What are your thoughts on god?
POSTED BY: christhecynic
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 07:06
VIEWED: 44297
PAGE 2 of 2
I believe God is an entity who created man and the universe. I believe that I can understand his reasoning for this very clearly, because it is something he built into humans. Humans want things to hang with other then just humans, well a lot do, not all humans do. We want cats and dogs. Some people would say that we jsut want cute cuddly things to make us feel better, but dolls would do that, and I don't like dolls.
So why do humans like cats and dogs? For one thing because we can not compleatly control them. They have minds of their own, and they, especially cats, don't always do what we want them to. Humans are like that to God. I don't think personally that thats a bad thing.
If God exist why do bad things happen? If People exist why do bad things happen to animals? Even if as a cat owner I want to be with my cat, and keep him from getting scratches or scrapes, I can't be. I could lock him in the house, take away the wildness that I love in him, reduce him to being a pet, but even that wouldn't save him. Why? Because he has free will, and to put it frankly being perfectly safe all the time is boring. He wants to climb things, he wants to attack things. Someday he will climb the wrong thing, or attack the wrong thing, and all I'll be able to do is hope that he comes home. We are the same with God. Humans that did everything God wanted would be boring. For that reason I do not believe that God would send us to hell for disobeying him on small desgrees.
So why is there hell at all? Why not just heaven? Because sometimes pets turn bad. If a Dog goes wild and kills three little kids, you don't just forgive the dog and tell him not to do it again. You put him down because he has become a danger to the rest of the humans. In the same way humans can become dangers, not to God, but each other. Hitler did something that was unforgivable. I think that hell is for people who do that, go wild. Are no longer safe for other humans to live with. People who would kill other humans, not for any reason like self defence, or to save someone they love, but humans that would kill for something else. Even humans that would kill for a better world. This is not to say all killing is bad, it is to say the only reason there is a need for it, is because some humans go wild. God still loves them, as the owner of the dog still loves the dog, but he can not let the dog live. God still loves the people who torn evil, but he can no longer allowe them to be in heaven with those who did not go wild.
So are you saying you don't believe in Jesus? No. I believe in Jesus. If your cat gets hit by a car, you can't just pick him up and tell him to be well. You take him to the vet, and if the vet can save him, they do. In the same way if someone falls from God he can't just say come back. He needs someone to bring you back, someone who isn't spiritualy injuried. That is what Jesus is for. Its not the best show'll of what I mean, but its hard to put into words what I do mean. Thats my view on realigion anyway, I know its long, I didn't mean for it to be, but it is. sorry. :P
If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The question of God is completely irrelevent to me. My moral compass would remain intact whether there was a god(s) or not. My appreciation for the world would likewise not abate, if not be enhanced in the absence of transcendance.
I think the most profound words I ever heard on the meaning of things went something like this; "If nothing we do has any meaning, then the only things that have meaning are the things that we do." Was it Joss Whedon who came up with that? Well what do you know....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
im sure this view has probably already been stated, but im not about to read through that whole thread to find exactly whats been said and what hasnt, so i'll just give my two cents and keep it short.
i believe that most of the teachings of most major religions are good, and should be more or less followed. beyond that, i'm basicly agnostic; i'm certainly open to the possability, and on some levels it sure seems to make a whole lot of sense, but i'm also the kind of person who needs hard evadence, i'm not one for abstract thinking, im no good at it. so if i were confronted with some sort of irrefutable proof, i think i would believe in a god rather then that i was insaine or some such, but i would need that proof rather then the ideas of others. I tend to think that most holy books (bible, torah, que'ran etc) are so very old that whatever "proof" such as it was that they may originally ahve been based on, has since given way to whatever the religious leaders needed at any given time. imo, that would be why the bible is so very contradictory. one last point, i also tend to think that if god is as gentle and kind and forginving and all that as (s)he is often made out to be, WHY on earth does this being care weather or not we recognize/worship him? just doesnt make sense to me.
as for the whole heaven/hell thing, i have no ruttin clue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think ChrisTC did a pretty good job of elucidating my opinion, but I’ll elaborate. We aren’t likely to agree on this, but that is not unusual, because I don’t agree with many religious opinions, about one thing or another. Diversity of thought is really far more common among religious people then many give them credit.
Originally posted by Payne:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the reason we won't accept that is because it isn't true. Your lack of belief in leprechauns is just that: a lack of belief, not a religious opinion. You don't need to pretend you know everything about the world and the universe in order to go on the working assumption that leprechauns don't exist. Such an assumption is not religious, it's something we all believe in everyday life because we've never seen anything that might lead us to believe that leprechauns are real.
I am, of course, not putting belief in God on the level of belief in leprechauns. That would be offensive and inaccurate. I'm trying to draw an analogy that will help explain actual atheism. One of the most famous atheist quotes (paraphrased) says that we are all atheists with regard to most gods ever worshipped by man. Actual atheists simply refuse to make an exception for the God of the Bible, or for the gods of Hinduism, etc., etc.
Your entire argument is based on the way you have defined atheism. You first assume that I don’t believe in Leprechauns and that not believing in Leprechauns means they don’t exist; and therefore not believing in Leprechauns is not a religious position. You’ve made quite a few assumptions there. You’ve rationalized the way you define religion to conveniently eliminate anyone who doesn’t believe in Leprechauns or indeed, god, based upon the assumption that not having seen what you would call a Leprechaun means they don’t exist. That’s called hand waving and throwing around definitions.
But that’s not just limited to atheists, theists do it as well. In fact, most religions do it to some extent. Essentially, what you’re doing is claiming, without proof, that atheism is the normal or baseline, and then asserting that everything else deviates from it. The problem is that atheism is no more provable then theism. You can no more assert that god exists then that god doesn’t exist, but by establishing atheism as an axiom or fundamental assumption, you are alleviated from that justification. This is exactly the way most religions work. Most Christians have defined Jesus as the fundamental assumption; therefore everything else deviates from that. But a responsible mind must understand that this is a definition.
The difference between many theist and many atheists is that most theists, including most Christians, don’t deny their fundamental assumptions. They accept and even rejoice in taking these things on faith. Many atheists, who have no more bases for their beliefs then any other religion, deny that their position is faith-based. They take what they claim is a rational argument, that not having actually seen what they define as a Leprechaun means Leprechauns don’t exist. The problem is that rationally, that’s nonsense. First of all, Leprechaun could mean just about anything when it is separated from its religious context. It all depends on your definition. And I generally don’t consider myself to believe in Leprechauns, but how could you have known that? For many centuries, Irish pagans did, in fact, believe in Leprechauns as a function of the Irish Pagan religion. Denying that Leprechauns exist may be a religious assertion, because depending on how they are defined, they might be as difficult to assert or deny as god. So belief in Leprechauns can be faith-based and religious, just as denying the existence of Leprechauns can be faith-based and religious.
I’m not trying to ridicule atheists or claim that theists are better. I simply don’t see any tangible difference between them. They both assert, based on faith, a belief in something. Strictly speaking, the a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Quote)WHY on earth does this being care weather or not we recognize/worship him? just doesnt make sense to me.as for the whole heaven/hell thing, i have no ruttin clue.(end Quote)
Why do most Humans care if their cats spend time with them? Or if they get respect for good work they did? Why are they not happy just knowing that they did a good job without wanting praise? The answer is that God made us, and thus he wants praise for making us, and he also wants us, the things he worked to make, to spend time with him.
Why heaven and hell? Because sometimes people do things that force them to have to be seperated from the rest of mankind. If a charished pet kills a neibors kid, you don't just apologize and say you'll force it never to do so again. The pet has forced itself to be taken away from where it is a danger, ie life, and put somewhere where it can no longer do harm. The same goes for people. If someone does things that majorly hurt other people then they must be seperated from those people. And here I'm meaning spiritually, not physically.
If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bowie:
If God exist why do bad things happen? (snip)
So why is there hell at all?
