effects is enough for me, just like feeling the wind is enough for me to believe it's real.



Thing is, "feeling god" is a psychological thing and isn't really a solid proof of anything while feeling the wind is very much a physical and a real thing. I used to "feel god" pretty intensely when I believed, now I don't because I don't believe anymore. Every religious person "felt" their deities, regardless of whether they were roman, egyptian, hindu, christian or whatever, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually exist.
Of course, I'm sure you'll feel many effects because that's how the brain works. A prayer works a lot like a song, it messes with your spirit, make you more motivated/feel better about something/feel like you're not alone/etc...
I know of a lot of people who cried listening to a song or watching a movie, so that gives you an idea of how much your feelings and psychological state is moldable.



Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't destroyed because they didn't believe in God.
How do you know they didn't believe in God?
Do you agree with how the Sodomites lived?



Regardless of whether I agree or not, I wouldn't kill someone just because I disagree with his way of life, let alone massacre two entire cities and wipe out a good lot of innocents in the process.

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!Little Pirate!ARGH SignKliktober Special Award TagPicture Me This Round 33 Winner!The Outlaw!VIP MemberHasslevania 2!I am an April FoolKitty
21st April, 2011 at 20:08:16 -


Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Then who created that definition of what god is supposed to be?


No one in particular, it's just the definition that formed from experiences with God that were recorded over the ages.
Regardless of the origin it's irrelevant since this definition is exactly what's being debated here.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Thing is, "feeling god" is a psychological thing and isn't really a solid proof of anything while feeling the wind is very much a physical and a real thing. I used to "feel god" pretty intensely when I believed, now I don't because I don't believe anymore.


Have you ever thought that "not feeling God" was psychological since you don't want him to be real? Food for thought on your part.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Every religious person "felt" their deities, regardless of whether they were roman, egyptian, hindu, christian or whatever, that doesn't necessarily mean they actually exist.


Maybe their "god" does exist. Who are you to say they don't?
I believe they exist, just that they aren't the God. They're just spirits.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Of course, I'm sure you'll feel many effects because that's how the brain works. A prayer works a lot like a song, it messes with your spirit, make you more motivated/feel better about something/feel like you're not alone/etc...
I know of a lot of people who cried listening to a song or watching a movie, so that gives you an idea of how much your feelings and psychological state is moldable.


I agree, God made our brains to work this way.
Song's can move me emotionally too, and I believe God created music for this reason. Sometimes music can speak to a person more than just mere words can.



Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Regardless of whether I agree or not, I wouldn't kill someone just because I disagree with his way of life, let alone massacre two entire cities and wipe out a good lot of innocents in the process.


And what does this prove?
Does this mean that God doesn't exist?
Or does this mean you just don't like God?

 
n/a

Johnny Look

One Happy Dude

Registered
  14/05/2006
Points
  2942

VIP Member
21st April, 2011 at 21:09:53 -



No one in particular, it's just the definition that formed from experiences with God that were recorded over the ages.
Regardless of the origin it's irrelevant since this definition is exactly what's being debated here.



It is relevant. The definition of god was created by ourselves, I think there is something to take from that.




Have you ever thought that "not feeling God" was psychological since you don't want him to be real? Food for thought on your part.



Who told you I don't want him to be real ? I do want but I just can't see myself believe in a (beautiful)lie just for the sake of making myself feel better.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone would want god to be real. You for instance want him to be real, am I right or wrong ?



Maybe their "god" does exist. Who are you to say they don't?
I believe they exist, just that they aren't the God. They're just spirits.



Funny, so their god are mere spirits but your god is the real one. Do you realize they probably think (thought) the same way you do?



I agree, God made our brains to work this way.
Song's can move me emotionally too, and I believe God created music for this reason. Sometimes music can speak to a person more than just mere words can.



Oh man... this is like discussing religion with a religious nutjob.
God didn't created music, we did. God didn't "make our brains work that way", natural evolution did.


And what does this prove?
Does this mean that God doesn't exist?
Or does this mean you just don't like God?



It just proves I'm a better and more merciful person than the god portrayed in the bible. At least in the real world, I don't know how stuff works in "the other dimensions".

 
n/a

UrbanMonk

BRING BACK MITCH

Registered
  07/07/2008
Points
  50140

Has Donated, Thank You!