God created a perfect world where bad things didn't happen -- and would not have happened, if the people He made obeyed Him. Man didn't obey Him, so man and the whole of creation was put under a curse (which is why bad things happen, things decay, people get sick, injured, harmed, abused, etc.).
Could God have overlooked the willful rebellion (sin) against Him? Yes. But, if He did, He would not have been God. God is Holy. His holiness demands punishment for sin -- death (in the natural body, and eventually in eternal separation from Him).
Fortunately, God is also loving. And, in His love, graciously provided a means to escape our just punishment for those willing to receive it -- the sacrifice of One who fully kept His laws, and willingly took the place of those who would accept Him and receive the free gift of His salvation. (see my previous post with the "ocean-jumping" analogy)
So, instead of asking ourselves why bad things happen to us, we should be asking why anything good ever happens to us. Under the curse, we deserve nothing good. It's only because of God's grace that things aren't much much worse.
I agree that the concept of perfect holiness is difficult to contemplate -- particularly as we (as fallen, sinful humans) have much more in common with the worst of humanity than we do with a perfect God. That's why you or I might be more understanding with a disobedient cat, because you and I have more in common with that cat (or that cat's vomit) than we do with our perfect and holy Creator.
We can't conceive being perfect and having something we created from nothingness willfully telling us they know better than we do (which is what every sin is -- chosing OUR way over God's way -- saying to God, "You don't know what You're talking about. We know what's best for us, and this is what we want to do, even though it opposes what You said we should do.")
It's not an answer easily accepted, but (according to the scripture) it's why we're in the mess we're in. And you don't have to be too long of this earth to see that we're a rather dismal lot, and much deserving of our troubles.
The best of us (which certainly isn't me) are like filthy rags next to our holy God. That's why we have problems in this life -- (which, by the grace of God, we can escape in the next if we accept His way and stop demanding our own).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe in God and i also believe God uses evolution. Now with that out of the way...
I believe in God but I have totally lost faith in God to do the right thing. In order for God's will to happen...million/billions of innocent, human beings get sacrificed on the alter of just being in the way everyday.
In Firefly, I totally agree with Mal's take on God. God always lets people down. God fights for the "other side" God always lets evil win. God flies the flag of your enemies. God always gives power to your enemies.
God is a train that is no longer worth waiting for. God rewards the wicked. God rewards the cruel and evil.
My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
its funny how, when you cut out the answer I gave you make it seem like I'm asking the question. I put a answer, so if you wanted to put your own answer, why not jsut have done so? Personally I think my answer makes more sence. I do not believe god made us perfect because perfect things are boring things. Things with small faults that are able to overcome their faults are far more intresting. Who cares if a great athelete who has never had any problems of any kind wins a metel? But what if that athelete had problems, like a bad nee, or another kind of disability, and was able to overcome that? Then the story is intresting. Just because my view of why there are bad things doesn't sound like I just copied a page out of the bible doesn't make it wrong. The bible is there to tell us how to avoid hell, to tell us the good and bad things other people have done, the things that god disaproved of and aproved of, its not there to tell us to memorize and site like we didn't know real languedge out side of it.
If you play Nationstates.net check out the region Firefly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry, Bowie. I didn't snip your answer in an attempt to make it seem like you were asking a question. I thought you were asking a question, and attempted to answer. My apologies.
BTW, I'm not sure what the protocol is regarding lengthy threads, but I have dial-up, and these long threads take forever to load.
Is it possible for the person who started a thread which takes off and seemingly goes on forever to, at some point (perhaps at 50 posts) start a new thread and call it "What are your thoughts on god? PART 2" ???
It would be a big help to poor saps like myself who don't have cable internet connections.
Thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thats the sadest thing ever I heard ...
I was gonna post a response to it but if you say there is no point then I wont...
Saying that God authored confusion by creating Lucifer is like saying my sniper rifle goes out all by itself and shoots people 2 miles away so I dont get into trouble.
Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm...interesting question. Well, to be honest...I'm young and haven't really made up my mind yet in regards to this question. But I have some thoughts...
Do I believe in god? Not exactly. I do believe there is a power greater than man...greater forces at work here, but I don't think that they are this "God" you speak of. I think maybe I just believe in fate...
I think that overall, I'm a man of faith. What I put my faith in? I can't exactly be sure. But I know I believe in it.
PsychicRiver
"Two by two, hands of blue." 
"We'll take care of each other. I'll knit!"
"I swallowed a bug."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Carl Sagan's "The dragon in my garage" http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html from his book The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark says it better than I could: "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."
True as that may be I know of very few things that have veridical worth. Science, which brought me this very nice computer, is totally lacking in any such worth. Yet few would doubt the useful worth of science.
The things you are referring to, bliks, include such things as causality, existence in general, objective truth, the existence to time, the veracity of out senses, and various other things.
Cause and effect, for example, can not be proven or disproven, but it is the basis for just about everything we do. (Actually I think it is the basis of everything we do, but I don't like to commit to such absolutes. God is a far smaller matter by comparison.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I redacted my original post to avoid that controversy, but hey--Chris asked.
I just want to repeat that, I did ask, and if anyone is pissed off remember that I'm the reason Causal wrote what was writen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To RiveR6213
I hope you are a happier person than you seem. Even if you have lost faith in god have faith in people. With all that is going on in the world, with all that has happened, it is only logial that there would be no good left in the world.
Yet there is, if evil wins and good still persists it is a testament to the power of good.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
... when he was stabbed out came water and blood.
You believe what you like, I'll believe what I like. I'm not entering a debate on the subject -- I am reasonably confident neither you nor anyone you can produce as a witness was actually there to see water. *laughs* Any debate would be based on stories we can't verify.
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
That and Taoism started in the 7th century BCE, so Christ's teaching couldn't have "survived as Taoism" unless they went back in time to 7th century China.
Okay, somehow you got really lost. I didn't say Christ taught Taoism, only that the root message of both Christ and Lao-Tzu was the same. You think you're reading something Christ wrote?
Both the Tao te Ching and the various Christian bibles (including the gnostic bibles, which are generally rejected by Catholics) were written by followers interpreting the words and actions of the Infinite Soul. That leaves a lot of room for mistakes. My position is that the (english translation of the) Tao te Ching is a more pure representation of the message from Lao-Tzu than the King James Bible is of the message from Christ.
Also, Am I supposed to take on her word that "Messages from Michael" is any more factual than her other 67 works of fiction?
Believe whatever you like. It really doesn't matter to me -- I'm just answering the question from the root post. I thought my opinion of Christianity was a valid contribution, since I believe the current Christian churches represent a gross distortion of Jesus's message. It's important for me to make a distinction between my belief in Jesus (which I do have), and my belief in the teachings of the Christian church (that he "rose from the dead" and he "died for our sins" -- neither of which do I believe).
Perhaps I crossed a line somewhere without realizing it. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone, only to state my position clearly.
__________________________
"They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see the sky and they remember what they are."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Someone requested a new thread because of load time, so I’ve made a part two:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16682
Just pick up over there where you leave off over here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryan:
Yes God did create Lucifer(or Satan or what ever name he goes by) and he had free will just as all Gods creations do that have the ability to tell right from wrong.
God has absolutes Lucifer chose not to abide in them.
So--God created free will, but he doesn't like it. If you use it for anything but what he approves, he tortures you, forever. Sounds strange.
Reminds me of the movie Bedazzled, the original version w/Peter Cook & Dudley Moore, not the recent remake. Moore's character asks Satan (played by Cook) why he was thrown out of heaven. Cook sits on a mailbox, and tells Moore to circle him, and tell him how great he is. ("Never mind why, just do it.") Moore does it for about a minute ("Oh, you're so great, you're wonderful, you're just a really cool guy...") but finally gets tired. "Hey, when do I get to sit up there?"
Satan snaps his finger. "And that's how I got thrown out of heaven."
I'd rather not spend all eternity at the mercy of an omnipotent paranoid, thank you.
Chaplain: Let us praise God.
[The congregation rises.]
Chaplain: O Lord…
Congregation: O Lord…
Chaplain: … ooh, You are so big…
Congregation: … ooh, You are so big…
Chaplain: … so absolutely huge.
Congregation: … so absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and…
Congregation: … and barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You're so strong and, well, just so… super.
Congregation: Fantastic!
Chaplain: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.
-- Monty Python's Flying Circus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I brought up the point about how Lee Sobel argued you couldn't believe Jesus was just a good man because it was him I was arguing against in the first place, so I thought it fair to use his definition.
I think that argument was originally made by C.S. Lewis. It was that you cannot say that Jesus was a "good" man, whose teachings we should follow, but not believe that He was God -- as those two statements entirely contradict each other.
If Jesus wasn't God, He was either insane or a liar. Either way, you couldn't call Him "good", and you wouldn't be too smart following the teachings of someone who was insane or a liar.
And whatever one might think about C.S. Lewis, he wasn't an idiot. His argument makes sense to me. (But then, I'm admittedly not the brightest bulb in the socket.)
His argument only seems to make sense because Lewis was dealing from a stacked deck. Specifically, the unstated part of his argument is the idea that everything attributed to Christ in the Gospels is an accurate reporting of what he actually said.
Since most Christians take the infalability of the Gospel as a matter of faith, they're not allowed to argue with it. But a non-Christian, such as Jefferson, isn't so bound.
The historical fact is that the Bible in general, and the words of Jesus in particular, have been messed with, altered, misquoted, and mistranslated (both accidentally and deliberately) for any number of reasons, politial, religious, and other, over the past two millennia. (And don't even get me started about the Book of Revelations and its inconsistency with the rest of the New Testament.)
So if you want to accept Jesus as just a wise man, feel free. You are not bound by C.S. Lewis' articles of faith unless you want to be.
Myself, I figure Jesus was either a living Buddha or an Avatar of Rama. But Hell, I just like peeing in the soup...
"That's all right. It's okay to worship everything." -- Sophia Bangs
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
I believe in God and i also believe God uses evolution. Now with that out of the way...
I believe in God but I have totally lost faith in God to do the right thing. In order for God's will to happen...million/billions of innocent, human beings get sacrificed on the alter of just being in the way everyday.
In Firefly, I totally agree with Mal's take on God. God always lets people down. God fights for the "other side" God always lets evil win. God flies the flag of your enemies. God always gives power to your enemies.
God is a train that is no longer worth waiting for. God rewards the wicked. God rewards the cruel and evil.
My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.
Ditto
"Tell me all your thoughts on God
'Cause I would really like to meet her.
And ask her why we're who we are. "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I rely on myself, believe in nothing but my own will. Nothing's going to ever change that.
-------------------------------------------------
'It's Braedan. With an A.'
'Shiny moments aren't a destination any of us get to, and stay put forever. They're unknowable, brief flashes in time. That's what makes them shiny.' -GorramReevers
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do I belive in God?
Yes. I belive in a higher power. that not being ourselves. But also I belive being a creature of "God" you are given free will. This is for you to decide the person you will become. If that scares ppl, well why? If you take away God you take away hope. Just being here in existance with no hope,why should anyone follow rules? Because we happen to be good creatures? Nope don't think so.
No I think if you do something bad you feel bad. Even savages that have never come across a global God know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil.
That being said God is among us but so is evil. One exist with the other. Ying and Yang. I don't think that when your dead your just dead. I don't know where you go but there is more. To think that mankind is the greatest power around scares me.
I'm not a preacher but I will say that my view of this subject is more along the lines of S. Book. And as for the show. If you watch the pilot when Book asks if he can say grace at the table everyone respects his silent prayer but Mal. But deep down, in the OoG eps Mals hopes where answered. That salvage ship didn't just happen to be there.Course nothings for free, you have to work for it. Even Inara has her God in the BDM.
So in ending, to each his/her own. What you belive is what you belive. Think I'll stick with having FAITH.
Z
PS: I'd like to stay away from the "Special Hell"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But... you are God; we all are.
Originally posted by RiveR6213:
My point of view regarding God is not open for argument, so don't even waste your time.
Buddha-boy Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As a Taoist, I belive God is undifinable and impersonal. I do not believe in God as a creator, I belive all things are connected by a "Force" if you will(Though, not through "The Force" as defined By Star Wars). I think I always believed this even though I was raised Episcopalian, that Faith never made sense to me. I also believe what is Scientific Fact. I just recently found Taoism so I don't fully understand EVERYTHING about it, I just know that it feels right to me.
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can a people truly be called "savage" if they know right from wrong, good from evil. Couldn't we refer to the folks that have been taught better and use "God" as an ace in the sleeve as savages. I see them all the time. Feeding off the weak and young. Filling their pockets to the breaking point with gold while others scrape the earth for something to eat. Forcing their pride and vanity on others who should see themselves for the amazing beings that they are. God has been twisted and exploited almost beyond the limits of belief. I will hold onto my faith without reservation. Might not believe in the Christian god that has been altered too many times to count, but I do believe. For those who don't, I don't blame you. Believe in yourself and abilites. At least you believe in something.
Love to all the 'skins and 'coats.
MAL: "What happen about me?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nvghostrider:
Can a people truly be called "savage" if they know right from wrong, good from evil. Couldn't we refer to the folks that have been taught better and use "God" as an ace in the sleeve as savages. I see them all the time. Feeding off the weak and young. Filling their pockets to the breaking point with gold while others scrape the earth for something to eat. Forcing their pride and vanity on others who should see themselves for the amazing beings that they are. God has been twisted and exploited almost beyond the limits of belief. I will hold onto my faith without reservation. Might not believe in the Christian god that has been altered too many times to count, but I do believe. For those who don't, I don't blame you. Believe in yourself and abilites. At least you believe in something.
Love to all the 'skins and 'coats.
MAL: "What happen about me?"
In a word NVGHOST "Yes" I can and do see these civilized savages all the time. I am in agreement with you.
" Vengence is mine" Sayeth the Lord " But you go right ahead and get your payback." HE adds
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Been taught a long time ago that meetings have to be arranged for some folks with the Big Man. Brought sad tears to hear Denzel Washington say so in Man On Fire. Had to let go of alot of things. Vengeance is his for a reason, I see that now.
MAL: "What happen about me?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
Boy you really like to stir up trouble don't you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I really had no plans to say any more on the subject, but yeah, sometimes I do. People need to have their heads rattled once in a while, to shake them out of their mental comfort zone, or at least to make them think a little about the boundaries of that zone. I do it to myself all the time, and always welcome it when someone does it to me.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Boy you really like to stir up trouble don't you?
So I have to ask: what makes you call what I said "trouble?"
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
*thwack*... That noise is the hammer hitting the nail on the head
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Religion (mysticism of any kind, really) in any and every form is incorrect and invalid. That's simply fact.
I would love for you to elaborate on that.
When someone tells me something is fact, as opposed to opinion, inference or personal belief, I want something to back it up.
What do you base that on?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I base that on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for any of it. But that doesn't even matter. It's up to the one asserting a positive to prove the assertion. I'm only stating that something's not there. There's no need to show evidence that something doesn't exist - those who say something does exist have to show the evidence.
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I would love for you to elaborate on that.
When someone tells me something is fact, as opposed to opinion, inference or personal belief, I want something to back it up.
What do you base that on?
What's being asked here is the same as someone claiming that there's a little, invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus living on his shoulder, then daring me to "prove" he's wrong. An assertion isn't evidence (one can assert anything, as this example shows), therefore he's established nothing to disprove, so there's no need to disprove it. Others claim that "God" exists, but like our platypus that assertion establishes nothing that needs to be disproved. It's up to those claiming that something does exist to prove their claim, by providing evidence to show that it is, in fact, there.
There have been many arguments given for the existence of "God." However every such argument has been (a) based on no evidence and (b) long ago shown to be invalid. It's the same for every claim of mystical "stuff" or "action" or "platypi" or whatever. Information about the arguments and their errors is easily obtained, on the internet or in other readily available sources.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You got it Bowie. The genius of God is he made existance imperfect. This produces interaction as the different forms of creation try to continually correct themselves. But they can't. He did a really great job. Atoms bounce around. Galaxies spiral. People argue. It just goes on and on. But never think God does not care. If you care than why not God. He cares so much he gave us our freedom. It is not easy, this thing called freedom. A lot of people have paid a high price for it. But the choice is yours. I'm talking to the person who first started this thread now. Bowie already understands what I'm talking about. By the way Bowie thanks for reminding me. I need to be reminded of this, myself, sometimes. So back to the guy who started this shindig aka thread. You can do good or you can do evil. God won't stand in your way. You have a lot of things influencing you as you mature. Some will be hard and some good. If you say "Why should bad things happen to me?" you are being silly. Bad things happen to everyone. Some worst than others for sure. But that is life. It is not perfect. See above. I know people with loads of money and they waste their lives worring to death about it. I know people who can't put two nickles together and still share what they have with others. If you want to see a miracle go to the blood bank and give your share. Dish out food at soup kitchen. There are plenty of miracles to be performed. God does not work alone. He likes it if you join him. I have seen people do the simplest things and receive the greatest rewards. God doesn't make medals or plant your picture on the front page of the Journal, he gives a feeling inside that no one can take from you.
If you want that feeling, than volunteer. You don't have to join a religion to give blood. I have served coffee at a club I belonged to that helped Alcoholics Anonymous. I got more hugs than you could ever count. The smiles on those people faces, knowing there was a safe place to go to keep sober, will last me a lifetime. So just do it and the rest will follow. So you wanted some thoughts about God. Well these are mine. He's good. He wants the best for you. And He has given you the gift of freedom to find your path.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is there going to be a tomorrow or a next thursday ? Prove it.
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm only stating that something's not there. There's no need to show evidence that something doesn't exist
You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.
After all there isn't a shred of evidence that you do exist, the words I've seen here could have been typed by anyone, it happens all the time.
ZZETTA13, for example, might have joined twice so he/she could have a second voice, and then come into this thread under the guise of PIZ to say something easily disprovable so he/she could then rush in and say, "Is there going to be a tomorrow or a next thursday ? Prove it."
I've seen it done before.
-
However I generally find it easier to take some things on the assertions, if someone comes to a board I assume, unless I have reason otherwise, that they are a distinct person and not just a second account. If people post pictures that they say are of themselves I take them at their word.
Why? Because in this world the burden of evidence (though not proof) is always on the naysayer.
If I say, "I have a pet cat," I don't have to back it up, I never have to back it up. You know why that is? Because it is impossible to prove it is true. Even if I take you to my house and show you my cat you don't really know that I'm telling the truth. How do you know the person who you met is me? You only have the assertion of that person and myself, you don't know the house is mine, even if I show you the deed it could be forged, and you don't know that the cat in it really is my pet.
But I do have a cat, and a dog, and a gecko. I can not prove they exist because that is impossible, I could show you pictures of them, I could show you pictures of me with them, if you are in the area I could even let you touch them. I can't prove that my pet cat exists.
How many people here believe that a cat named Hannah, a dog named Cindy, and a gecko that doesn't have a name really exist as pets in my house? I offer no proof, I can offer no proof.
I certainly hope most do. But if I say, "there's a little, invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus living on my shoulder," those very same people will not believe me. And the reason is not that there isn't a shred of evidence for it because there isn't a shred of evidence for my cat, or for my own existance for that matter.
The reason is that there is evidence AGAINST it. Actually there is proof against it, for something to be a platypus or a Jayne hat it needs to have certain physical properties, those properties make them visible. Thus there can not be an invisible, Jayne's-hat-wearin' platypus anywhere in existance, which is where I assert that my shoulder is.
What if I said there was a live natural dinosaur in my garage, and offered the same evidence I offer that my cat exists, that being none? Well people still won't believe it because there is evidence against that. Not proof, never proof, but evidence. Dinosaurs are living things, they don't appear out of nowhere and since I said natural it needs to decend from something, it would have parrents and grandparrents. For it to be alive now it would need to have a considerable population surviving down through the ages, not evolving, but eating and breeding.
That would leave bones and such, a fossil record 65 million years long.
While it is possible that that does exist the fact that it has not been even hinted at makes it unlikely, the statistics add to the evidence against the dinosaur.
If I just said a live dinosaur, not a natural one, then you take into the account that there's plenty of reason to believe I am not capable of creating one or getting one from someone who is, because such a person either does not exist or would not do buisness with me.
Of course it is possible that I have one, but the evidence is stacked agaisnt that, and it is only after that evidence comes into play that the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertion.
Unless you're telling me that every time
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.
(snip)
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because you deliberately made a statement you knew was going to offend any and everyone in this thread. Which I can only assume you did to gain attention. As for your assertion that you hadn't inteded to say anything else on the subject - BU
it. You knew it would incite response and I am sure you had your answers ready and waiting.
As for your original statement, it was probably one of the dumbest things I have seen on this forum and there have been some doozies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:Quote:Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You don't exist. That is simple fact. There's no need to show evidence for that, it is simply true.
(snip)
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
and now you are being deliberately obtuse Piz. It is easy to pick the first line of a response and find issue - keep reading, what chris is saying is valid.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Sorry, but it seems that your understanding of basic logic is flawed. I'm afraid that there's almost nothing correct in any of your arguments.
Then say it in symbolic logic becasue what I thought you said was that because of a total lack of evidence supporting religion or mysticism those things were invalid.
Evidence, E, supporting religion, R, or mysticism, M, is written, in logic, as follows:
E -> R\/M
If there's not a shred of evidence for religion or mysticis that is writen, in logic, like this:
-E
I thought your argument said that religion was invalid and incorrect, -R, and mysticism of any kind was likewise incorrect and invalid, -M.
When asked why you said it was because there is not a shred of evidence, that means you said
-R/\-M
because
-E
where
E-> R\/M
in other words
E-> R\/M
-E
Thus:
-R/\-M
Well that's got more than one problem with it, but at the heart it is a very simple thing, you're argument is based on denying the anticedent, a logical fallacy.
If that is not your argument why not tell us what your argument is? For something to be fact it needs to be backed up by more than just, "Because I said so," or, "The other guy doesn't have proof either."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No more than I'm offended when there's religion everywhere and everyone assumes that's OK and that it's wrong to disagree with it. You speak up when you're offended - you just did so. Why don't I have the same right?
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Because you deliberately made a statement you knew was going to offend any and everyone in this thread.
Quote:I couldn't care less about attention.
Which I can only assume you did to gain attention.
Quote:Actually, no. Why would I waste my time doing something like that? So, except for commenting on one more post (because I think it's necessary), I'll drop out of this thread.
As for your assertion that you hadn't inteded to say anything else on the subject - BU
Quote:If what I said (and I'm far from the first one ever to say it) can be refuted I'll hear it gladly. Thus far no one in history has been able to, though. I'll refrain from responding to your "it's dumb" argument.
As for your original statement, it was probably one of the dumbest things I have seen on this forum and there have been some doozies.
BTW, everyone seems to be getting all angry, but I don't want to read emotion into what people post on a discussion board. There's no emotion in my posts, unless you read emotion into them. They're meant to be quite dispassionate, and that's how they ought to be read. What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can disagree with religion. State what you think is wrong with it and support it with facts.
Making a blanket statement that ALL religion BASED ON FACT is invalid and incorrect is inflammatory and insulting.
It isn't making an argument.
I am not religious, and quite frankly I could care less what you think.
But I don't think it is necessary to insult people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:*sigh* I did read the whole thing, I just wanted to save screen space by not quoting it all.
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
and now you are being deliberately obtuse Piz. It is easy to pick the first line of a response and find issue - keep reading, what chris is saying is valid.
Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.
OK, I'm done with this.
--
"That's what government's for: get in a man's way." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
What's the problem with handling dissenting views? What about it scares people so?
Nothing about it scares people, not here at least.
You still have a problem though, you said your claim was fact. Not theory, not opinion, not infereance, not even logical deduction. You called it fact. Fact requires something to back it up.
You assert that it is fact without a single stated shred of evidence, if you have such evidence please state it now. When asked what you did base it on you said, and I quote, "I base that on the fact that there's not a shred of evidence for any of it."
Well that isn't grounds to claim something is fact. The reason it isn't is because it just says, "The other side doesn't have proof." It is certainly a reason to claim that the opposing viewpoint is not necessarily fact, and had you said that I'm sure everyone would have agreed with you.
You didn't.
You said it was fact and then chose not to back it up.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry I've only joined once. Only have one brown coat.
the question "Is there going to be a tomorrow or next Thursday?" only means that theres a good posibility that there will be. But theres no facts or evedince that there will be. Just because theres a today and a yesterday.
What someone belives it truth is their own belief. I don't know who PIZ is. He/she comes from Atlantis? And has their own opinion. So there you go.
The thread here asks if you belive in God. My feeling tells me there is. What others belive is up to themselves. Faith. Its what I'm putting my trust in.
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Piz:
Sorry, it's not valid, but I'm not going to teach an entire course on logic in this forum just to show how. I've educated myself on this matter for over 30 years; anyone else can, too, if they want to.
How could you teach yourself for 30 years and then not be able to point out what makes it invalid without teaching a course?
I mean you say it is invalid but not how. You came in here, denied the anticedent, and then called someone else's stuff invaild without even stating in what way it was invalid.
I'll distill it for you if that would make it simpler:
1 Traditionally people believe things without proof unless they have a reason not to because if they don't they are left believing almost nothing, which is not practical.
2 Using lack of proof as evidence leads to contradiction.
Please reply to 2, which shouldn't require a whole course in logic.
Quote:
OK, I'm done with this.
If your argument really is vaild why are you afraid to state it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm an Atheist for the simple reason that I've yet to see any evidence of either God's existance or any need for there to be a God for the Universe to exist just as it is.
That doesn't mean for certain that a God can't exist it just means there's no reason to believe they do.
Regarding "proof" of the existance, or non-existance, of God it must be always kept in mind that the burden of proof lays solely with the Theist since there is no possible way to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient does not exist (for one thing it could always be argued they themselves faked the evidence).
Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.
Link to an earlier post where this ground was gone over http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=18220
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok to throw gas on the fire.
Do aliens (space) exist?
IMO, another yepper.
Z
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Since the existance of God can hypothetically be proved (but hasn't) it intrinsically requires more "faith" to carry on believing in a Supreme-Being nonetheless, than it does to not believe in one.
How can it be proved?
I've never heard of any way, hypothetical or otherwise, and I am eager to learn of one if it exists.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having just looked at that thread again what I've come across are only three ways cited to, "prove," that god exists, and none are possible even in the hypothetical.
The first was:
Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.
The problems with this are several. First off being the creator of life does not make one a god, that has been done by scientists but Hotpoint does not believe them to be gods, otherwise Hotpoint would believe in gods.
Also "divine intervention" is an undefined term, without definition it can not be considered but we do know something about it: if it could be proven then it is, by definition, part of nature.
Whether or not we can work with that I don't know. Perhaps there is some well defined version of "divine intervention" for which it is possible to hypothetically prove god. If there is such a thing I'll change my whole stance on this.
The second one was so much nicer:
Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God".
It is simple, requires no undefined terms, and is just as much a way to prove something as saying:
"If there was a mechanism in the universe that prohibited a creator that would be proof of the nonexistance of 'God'."
It sounds nice when you hear it, but it is no more a way of proving god than what I said is a way of disproving god.
This one also mentioned evidence that falls short of proof:
Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.
Evidence for him/her perhaps, but hardly useful as proof.
I'd like to know which miracles that would convince for though. I mean feeding the masses would just cause us to rethink what we know about the concervation of matter, turning someone into salt causes us to reevalute other things, water to wine or blood is just like turning someone to salt, it would make us think that transmutation is scientific fact and introduce entire new areas of study, but it hardly implies anything remotely divine.
there is one last thing:
But there are things that conceivably only a God could do. For instance so-called "Creation Scientists" are always on the look-out for an irreducably complex mechanism in nature that could not have evolved. So far every one they've claimed turns out in fact not to be irreducably complex but that doesn't mean for certain that will always be the case.
Show me something that could not have evolved, or been created by random chance, and I'll believe in a "creator".
Ya'll see the problem with this one?
Everything, even god, could be created by random chance, that's what makes it RANDOM. Because anything can come out of it. If there were something that couldn't come out of it then it would not be random now would it? It would follow a pattern.
The statment isn't a possible proof because it isn't possible. Even in the hypothetical it breaks down because saying, "What if there were something that couldn't evolve randomly?" is like saying, "What if the statement, 'This statment is false,' were true?"
It's a fun little paradox, but useless for proof. I suppose you could claim that the possiblity of showing that the statement, 'This statement is false,' is proof that logic is falsifiable, the same way, "something that could't happen randomly," is being used here.
But even if it were proven what would that do? Force us to reevalute probability and evolution, nothing to do with god. Even if evolution is false it doesn't mean god is true. All that it means is that the Catholic Church was wrong when it embraced evolution as, "More than just theory."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Having just looked at that thread again what I've come across are only three ways cited to, "prove," that god exists, and none are possible even in the hypothetical.
You just haven't thought them through properly (and there were only three because you never came back to either refute those or ask for more).
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The first was:
Well one possible way to prove the existance of a God would be if science discovered that life required a creator. Or another might be if there was something intrinsic to the universe that required with certainty "divine intervention" or it could not take place.
The problems with this are several. First off being the creator of life does not make one a god, that has been done by scientists but Hotpoint does not believe them to be gods, otherwise Hotpoint would believe in gods.
Totally fallacious argument that completely misses the point. The issue is whether life in its original form can come into existance without a creator, whether life (an Intelligent Designer such as ourselves) can recreate life has nothing to do with our own existance one way or another.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Also "divine intervention" is an undefined term, without definition it can not be considered but we do know something about it: if it could be proven then it is, by definition, part of nature.
Whether or not we can work with that I don't know. Perhaps there is some well defined version of "divine intervention" for which it is possible to hypothetically prove god. If there is such a thing I'll change my whole stance on this.
"Divine Intervention" in that something happens that violates the basic laws of physics. A Deus ex Machina as it were
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The second one was so much nicer:
Like I said. If there was a mechanism in the universe that required a creator that would be proof of "God".
It is simple, requires no undefined terms, and is just as much a way to prove something as saying:
"If there was a mechanism in the universe that prohibited a creator that would be proof of the nonexistance of 'God'."
It sounds nice when you hear it, but it is no more a way of proving god than what I said is a way of disproving god.
An example could be if it were demonstrated that matter could definitely not spontaneously appear by nothing more than random chance. This would mean the Universe would have to be created, it could not simply happen.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
This one also mentioned evidence that falls short of proof:
Otherwise having the almighty appear one day and demonstrate "miracles" under laboratory conditions would be pretty strong evidence in my book.
Evidence for you perhaps, but hardly useful as proof.
I'd like to know which miracles that would convince for though.
Well for a start how about water into wine under full lab conditions
I'm sure you could think of something yourself if you really had an open mind.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Everything, even god, could be created by random chance, that's what makes it RANDOM. Because anything can come out of it. If there were something that couldn't come out of it then it would not be random now would it? It would follow a pattern.
Irreducible Complexity is a perfectly logical way of proving the necessity of a creator since an irreducably complex lifeform could not, by definition, come into being by random chance or the evolutionary process. It would require an intelligent designer.
Random chance operates within probability, there are things that are so improbable that the universe simply isn't old enough for them to have happened by random chance anywhere but in any case please read up on Irreducable Complexity because you clearly need to understand it better.
Quote:
Orig
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This arguements will never be solved unless there is a unanimous group of Athiests/Agnostics present or a unanimous group of religious people present. If we look at the evidence on hand only, Agnosticism would be the wisest alignment. Seeing as I am a Christian and I have witnessed miracles performed by the grace of God first-hand, I believe that we were created. That being said, I believe Interventionism is also a plausible theory to an extent in the sense that God intervened in our evolution process and noone else. Other than that, I am a proud Creationist.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This arguements will never be solved unless there is a unanimous group of Athiests/Agnostics present or a unanimous group of religious people present. If we look at the evidence on hand only, Agnosticism would be the wisest alignment. Seeing as I am a Christian and I have witnessed miracles performed by the grace of God first-hand, I believe that we were created. That being said, I believe Interventionism is also a plausible theory to an extent in the sense that God intervened in our evolution process and noone else. I am not an Evolutionist nor do I think it is a wise decision but I still respect anyone who believes it because in a free country we are all entitled to our own opinions. Other than that, I am a proud Creationist.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
You just haven't thought them through properly (and there were only three because you never came back to either refute those or ask for more).
I know, and I'm sorry, reading through that thread I felt so bad that I left. Unfortunately I had personal reasons for doing that which were more important to me than an online debate.
Quote:
Totally fallacious argument that completely misses the point. The issue is whether life in its original form can come into existance without a creator, whether life (an Intelligent Designer such as ourselves) can recreate life has nothing to do with our own existance one way or another.
My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.
Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)
Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.
Quote:
"Divine Intervention" in that something happens that violates the basic laws of physics. A Deus ex Machina as it were
Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.
It is a violation of the laws of physics as they were understood before the thing was obvserved, but considering how often it has happened and how many atheists there are on earth I hardly think it is proof of god.
Quote:
An example could be if it were demonstrated that matter could definitely not spontaneously appear by nothing more than random chance. This would mean the Universe would have to be created, it could not simply happen.
You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.
One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.
Quote:
Well for a start how about water into wine under full lab conditions
Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.
Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.
If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really defing the laws of physics.
Wouldn't have any bearing on god in terms of proof or disproof, for public relations it might be nice, but in terms of proof it's worthless.
Quote:
I'm sure you could think of something yourself if you really had an open mind.
If I were THAT open minded I'd worship the first con man to come by. And surely you're not advocating believing someone is god just because they've shown the current understanding of the laws of physics to be wrong.
(If you are I know god's name, well one of his many names: Einstein.)
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Random chance operates within probability, there are things that are so improbable that the universe simply isn't old enough for them to have happened by random chance anywhere but in any case please read up on Irreducable Complexity because you clearly ne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe in God. Not religion.
What I mean is, I believe in God and that you
should have a personal relationship with him.
I'm not going to tell you how you should believe but this is what I believe.
God created the universe. And then created Joss Whedon so he could create the other 'verse. lol
But seriously, I believe that God created the universe and everything in it. He watches over us and helps us through life. And we should trust in Him to provide for us.
For instance, my youth pastor shared this with me...
He (my youth pastor) and his wife have been trying to have a baby for a while. 9 months ago (they had the baby a week ago), they found out that she was pregnant.
They told everyone and all was well. During the course of 8 months, he realised that to support the baby he was going to have to either work overtime or get a second job. He started to doubt God because they didn't have the money.
We believe in giving 10% back to God and he'll give back to you. My youth pastor gives 10% of any money he gets. He always has. So when he is in DESPERATE need of money, he was wondering, "Well, where's God? He says in the Bible that he'll provide for me!"
So basically, they needed $3000 dollars to have everything they needed in preparation for the baby.
About 2 weeks ago, my youth pastor was so frustrated with God that he prayed, "God, if I don't get this money, you don't exist. I've been believing in nothing all my life." (something along those lines)
Then that Sunday, he came to church like normal. Before church started, an elderly woman that never talks to anyone came up to him and handed him an envelope. He opened it and inside was a check for $4000 dollars. All the old lady said was, "I just felt you might need some help with the baby coming."
That same Sunday, he was asked to pray to dismiss the service. He went up and told us everything I just told you. He cried like a baby (I've never seen him cry before) as he shared all this.
Now, if that's not a sign of God, I don't know what is. I mean, you could call in coincidence but what are the chances of an old lady that never talks to or cares about anyone, thinking, "Babies are expensive. I should give them $4000."
That to me, is just one of many signs of God that I've witnessed throughout my life. You may call it chance but I believe it's God.
As for evolution, I think it's in no way true. I mean, there I times that I look at a beautiful sunset and think, "How can someone think that this just happened by chance?" I heard that if you took 1"x1" tiles and lined the US and Europe with them. But on one of them, you drew an X on it. Your chances of walking around those countries and picking up THAT tile is about the chance of evolution being true.
But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.
"Put Book front and center. He's our friend; we should honor him." -Mal
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by slickt0mmy:
I believe in God. Not religion.
If you read through this and the other two "What are your thoughts on god?" threads I think you'll find that you're not alone in that.
Quote:
But, to each his own.
I have no interest in arguing with anyone over God. I'm just telling you my belief.
That's more or less the point of these threads, argument is, for me at least, only to better understand the veiwpoints of others or unrelated to god, or both.
(Whether or not god can be proven, for example, is a question of logic and science more than god, after all if god can't be proven, as I argue, that doesn't effect whether god is real and the nature of god doesn't effect that. Same the other way round.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
My point is that if it was proved that life had to have a creator that would not mean that the creator was a god of any sort.
It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Unless you define god as, "Creator," in which case we could make a god if we want to, it wouldn't include most of the members of most of the pantheons of the world, and it says nothing as to the power or current existance of that god (could be long dead, might have only existed for thirty seconds.)
Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.
If you want to prove a specific God that's another matter but still not impossible which makes it infinititely easier than proving their non-existance.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Most versions of god include some form of power besides sneezing life into existance.
Yes but at least there's a hypothetical starting point to proving the basic existance of a God even if proving which one it is is trickier.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Well that's happened often enough in the past. That's why the laws of physics CHANGE. Whenever something violates them that something is incorperated into them. In essence it is, by definition, impossible to observe such a thing because once it is observed it is no longer a violation.
The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes
In any case you asked for a hypothetical and given that our grasp on science improves on an ongoing basis eventually we likely will have a full understanding of the Universe. If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You're talking about proving the non-existance of something, an event rather than an entity, but none the less I thought your whole point was that that can't be done.
One might be able to prove that it can't happen now, but not that it couldn't have happened before. Again, it's impossible, even in the hypothetical.
You're not grasping it I'm afraid. It's not trying to prove non-existance at all it's showing that something requires a "supernatural" causation.
For example. As our physics improves we are getting closer and closer to understanding the conditions and physics of the Big Bang. If when we get there we find it had to be started by something, and could not just happen on its own, that would indicate creation and/or design. Again a hypothetical but certainly a possibility.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Well that would only require us to reevaluate our understanding of matter. You know that. Nothing divine or godly about matter.
Its ability to be changed from one substance to another at a molecular level without apparent cause other than someone telling it to does not have anything I know of to do with god.
What is your definition of God then? Omnipotence would be pretty high on most peoples lists surely. If you don't like the classics like water into wine how about "can you turn Jupiter into a star for a few minutes then turn it back"?
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If Jesus himself showed up and did it in the lab all it would do was make the scientists of the world rethink the way the human mind interacts with the physical universe. The only people it would convert to the side of god would be agnostics waiting for a single sign, or people who believe that the magic tricks they see on TV are really de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:Quote:
It's certainly better than the utter lack of possible proof for the non-existance of God.
How so? You are arguing that the way to prove there is a god is to prove that the universe, as we know it, can not exist without one. You're arguing that god can be proved by proving the nonexistance of a godless universe.
I'm simply arguing that evidence for the existance of "God" is hypothetically possible whereas evidence for their non-existance isn't.
Even if some might argue the evidence might not be conclusive (although certain types of evidence would really have the odds overwhelmingly on their side) the fact remains that something, no matter how small, is always infintely more than nothing at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
It's still an issue of nonexistance and the examples you give of how to do it don't stack up, because even if I am wrong about irreducable complexity, and even if you could prove that life required a creator and that something that somehow couldn't evolve came into being anyway it doesn't even imply a consciousness at work, just another force mixed in with all of the other non-god related forces of nature.
So you want possible proofs of the existance of your conception of God?
Regardless of whether it would meet your criteria of what a God should be the fact remains that a primal creator intelligence, of whatever level, would be that which bought the Universe into being and therefore "God". The fact we could not know how smart or powerful this demonstrable God actually is is irrelevant to the fact that we could hypothetically prove they existed.
Even if the possible evidence would not be proof positive (nothing could be in any argument if you set the bar too high) the fact that such evidence is possible means that you cannot equate Atheism and Theism as similiar faith positions. Even a miniscule amount of something (proof/evidence) is still infinitely more than absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
If consciousness is not a facet of god I concede that god can be proven, and I shall do it:
Okay now moving on how about you think about how an omniscienct, omnipotent being might choose to demonstrate their existance. If they are truly all-knowing and all-powerful they can surely find a way right?
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Many religions say, "God is everything," and if you look around you can see that everything that does exist really does exist. It's nice how that works.
Thus god exists.
Assuming they're right. Of course how could you back that assumption?
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
What's more since god comprises all things god must have all of the power in existance, and furthermore god must know all that is known because every brain is a part of god.
Again assuming the initial unfounded premise is correct.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Of course I can't prove that there is some overarching consciousness connecting those things, but there need not be one, consciousness is not assumed to be a facet of god.
Well there's certainly plenty of assumption
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
The argument is valid, if I didn't type it incorrectly, but also completely pointless. There are a lot of different versions of god and it does make the question of falsiablility harder, but I think if you want to say that god can be proven you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included.
The argument relies on a leap that God really is "all things" so it's not that valid.
As regards "you need to come up with a hypothetically possible situation in which the consciousness of whatever god you're trying to prove is included" that would assume I'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I used to be a steadfast Catholic...when I was in elementary. Then I strayed toward agnosticism in high school. I even joined some religious groups then because god was sort of my blankie and a part of me didn't want to let go(plus the meetings always served great food). But still after a while a lot of what they used to feed me(the doctrine, not the food) just didn't make sense anymore. It had an odd feel to it. Also, they started serving fastfood.
I was confused so I did some research. I even tried talking to a priest but I was afraid I would offend him with my heathen views so I didn't get much from that. Plus news of priests molesting little boys didn't help much either. Discussions with some of the religious people I knew tend to devolve quickly into a fist-fight or mud-slinging at the very least so that didn't work either.
So I stuck to my one true friend, the internet. Here I came upon http://www.iidb.org. Very informative site as far as my limited mental capacity allows me to understand. Now I lean more towards atheism. I reject all the gods described by the major religions. A lesser deity could perhaps exist. No one can really know. But I ain't worshipping him/her, that's for sure.
"The General has given me the pick of all the men that can be spared and ordered me to defend the Pass. I realize what a terrible task has been given me. And yet I feel that this is the most glorious moment of my life. What I do is done for my beloved country. No sacrifice can be too great." -- Gen. Gregorio del Pilar, Battle of Tirad Pass(Dec. 2,1899)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
It would unless you were being picky on how you defined "God"
So if I believed in Zeus (who did not create life according to any myth or legend I know of) I would not be believing in a god?
I mean if proving a creator proves a god then we'll need to reevaluate the idea of god quite a bit, obviously many religions worship things that are not gods, and since a creator need not be an intellegent or even sentient creator and certainly not powerful no religion or belief system I know of worships or advocates the existance of such a thing.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Whether or not the Creator God still exists or not is irrelevant. If there had to be a Creator it would demonstrate there had to be a "God" of some description even if they weren't necessarily the omnipotent, eternal Deity people tend to imagine.
Only by a very narrow definition of god which would include no god I know of from any religion or school of thought. Just like I can prove a pantheistic god by saying, "Look there is something, god is everything, and thus that something, and that something exists, so god exists." Yeah, I proved a very slim version of god, and I can do it as often as you want to as many people as you want, but most don't consider that a good reason to give up atheism. The reason is that I picked of a real and widely used defintion of god, "God is everything," that on its own, without any qualifiers, does not cover what atheists say doesn't exist.
Of course I can do that with many defintions of god:
"God is everything." Well then god exists and that is easily proved.
"God is that which created man," Well then god is the process known as evolution, which I'm fairly sure exists.
"God is the creator," well then god is the big bang or whatever else caused everything.
"God is the supernatural." Well then god does not exist and furthermore can be proved to not exist because, by definition, everything that does exist is part of nature.
If you define god simply as, The Creator, then of course god exists. God is, probably, the big bang, a natural process that has no conciousness to it. Even if not god still exists and the reason is obvious, EVERYTHING is natural, if god did show up and, as you requested, turn water to wine under lab conditions that wouldn't be unnatural, it would go against our current understanding of the laws of physics, but it wouldn't be unnatural. It would simply be a natural force being demonstrated for the first time.
So if god created the universe that would, by defintion of, "natural," in terms of the laws of physics, be the creation of the universe by natural forces alone. Well we already believe that happened.
There are few things that apply to all versions of god out there, being the creator is not one of them, being a sentient being is. You'd have to prove a sentient creator, and unless you've got something up your sleve that I've never heard of that can't be done because any actions undertaken by a sentient being could also have been done by a non sentient thing that merely appeared to be sentient, any extra intervention needed implying a creator could and would be explained as another of the many coincidences needed for the universe to turn out as it did.
If you did that that still wouldn't cover things like all powerful, which you yourself put forth as an atribute of god.
Quote:
The laws of physics never change, what we think those laws are sometimes changes
Which is my point because:
Quote:
If at the time we have a concrete theory of everything (Unified Relativity and Quantum Physics will be a big leap here) and we then find something that just defies everything we know that would be a decent clue to the "hand of God" at work.
That would mean that our theory of everything was wrong and our understanding of the laws of physics would change. Even if they changed to include the concept of a god (imagine that) they would not be v
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
too...many...posts, my eyes are still hurting from the unending wall of white
I would just like to add my beliefs to this whole thing
I am a Christian ,but I am not devout to the point of fanaticism, I believe that God created Adam and Eve and that when they disobeyed Him by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (on a side note I think that the apple is more a symbol than the actual fruit) they brought sin into the world. then ____ years later Jesus Christ was born to a virgin and He lived for around 35 years and that then He was crucified by the Romans and that through that death, the death of a perfect person, our sin could be washed away and that we could go to heaven and live eternally with the Trinity (for those of you who don't know that is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit)
in paradise.
Those are my beliefs and if you wish to discuss them in more detail then pm me
thank you
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This photograph is a sign that there is no god in this 'verse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
how, exactly?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php
-try it out, I dare you
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature
I'm so into Firefly, my butt glows in the dark.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This will probably be my last post, at the very least in this thread, for a while.
Anyway,
Quote:
Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
too...many...posts, my eyes are still hurting from the unending wall of white
There's more than you know.
This thread was closed down quite some time ago because it's length was making it annoying for people with slower connections.
In it's place part two was opened, part two can be found here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16682
That too was running long and part three was opened:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=16736
I have no idea why ROCKETJOCK decided to respond to this thread a month to the day after it was closed and again almost 6 months after that, but that's why we're currently in part one of three instead of three of three.
Thought someone might be interested in that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaptBryan:
Ridin the Ocean's boring when there aint no waves
A supreme God may exist but as of now its the Atheists, Agnostics and Free Thinkers who make more rational sense
https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/668099693616984065
https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/671103583543238658
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Rational sense, or not, you're posting in the middle, not the end.
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
A supreme God may exist but as of now its the Atheists, Agnostics and Free Thinkers who make more rational sense
Part 2 is at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16682&p=1
or Part 3 at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16736&p=1
Finn mac Cumhal very nicely ends the discussion about supernatural belief in gods at www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=2&tid=16736&mid=236826#23
6826
I am unimpressed with your Bill Maher quote, "I see the computer hackers Anonymous are going after Isis - if successful, it'd mean martyrs DO get screwed by virgins!"
But your Sam Harris twitter account sent me, eventually, to a video that impressed me. Summed up in few words: “Supernatural explanations are unhelpful.” A useful explanation by physicist David Deutsch is in that video starting at 3:30 and I have Deutsch's The Beginning of Infinity open on my screen. What a divinely inspired coincidence!
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These days all I have to say on the subject is "meh"...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I'll say on the subject is that I will know soon enough, or not know as the case may be. Until then, I ain't worrying about it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I ought to respect Bill Maher more because I just now realized Sean Maher {aka Simon Tam} has the same name. Did you know that Kaylee {Kaz} took Bill Maher's Religulous (2008) and edited the best scenes into five minutes? Watching the entire movie gave me a raging headache years ago. Watching five minutes today was enough to bring on the beginning of another.
Originally posted by G:Quote:Come on, that's a good line. Bill Maher is almost never that funny or clever.
Originally posted by second:
I am unimpressed with your Bill Maher quote, "I see the computer hackers Anonymous are going after Isis - if successful, it'd mean martyrs DO get screwed by virgins!"
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Have you got two minutes? Here is a second video. Colbert the Catholic talks God to Maher the ex-Catholic: "If I'm right, you're going to Hell."
Originally posted by G:
Those are 5 good minutes - my ears are starting to ring a bit and I'm catching the faint but unmistakeable smell of a burning fissure...
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maher should say "And if I'm right, you've spent your life in mindless repetition for NOTHING. At least I got to sleep in on Sundays and eat bacon wrapped shrimp, and wear my PJs and not have to keep an extra eye out for my kids when they are round the creepy guys in skirts..."
Hell now, or hell later, seems to be the question of the day... 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I lied. I'll say something else. If there is a god, and he wanted to tell us what he wanted from us, don't you think it would make more sense for him to impart that knowledge to all societies at the same time and in a similar manner? Why should I accept what some obscure tribe wandering the deserts of the Middle East had to say about it? First he's a vengeful, wrathful god that demands sacrifice, then he's full of love and grace as long as we say Jesus was his son. Make up your mind.
Man was not created in god's image, the concept of god was created in the mind of men. That's why there are so many crazy variants.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.
See how easy that was?
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is worship of Capitalism's Invisible Hand included in that class of mythologies? Or is the Hand real, not a metaphor?
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.
See how easy that was?
Just asking because Texans put more time and imagination into receiving blessings from the Invisible Hand than any other god. In Texas the Invisible Hand is worshiped as if it is the most powerful god even though it’s obvious to the naked eye that the economy consists much more of Monopolies and Oligopolists than it does of the atomistic, price-taking competitors often envisioned by economists, fundamentalists and Republicans.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Is worship of Capitalism's Invisible Hand included in that class of mythologies? Or is the Hand real, not a metaphor?
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
All current gods and religions should be reclassified as mythologies.
See how easy that was?
It is a metaphor, Mr. False Dichotomy.
Quote:
In economics, the invisible hand is a metaphor used by Adam Smith to describe unintended social benefits resulting from individual actions. The phrase is employed by Smith with respect to income distribution (1759) and production (1776).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have heard of wiki. But have you heard of Prosperity theology? It is very big at Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston. Sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, or the gospel of success, it is a Christian religious doctrine that financial blessing is the will of God for Christians, and that faith, positive speech, and donations (possibly to Christian ministries) will increase one's material wealth. It is a mutant form of religion, and I don't mean mutant metaphorically. It is the Invisible Hand with just a hint of Jesus flavoring to make it tastier for Texans.
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
It is a metaphor, Mr. False Dichotomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology#Criticism
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by tanstaafl28:
Science is an open system of inquiry
Where do you rank Atheists? Some of them seem kinda angry
Angry Aussie Atheist : Stacey vs The Muslim Problem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree. Man made and controlled. Besides why would God entrust the world to "men" and allow them to screw things up royally, especially after he
went through all that trouble sacrificing his "son" for our sins.
For those who say I blaspheme, I have two words for you: Catholic priests.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I lied. I'll say something else. If there is a god, and he wanted to tell us what he wanted from us, don't you think it would make more sense for him to impart that knowledge to all societies at the same time and in a similar manner? Why should I accept what some obscure tribe wandering the deserts of the Middle East had to say about it? First he's a vengeful, wrathful god that demands sacrifice, then he's full of love and grace as long as we say Jesus was his son. Make up your mind.
Man was not created in god's image, the concept of god was created in the mind of men. That's why there are so many crazy variants.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think most Christians could more accurately be described as "Paulists".
I'm one of the few, if not the only person in my family who is not a devout Christian. However, they attend a wide range of different denominational churches, and I'd bet if you sat them down and questioned them, one of the few things they would agree on is the divinity of Jesus. I don't think it matters either way, but if one was to lead their life using his teachings they would be a very good person.
My younger brother and I are probably closer in agreement on things than I am with anyone else in the family, other than me not considering myself a Christian. He does, and yet he once told me about meeting another person, a friend of a friend, and that guy's first words were, "Are you a Christian?" My brother's reply was, "Define what you mean by that?" If the definition is that you have to believe that Jesus was the one and only son of God, sent to Earth to save us, then my answer would be no. If you mean someone who tries to live their life loving other people, doing the best I can to help others and not hurt anyone, then I am. I'm not concerned with any reward or punishment in an afterlife. I would rather concentrate on this life and make it the best I can, since there is no guarantee it's not the only one.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Where do you rank Atheists? Some of them seem kinda angry
Coming from YOU that means...NOTHING, really. Well, maybe irony...
Maybe they are sick to death of not being able to say what they think without bible babble people coming unglued. Maybe they want the right to be left alone without obnoxious people coming to their door to sway them to their narcissistic version of their mythology. Maybe they'd like to attend a family function without hearing how much someone else is in love with their chosen delusion and why aren't *WE* drinking their kool-aid???
Maybe if the non-religious were LEFT THE FUCK ALONE they wouldn't BE SOO ANGRY.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I don't think it matters either way, but if one was to lead their life using his teachings they would be a very good person.
I don't think Jesus actually existed, but I have no real problem with the personality of Jesus, except it doesn't work in practice.
Turning the other cheek only works if everyone else does the same. Otherwise, your cheek will be nuked to Pakistan.
I think "Jesus" would technically be the first true hippy personality. Hippies are generally non-threatening, but the culture also doesn't work in practice.
Also, there were many bards that traveled from town to town in those days, and they would basically sell their stories as a night of entertainment in exchange for food and lodging. Would YOU like to live in Persia a couple thousand years ago??? Not much to do there, which is why these stories spread so quickly... Try looking up The Cult Of Mithras. About the same time as Jesus, similar stories. Also, the lack of anything written about Jesus until much much much later is bothersome.
The whole "God gave his son thing" also doesn't work for me.
Didn't stop anyone from sinning, or continuing to... Besides, if we were created by a perfect being, then wouldn't we also be perfect and not need a "sacrifice" to redeem us?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When it comes to islam the people who call themselves Atheists seem to be cowards
and what happened after Germans opened their borders to islamics?
German Police Stop Muslim Terror Attack on Synagogue
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/05/german-police-stop-muslim-terror-at
tack-on-synagogue
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Islam needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.
GWB was the 3rd worst President of my lifetime, but the biggest mistake he made was not turning Mecca to glass after 9/11.
--------------------------------------------------
Trump will be fine.
He will also be your next President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME