The one thing I learned in this thread. Nobody's opinion changed. Shocking.
The one thing I learned in this thread. Nobody's opinion changed. Shocking.
Yes
yep i do
Yes, I do - believe in God the father almight! and his Son Jesus Christ!
Anti-Theist here. Not only do I not believe in god, I actively maintain that indoctrinating children under any celestial dictatorship be it real or imagined is harmful. Religion systematically asks people to believe things without evidence. In any other sphere of human activity this would be considered utterly unacceptable. We are reaching a period in time where seventh century belief systems may have access to twenty first century weaponry.
Reading about religion not only helped me narrow down what I do and don't believe, but also changed some of my political views as well. Up until very recently I would have considered myself anti-war, but after reading a bit on the subject of religion I can no longer make that claim.
Sport122 the answer to your questions is not "because someone told you." It's because they are self-evident, and can be independently verified.
"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logic and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience." - Leonard Peikoff
These are some of the books I've been reading over the past two or three months, on the subject that have helped me understand what it means to be religious, and to believe in religion.
Recommended Reading:
The God Delusion
- Richard Dawkins
Breaking the Spell
-Daniel Dennett
The End of Faith
- Sam Harris
God is Not Great
- Christopher Hitchens
Atheist Universe
- David Mills
Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever
- Christopher Hitchens
The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in The Dark
- Carl Sagan
The Age of Reason
-Thomas Paine
Here we face a critical branch point in history, what we do with our world, right now, will propagate down through the centuries and powerfully affect the destiny of our descendants, it is well within our power to destroy our civilization and perhaps our species as well. If we capitulate to superstition or greed or stupidity we could plunge our world into a time of darkness deeper than the time between the collapse of classical civilization and the Italian Renaissance. But we are also capable of using our compassion and our intelligence, our technology and our wealth to make an abundant and meaningful life for every inhabitant of this planet." -Carl Sagan
"In spite of the ferocious differences of opinion about other moral issues, there seems to be something approaching consensus that it is cruel and malicious to interfere with the life-enhancing illusions of others- unless those illusions are themselves are the cause of even greater ills." -Daniel Dennett
Yes I do...
no
I didnt' want to over burden this thread as i occasionally do, but...Originally Posted by DrivenMind
response: Your quote from Peikoff.
first off remember that even Peikoff is a product of predetermined factors. This is a man who was groomed and shaped by one of the most reknowned atheists in recent history. Ayn Rand whose education was formulated before the explosion of social sciences in Russia. So of course the idea and thoughts on social environment relating to her pupil will be skewed to that avail. Much like that of the religious mind. My point is again, sciences and religion are both a product of faith and those views are shaped by a persons surrounds and because our experiences are limited thus our ability to really have a free will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZgr9jrQQ9w
In this clip. Peikoff demonstrates the opposite of his point. he has a caller on the phone who he wants to prove an ability of free choice. The determinant factors of what happen in this clip are laid out in that had this person not called Peikoff, he would have never made the choice to pick up the glass of milk and hold onto it. So even in this clip the outside influence (peikoff) is proven to shape the choice that is made by the caller.
I dont' know most of those authors, but I do know that Christopher Hitchens is not remotely a good person to be taking "scientific or proven advice from" he has countless debates where he fails to be able to formulate an argument against God or religion without making a mockery to the foundation of the beliefs he is debating. If he cannot understand them in their context then he is unequipped to debate them. Look up his debate with his brother, read reviews (even from atheists) of his books, specifically the one you listed. He gets it handed to him regularly.
Carl Sagan...i know a little about him, and he would not have been so quick to jump on the science is key discussion with atheists/thiests. And he wouldn't have been so quick to deny the reasonings of faith for the individual. He viewed science in much the same scope as religion. A poor understanding of either can be destructive. He feared that science would eventually be widely viewed as fact because it could lead the world down a bad path. Im not sure how you are trying to represent him here.
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." Carl Sagan
Lastly, Peter Hithcens is Christopher Hitchens' brother. He has some very interesting points to make in this debate with his brother. He has also debate Dawkins on his world view and the role of religion in the world.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64402847701526
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66699758&hl=en
Yes, I believe in God.
"Damn, Its Tyler"RaceReadyDevelopments
WRONG!!! Science allows the chance to be proven wrong. To be proven wrong means that you have a mind open enough to LEARN something rather than arrogantly run around like you all have it figured out.
THAT is where bible thumpers lose, and will continue to lose. They have "arrived" the root of the Earth and have "arrived" at the base of all existence while the greatest minds on the planet can't even figure out fossil fuels yet.
I'd like ONE person to show me ONE fucking thing that Jesus has personally done for them in the last 20 years. I'll wait...
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
Well if the idea is what has religion done then I can link the life of Jesus to numerous people in the corrections field and in social sciences that will testify that religion in the lives of prisoners is positive. That prisoners who attach themselves to religious faith are less likely to become repeat offenders. I hope you didn't have to wait too long. Cause I would think that less criminals does a ton for me and you.
I can name tons of "Bible thumpers" who do not claim to know it all. And even what I have said in previous posts is that I believe that the universe is being revealed to us through science, which denotes that I do not believe I know everything.
until there is an absolute answer from science, all science offers differently is observations(which in and of themselves can be questionable based on other sciences like psychology) which lead directly to more question and it is not an end to anything. Don't forget that there are hundreds of different sciences. The social sciences would completely tear down the idea that the practical sciences are not acting on perceptions and assumptions. Science fighting science...this happens in religion too.
do you believe that knowledge has an end?
do you believe that human discovery will eventually be ratified through science?
do you believe that science is going to be able to prove the origins of the earth?
do you believe that science is going to be able to completely rationalize social tendencies?
Answering yes to any of these questions tells me that you need to go find any professor of science at a collegiate/professional level and ask them because they will disagree with you especially if you talk to a historian or social scientist.
Why? because science is ever changing as our universe is revealed to us. This is no different from religion in itself. I am not a proponent of the Catholic Church, but even the Catholic Church provides evidence of this change in its acceptance of scientific practice and understanding. They accept everything from the existence to life on other planets, to "parts" of evolution.
Science can be just as foolish as religion. Many scientist deny the existence of the U.F.O. phenomenon because it has not had a tested and proven hypothesis which is repeatable with controls. Even with the sheer amount of evidence to prove that something is going on with this topic there is widespread denial. Why do think? Could it be that science is more like the religious people you talk about. That science is saying "if it doesn't fall within the scope of "scientific understanding then it cannot be considered real" -I have had this discussion with my brother in law who is a Scientist in D.C. Even he would agree that science is only about observation and a quest for knowledge and it only perpetuates more questions.
There is this big stigma that its one or the other. I don't believe that. I believe that science is the process of logic that should be used by all men to determine those things which are to be revealed to us about life. The problem only enters in when the atheist or the anti-religious or the pro-religious scientist makes it their goal to destroy the opposition that they feel opposes their views. It is a fight when the two are in desperate need of one another.
lastly there is also a myth that the ancient cultures were ignorant about the way the world works because they did not have the "scientific discovery" that modern times have. If you think this is the case then you need to talk to someone who has studied, Sumeria, Rome, and south and central America. They will tell you that you are wrong.
This is the problem with the people who tout science and science only ,you are missing the fact that science is self destructing without religion and the opposite is true. Religion without the acknowledging validity to the scientific process is destructive.
Sorry for the long post.
So... Jesus has personally done WHAT for you again? I missed that part.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I'm alive aren't I? My worldview denotes me believing that God is responsible for my everything and lack there of how much more personal can I get.
but lets ask your question to you...
What has Einstein, Darwin, Hitchens, Dawkins, or any scientists for that matter done for you PERSONALLY? You take their teachings to be truth or some version of understanding just like I take Jesus'. The problem is that you are a victim of that closemindedness that you mentioned. I am willing to learn and you are not. I am willing to listen to and study Darwin, Hitchens, Dawkins, Einstein, and to learn what they have to say, it is YOU who have proven himself to be closeminded in this case not me. Now that doesn't mean that I agree with them, because I don't put my eggs in the "science is golden" basket because science is not an absolute. Religion is not an absolute either.
What kind of answer are you asking for? Are you saying that a persons life cannot influence others without their physical presence?
Martin Luther King, Adolf Hitler, Muhammed, Moses, Paul, Abe Lincoln, Michael Jordan, much of the Roman culture, George Washington Carver...
I can keep going on and on about the sheer number of people who have personally influenced and provided for me and you through the impact of their life.
Now you can be childish and ignore what I wrote in my last post or you can formulate a good response either way you are arguing for science over religion with great tenacity.
I've read way to much of this for my own good, so I'm giving a "maybe" to a yes/no question, suck it.
Some say that his politics are terrifying, and that he once punched a horse to the ground...
That's what I thought. He has done nothing. And he WILL continue to do a whole lot of that.
I do not knock that there is a higher power. Maybe some GOD created Darwins Theory. If he did, he left the rest up to us and we are failing miserably. To beg the invisible for more than what you can prove and taste and touch and feel is fucking moronic. Keep spinning your wheels kid.
Whatever it takes for you to sleep at night, respect your neighbors and feel good about yourself for your little 80 years on the planet works for me.
Last edited by BABY J; 05-30-2009 at 07:57 AM.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I answered your question, twice, (refer to your statement on believers being unwilling to learn). This is your chance to TEACH me.That's what I thought. He has done nothing. And he WILL continue to do a whole lot of that.
I do not knock that there is a higher power. Maybe some GOD created Darwins Theory. If he did, he left the rest up to us and we are failing miserably. To beg the invisible for more than what you can prove and taste and touch and feel is fucking moronic. Keep spinning your wheels kid.
Whatever it takes for you to sleep at night, respect your neighbors and feel good about yourself for your little 80 years on the planet works for me.
In the true fashion of someone who is "close minded" and unwilling to LEARN, you ignored my question again (I thought I, the believer, was supposed to do that). You may be older than me but you don't seem to know as much as you think. Even the very nature of our current economy shows that people who are not physically in front of you can have a personal effect on you, that is so elementary. If you are going to ask a question of me then you should be able to answer on your own grounds as well.
so why don't you tell me what any scientist, or anyone has done for you personally? The truth is that MOST of our influences stem from things that we DO NOT have a personal contact with. Things you read, things you see on TV, things on the internet and technology. For you to say "That's what I thought" means that you can answer that question. If you can't your argument is fail and that goes to show you are just talking and have really put no thought into the statement you made to me. None of your statements have validity to me unless you can do that. I would even settle for you being able to make a valid comment with support on anything I said in my past two posts instead of ignoring the discussion and not proving any point at all.
Last edited by sport_122; 05-30-2009 at 09:39 AM.
This discussion/debate is pretty interesting. Sport122 keeps saying that BabyJ is close minded, but I think he is more of a "It might be possible, but I'll believe it when I see it" type. Does not mean he is close minded, but instead just sticks to cold hard facts. Now BabyJ asked you a question, "What has Jesus done for you personally?" which pretty much gets a different answer from everyone, even though he has really never done anything. The thought or belief of Jesus has changed the lives of several people though.
"I have not met Thomas Edison, but I can safely say that if he never existed, the light bulb might have never been invented." What I am getting at is the difference between all the influential people/scientists you mentioned and Jesus is that, there is some proof that they existed and lived the influential life they led, however the same cannot be said about Jesus. Sure the thought of his existence has helped many in shaping their lives, etc, but never personally.
Going back to the Thomas Edison comment I made...that was more of a quote of what people usually would argue, but did you know that Egyptians did have a light bulb, with a similar spiral filament that did use electricity or something similar. They had to have light to construct and carve on the walls, and if they had used some type of fire burnt by oil, it would have left even a little bit of soot resin, which no one has been able to find. Where did they get the electricity? There are a lot of history mysteries and some things that can be questioned about the past and how it could be repeating itself, but I choose to believe that simply because it is more credible.
Good post.
I am saying this because it takes being closed minded to think that science is not a parallel to religion and to be able to ask the question he asked, without being able to provide and answer is showing me that he is not here to gain better understanding of anything, but simply to antagonize.
Meaning, that not everything in science is proven fact. Even the very interpretation of results means that you have to approach your finding with faith. You have to assume that you have covered all your bases, you have to assume that all the methods and the components that make up your experiments were properly understood by past scientist in order to make your results work. You have to believe that there are answers to the questions you are asking, and you have to believe that you can somehow at some point in time come to a realization of those answers. All these things are product of "faithful/hopeful" thinking, which is the way that many religions are structured.
There is no question that Jesus was a real person. There are tons of other writings aside from the Bible to prove his existence. He is not fictional. The Romans kept great records. Even the biblical story of his crucifixion gives enough evidence to be cross referenced. Pontius Pilate, Herod, Peter, John the Baptist...they all exist in non-religious writings from the romans. The Jews wrote about him and there are other records that indicate his actual existence. That is not even a question. The problems with him all come from the claims he made, but Jesus is just as real as MLK or Abe Lincoln.
Good point about the Egyptians...that is one of the cultures that had a much better understanding than we give them credit for.
Fauly logic --- who CARES if they learn how to "read".
Lock 2 people from 2 different countries in a room - they will learn how to "COMMUNICATE" --- whether it's "reading" or not. Can't see the forest for looking at the trees - typical thumper. Thump on.
This type of ignorance is why religion/Christianity sucks. To even use BLATANT shit like gravity - the sun - oxygen -etc as a basis to prove your weak points shows how dumb you are...
"Gravity? Really? What IS gravity?? Who taught you that gravity is gravity? IS gravity gravity, or is it OATMEAL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm"
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...php?p=34774558
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
You are a growm man and write posts like a 15 year old...Fauly logic --- who CARES if they learn how to "read".
Lock 2 people from 2 different countries in a room - they will learn how to "COMMUNICATE" --- whether it's "reading" or not. Can't see the forest for looking at the trees - typical thumper. Thump on.
This type of ignorance is why religion/Christianity sucks. To even use BLATANT shit like gravity - the sun - oxygen -etc as a basis to prove your weak points shows how dumb you are...
"Gravity? Really? What IS gravity?? Who taught you that gravity is gravity? IS gravity gravity, or is it OATMEAL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm"
You mock and scoff and say I'm illogical. If you have found fault in my logic then where are your counter arguments to prove it wrong? the misquoting, and trying to twist context of my words is childish. What are you 30 years old?
First off:
learning how to communicate does not tell them that 1+1=2. And does not tell them that e=mc^2. You knew how to communicate before you started algebra, or science. BTW, what does anything you say have to do with the topic. Now you have reduced your arguments to going back and trying to misquote me, I can do that to, but it gets us nowhere.
And You are running away from your very own question?
What has any scientist personally done for you? I'm STILL waiting...
What has any person who wrote your text books to tell you what logic was done for you? What about your math books? Did you personally meet all these people? Here's a rule that much smarter men than you and I use in discussion/debate...never ask a question that you cannot provide a solid answer for which is grounded in your platform.
Before you continue in the conversation why don't you show that you have a grounding in your own thoughts? Show us all that you are not some random guy who just takes bits and pieces of what someone else says and says "I know how it is" "I'm always right". I thought christians were supposed to be the hypocrites?
Even the very link you posted shows your False sense of knowledge. You may impress a bunch of young kids on a forum, but I'm a grown man. I have degree's on the very topic that we are discussing. You attack my faith, but I am using YOUR method of "logic" (science) to show you that you are WRONG!!!
You have no logic. If you had logic you would be able to construct a post that is not opinion and repeated mockery and rhetoric. If you are going to be atheist or non theist at least have the decency to really learn what that position is about and how to defend it with integrity. The best arguments you have now are reduced to an attempt at misdirection to try to ridicule me in order to gain some sort of applause from fellow forum members. YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SEE THAT YOU CANNOT ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION USING YOUR LOGIC? This is a very childish way to try to have a conversation or even an argument about anything. Okay, you got jokes, I applaud you. I salute you, I bow my hat to you, now that its done, stand your ground on your statements and show that you got balls to LOGICALLY and INTENTIONALLY defend them.
If you want to dialog, do it if not stop trying to say you got the answer and I don't. I am inviting you to dialog with me. Im willing to sit down and debate you in front of scientists, not priests. You keep trying to act as if I brought up the bible to prove my point, and you keep acting as if I brought up jesus to make my arguments, I didn't, YOU DID!!! You call me a typical thumper, but I am not. I even have friends who don't believe in God, but get a good laugh at your foolish arguements.
I am meeting you on the very ground that you claim proves you are correct in all you say. I am inviting you to show people that you were not just spitting BS when you said, I was wrong about science and religion. You made the statement now put up your evidence. I have put mine up. Stop saying you are using logic and use it. You keep talking all this illogical nonsense, well where is your proof of faulted logic.
I can show where in your previous posts you have NOT used logic at all, but the more you post stuff like this the more you prove my points for me, and the lack of grounding in your own thoughts. I just hope that the same kids that applaud you can understand that you have said nothing that is not purely opinion or borrowed banter. You mock and scoff and call me ignorant, yet I am the one who can put science (proof through observation) where my mouth is.
Lastly, you can have the last word. If you want to really discuss something then lets do it. If its name calling time for you, go for it. You at least seem to be good at it. I got no time for that. Feel free 2 call me names, call me a bible thumper, call me illogical, all you want, negative rep me, whatever, the truth will remain the same: You don't know what you're talking about and you make comments that you say are logic but you can't back them up.
Your first and second paragraphs are mostly your opinions. I only have one question to your from your third paragraph....Do you believe Jesus was a regular man like MLK and Abe or do you believe he was/is god?
Scientists and archeologists still cannot figure how the Egyptians could have built the pyramids. They say it would take so many different angles of pulleys just to get those humongous blocks in perfect place built so it would not even sink into the sand over time, or it would take thousands of people. The Egyptians always refer to the help of a higher power directly, not the prayers, they meant directly. The pyramids are still a mystery...watch this video, I'm not saying believe it...I don't know if it is true myself, but it will give you an idea of what could be possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvPQc...eature=related
This is what I think about life....I think we are just here as every single other living organism is...just a really advanced form. When you see an apple in its natural environment dying, you just look at it as a natural process, you don't zoom into the apple and see individual bacteria eating the apple out, and you don't hear the bacteria talking, living, etc...basically we are just not that small. I think we are the same way, in a sense that we form civilization and cause pollution, grow stuff and it eat it, eat animals, etc...but when you see the earth from a distance, and you look at major civilizations producing smoke, and basically destroying the earth. What if the earth is just an apple in this crazy universe and we are just the bacteria? Just a thought
I do not care to be a role model for ANY1. Maybe you do --- if so, congrats. I do not think I have enough things figured out about life to direct or MIS-direct any1 and have their blood on my hands. WE are not not here long enough for me to be concerned w/ you - others - and how other view me. I'm not co-dependant.
Just the same as you are doing. You know why you are still here? Still posting? You are doing this b/c you can't "reach" me. You can't "see" me. You suck at soulwinning and it's getting to you. I haven't given you anything to grab on to in order for you to tear it down... unlike you. This is by design. You are trying to fight something that you can't see... is it fun yet?
Why would a single baby in a room need 1+1 = 2?? You ask a dumb question and provide a STUPID example from day one. A stupid example gets a STUPID answer. So... you put your SINGLE baby in a room... what the FUCK does it need 1+1 for? What does 1+1 provide for a single being in a room? ZERO!!! This baby earns ZERO by knowing that answer -- and LOSES zero by not knowing it. But what happens when you put 2 babies in that same room --- and you drop in 2 bottles. They have to "learn" that "1+1=2" (in reality they don't need to learn this at all, all they really need to learn is that when the bottles are dropped in there is enuff for them both to eat, but I'll play along w/ your dumb example). The only reason that "math" and "language" exist is the need to communicate across lines --- this "need" to understand is what drives existance... and this need is why the Aesops Fables known as the bible exist.
I do not claim any SCIENTIST to be my "Lord and Savior" dipshit. Is Jesus your Lord and Saviour? Surely a "walk w/ God" is a personal one -- no? If that is the case then he PERSONALLY must do things for you -- which you have not been able to prove. Sir Issac Newton is not my PERSONAL "Lord and Saviour". He's not my PERSONAL Scientist. But even after his death you can SEE and PROVE and FEEL gravity, although you can escape it and overcome it's forces, it STILL exists. You follow me or should I go on making you look retarded... NOT for getting your opinion out there... but trying to debate it w/ me. In order for you to do that you have to know what I truly think... and I have not given you that... nor will I. What has textbooks done for me? Math alows me to plug in formulas ANYWHERE on the planet and communicate mathematically. THAT is all I require of it - I don't beg the invisible math God's for more --- why, b/c everything that I can see is enough for me in this life. While you --- have to know that Math came from the Numbers God and how he died on the cross and how your life would be nothing w/out his "sacrifice". Speaking of sacrifice --- "God" rose didn't he? Some "sacrifice"... sounds like to he He is an indian giver. Last I checked a sacrifice was something you GIVE UP in exchange for something else... not something you give up and then take back 3 days later.
You have degrees? Wecome to the club... as do I. WOW. How do you attain such a degree? Surely some1 TAUGHT you that right? So you are basically going on the ideals of "some guy" who could be wrong. That's funny, b/c that's the very point you argued AGAINST another poster in this very same thread. I do not attack your faith - in fact, I said if it makes you feel better about your existence and makes you sleep better at night then kudos to you - whatever works for you is fine with me, no matter how stupid I think it is.
Ok. I have zero logic. All I am posting is OPINION. Please show me your logic. Show me something that is not OPINION. You can't - hence the topic of the thread is "do you believe" not "can you prove". Welcome to the debate. I couldn't care less about any1 on this board than I do right now. We share a mutual hobby - we are not "friends" - we don't do dinner unless it's car-centric... we don't do movie dates unless those movies are about cars. I do not live to get the favor, hand-claps and/or approval of strangers. Swing and a miss.
Oh I assure you sir that I'm getting all of the LOLs here. This long-winded post of yours proves my point that you can't AFFORD to be proven wrong... why? B/c you go to hell. There are LOTS of Gods... LOTS of religions... you can't AFFORD to be wrong or your whole life is a lie. What a mind fuck. I don't belive in God... that affords me PLENTY of time to sit and have some1 provide a view to me and BACK IT UP - I learn something this way. There are not RIGHT and WRONG answers here.. we know this, that's why this thread probably exists on every major message board that will allow it. But you know what there IS? There is good old SAT style answers like "this answer is more right" --- and you better believe that IMO I am more right than you are. Are you not smart enough to know that you can't argue OPINIONS?? You do know this right? "This apple pie tastes better than that one." - LOL. You're the guy who stays up to 3am arguing w/ a guy on the internet about that one while your wife is in the other room w/ a fire in between her legs that needs to be put out. YOU CAN'T WIN A DEBATE ABOUT OPINION!! Move it along... there is nothing else to see here.
HAHA - evidence? You put up evidence?? That's laughable. Your soul-winning mission failed miserably. It will continue to fail w/ me b/c at the end of the day I don't GIVE a fuck where we came from... I do not choose to serve a being who "has all power in his hands" yet does nothing but watch pain, suffering, dieing for HIS OWN CREATION! All in the name of "love". The WORST PERSON I know would give up his life to end all suffering... while your "God" could only "think" about it and make it right. You are OBVIOULSY not well-traveled... and if you are, I imagine you went to the "kool" vacation spots. I know this b/c of your stance. Tell you what... I'll PAY for your ticket to D'jbouti Africa... I'll PAY for your lodging for 14 days --- you tell me what you see when you walk down the street and come back and tell me there is a guy who is watching it all unfold, has the power in 1 eyelash to fix it and won't.
You THINK b/c you got your miracle mortgage payment outta nowhere that one time last spring that your faith has been tested? LAUGHABLE. You think that b/c you were cured of cancer that He exists? You think that b/c you were SOOO suicidal and are a ex-druggie and now that you're clean "GOD" made it happen - LAUGHABLE. Tell you what Sherlock... do 2 Baghdads (I HAVE). Do 3 Afghanistans (I HAVE). Do Somalia (I HAVE --- TWICE). Do Horn of Africa (I HAVE). Do counter-drug anywhere in S. America (I HAVE). Do the worst spots in Thailand where the most SEASONED soldiers literally fall to the ground like a bitch, refuse to walk and have to be carried to the infirmary from seeing only 30 seconds worth of half a block of an entire country that's in the tank. Do THAT, and if you come back a believer I'll give you a PERCENTAGE of a minute of my time to argue your fucked up "opinion" on how good God is. KTHNXBYE
Last edited by BABY J; 05-31-2009 at 10:44 AM.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
i vote yes.
i put undecided but im more of a border line atheist. with every day that goes by i get pushed closer and closer.
Do I believe Jesus was God in the flesh? I do. My reasons are based on faith and the things that are written in the Bible and history about his life which because of the scientific process has to be taken on faith. Some people act as if the very existence of Jesus is in question. It is not. Middle East and Roman historians laugh at people who claim Jesus did not live at all. Historians have records from Rome and from the Jewish history that show that Jesus walked and talked on this earth. There are records to show that there were claims of miracles where at least some believed that he was working miracles, and he believed he was. Also, the accounts written are not the only miracles said to have been worked by Jesus. There is more to it. Historians claim that Jesus did not just have 12 men around him. There were many people near Jesus, some looking to find fault, some out of curiosity and some because they believed him to be the Messiah, promised in the Jewish tradition. I read some of Josephus writings, who was a roman historian from the early first century. He spoke about Jesus and the early followers and the rumors of miracles that the gods had empowered them to do. Check him out...don't take my word for it. Also check out Tactus.
Yes my first paragraph is my opinion, but science itself does not even deny that it is not 100%. if you have time watch the video you sent and listen to those scientist discussing the lack of certainty on the history of the pyramids. That is one reason that even scientific results are calculated with a margin of error. The simple process of observation changes which also denotes that previous results were not complete. Science is not 100%, but I welcome you to give me an example that's you may have in your head.
on the Egyptians/pyramids/UFO, you may be very surprised that i actually believe in life on other planets or dimensions or whatever. I think that (especially believers) who think it isn't possible are not reading their own texts which in some places talks about beasts that have several heads or that dawn wings etc. I believe that they have been here on this planet and may still be here. I believe they had regular contact with ancient societies. There is just nothing more to go on.
I respect your opinion on who we are and our significance, I just don't agree with it. I see life as more than that. I don't want to go into that.
but all the things I have said are contributors to my reasoning for believing that God is real.
by the way did you watch the other two videos. I like em. good find
lol at all the confused souls in here.
YEAHHHH:idb:
I like your last post SPORT... I really do. And no I am not being funny. My last Dept. of Defense job afforded me the opportunity to know more about UFOs than most people on the planet
Sr. GCCS Systems Analyst (as well as TBMCS, and C2PC)
NORAD - Cheyenne Mountain - AFSPACE (US Space Command )
Sadly... my security clearance doesn't afford me the opportunity to speak about a lot of it (there are SOME things that I can say). But trust me when I say... every "quack" you see being viewed as a tard on the news saying he saw a UFO is not always a tard.
But I also am not sure how the bible connects the dots between "God" creating "other" life-forms. Old writings (not even biblical) document this in amazing detail sometimes - which I think is quite interesting.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I am definitely not going to take anyone's word or written proof for the existence of Jesus. He has not done anything for me and that is not even my faith. I am an atheist and until I get my own proof, I will not believe Jesus or any other gods existence. Is it possible that he exists? Sure, anything is possible...but I need more than a book telling me this. The pyramids you can believe is a modern marvel, no one has been able to emulate the exact build and cannot imagine how the pieces were put together. The Bible could have been re-written a few times though. COULD is the key word.
I agree Science has a margin of error, but technology along with evolution has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us. This is real proof as we know it, produced through science and mathematics brought down to the smallest margin of error, probably way more accurate than a book passed down generation after generation, especially when know people, including the most influential and religious figures lie, cheat, steal, etc...do you get where I am going with this?
It's like asking, "Who would you trust, person A who has been PROVEN to be 99.9% accurate or person B that CLAIMS to be 100% accurate? Person A is science and is right 99.9% and that .1 that he is off by is the margin of error. Person B is religion. Again this is all my opinion.
What do you see life as? How is the President of the U.S. any more significant than me, in a living organism sense? Sure, he is socially the most powerful man in America, but technically speaking, he is just another living organism that contributes to the progression of another generation of life.
QFT. It's a dangerous man who thinks that his knowledge is absolute beyond the point of accepting or even considering other ideas. This man (and his ideas/stance) is even MORE dangerous w/out an OUNCE of "proof", or w/ "proof" that's not even remotely solid. Science allows the potential to be proven wrong when INTELLECTUALLY challenged w/ sound observation - this is an arbitrary process. Religion does not allow for this... they have "arrived" to the absolute --- that's a SLICK SLOPE to base your life/kids and 10% of your income to every Sunday... especially when you use a handed down document to prove itself. Anytime you use a document to prove itself you're slow-dancing w/ a cult.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I can understand you not believing in the divinity of Jesus. I think for the most part the only documents that support those claims are of religious origin, but to deny he ever lived? That is why I listed these people. The people I listed are the historians, not religious writers, of the time period where Jesus of Nazareth was a walking talking man and shortly there after. These people would be just as credible as the historians that discuss the pyramids and historical Egypt, except they would have been more accurate because they were not thousands of years apart which denotes even more accuracy. If its about believing or not believing what is written, then do you believe that Paul Revere, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Abe Lincoln or any of these people were ever alive. Most of what we know about them are from what people wrote about them.
Even the discussion on evolution which starts with Charles Darwin. If you don't look at what people write about him why would you take anything he started or said seriously? The same goes for Einstein or any other theorists or scientist that has not been alive in 50+ years. I guess I am curious at that statement as well, because scientists are using those writings and documentation from early periods to try to determine the validity of their observations. it just seems odd to subscribe to science and its findings, but disagree with the approach. Maybe its just me.
Technology is applied science, and evolution is scientific theory... so I don't understand what you mean. I read it as:I agree Science has a margin of error, but technology along with evolution has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us. This is real proof as we know it, produced through science and mathematics brought down to the smallest margin of error, probably way more accurate than a book passed down generation after generation, especially when know people, including the most influential and religious figures lie, cheat, steal, etc...do you get where I am going with this?
"I agree science has a margin of error, but technology(applied science) along with evolution (a scientific theory) has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us..."
This is a confusing statement using the practical definitions of technology and evolution. But I think you are saying that the advances in science are decreasing margin of error? The problem lies in that statement. You should not use inaccurate creations of the origin to justify or define the accuracy of the origin. This erases the ability to make errors.
Also, the Bible is translated from its original greek and hebrew texts. The more we learn about historical languages and cultures, the more we are provided with the ability to make sure that we can properly translate texts in their proper context. The new translations of the bible are typically done for accuracy, which is hard to do when the original language has meanings and uses for words that we do not use in modern times.
Its like solving a math problem, getting it wrong, but changing the equation instead of your answer in order to make your answer right. or
1+1=3. being told thats wrong, but then saying the problem itself should have been 1+2 to justify your answer when in actuality it was wrong.
so its a bad practice to try to use products of the process to test the accuracy of that process.
I understand having an issue with religious figures as well. But I don't think that alters the foundations of what the religion stands for. And I agree, most "christians I know are poorly educated on the foundation of their own faith, but why choose to blame the faith. 3
For instance, most of our government is poorly run. Most of our laws are poorly written, but we still don't say that we should have no government, or no laws because people are breaking them and politicians are corrupt. Because we understand the foundations of the laws. That is the habit with religion. We want to blame religion when the problem lies within the men and women who are abusing the terms. Are you a bad parent because your kids disobey your rules? Should speeding laws be retracted because some people abuse and ignore them? Should police officers not be allowed to carry guns because some of them fire them without just cause? Science makes mistakes and people misuse technology all the time, but do we say we should stop creating things and ignore scientific progress? So why is there a double standard for christians/religious people?
The margin of error for science is much more than a tenth of a percent. I think the reason that I would not put faith/trust completely into science, is that throughout history there have been more changes and counter opinion in science. Theories, new sciences, scientific debunking, corrected theories, etc have plagued the scientific community since the wide spread use of the scientific method. So what I am understanding is that PROVEN only means that it has not been found to be inaccurate yet.
but I do not deny the importance of science. its is only when we try to separate it from faith and treat it as if it is the solution to the problems of our world while religion is the culptrit that I have a fundamental problem.
Quick question: in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope? this is purely an opinionated question.
You have it right there. Weak minded people have to believe in something to get through their life.
You just said it -- "personification". Root word - person... as in PERSONAL. Anytime your "hope" or "faith" comes from another being... then you are setting yourself up for failure.
In basic training - there were guys praying to pass PT or challenges. I didn't need that "external" FAUX energy. I said to myself -"I AM GOING TO DO IT". THAT is personal... THAT is personification.
I've seen people literally pray to pass tests in college -- some flunk, some pass. I pulled that energy from INSIDE and I did just fine. People pray... if they get what they wanted "God" gets the credit. People pray... and when they DON'T get what they pray for and it's "God didn't mean for me to have it" --- HOLY FUCK that is a slick slope.
It's VERY sad that people can't/don't give themselves enough credit and need an external catalyst or explanation on why/how they exist. Bc at the end of the day, there is not a SINGLE person on this planet who has gotten what they prayed for w/ any repeatable amount of success... you don't always get what you pray for in life, you don't always get what deserve in life... you get what you get. When will people realize this?
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
You cannot live without hope and faith in other things. You pay taxes(for gov't services), you ask people for advice, you care or have love for people. all these things are conducive of not living for self and only self interest. In fact if you were living for self interest I don't know why you would care what other people put their faith in. It wouldn't matter to you and you would believe that nobody should care or listen to what you have to say anyway because they should all be focused on what they want.
Life itself for all things depends on someone or something else doing its job. You just don't seem to believe that any of the infinite number of other factors relate to you. I believe they do.
You went to basic, I am assuming you are in service or participated in ROTC or reserves. (Thanks for that BTW). If you did then you should know the importance of brother hood and how all parts of the military have to sync up in order for it to function properly. Without faith that one soldier is going to watch your back the marines would not have the incredible code of conduct that they have. The faith they have in one another is powerful enough to drive them to lose their lives for their brothers and their country. Is that wrong?
You buy a house, you get a loan, that takes other people keeping good records on you. You pay cash for that house. That takes your employer or business continuing in success to be able to supply you with funds. On public roads you expect the car next to you to stay in their lane. You expect them to look and give you space when they want to get over. 99% of your day is conducive of someone else doing what is normal to you.
There are 6+billion people in this world. 6+billion people have different desires throughout. No two are exactly alike. Common faith keeps these people from becoming so individualistic that you don't care and you ignore the need for faith and hope in others.
I agree, but I don't focus on the negative of that statement. because it can also be written.you don't always get what you pray for in life, you don't always get what deserve in life... you get what you get. When will people realize this?
You get some of the things you pray for, you get some things in life that you work for and "deserve", but if you never pray and never work for some of those things, then you never get them.
For your tests, you didn't just say, I can do it. You put work into it. You prepared yourself. You can't do that without someone else giving you the information that you need to learn.
My point is that you cannot only rely on yourself and completely drop trust in other things/people and live a happy life. unless you want to be miserable, but then you would still be happy because you wanted to be miserable and you got what you wanted.
This is where you miss me, and where most people miss me --- this has plagued my relationships (romantic) as well as family. I TRULY do not give a shit about other people who are not on the ship that I am on at any given time. I can give 2 shits about who wastes their life assuming that they are going to go to heaven. There is only so much time and effort that I will give "helping" people understand why I think it's a failboat. IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!!! If MY life doesn't involve ME getting what J'SON wants when J'SON wants it then what's the point? There isn't one.
I like you already. I really DON'T care if any1 listens to what I have to say or think... you are describing me at my core perfectly. I can "play the game" to co-exist in society, but at the end of the day every1 I've ever known or ever will know can eat shit and die. LOL. It's not a choice I made one day --- it's literally how I view things by no fault of my own.
I understand all of this... but your question wasn't about the dependencies of things on other things... or the dependencies of people on other people. Your question was "in a world with no religion what becomes the replacement for the personification of faith and hope?" --- yet you coutner my answer w/ topics that have no bearing on religion (taxes, asking people for advice, if i care if people listen to me). You're all over the place but you can't see that.
This is where you miss me again. I NEVER put trust in any1 the many times I have been to war. That's how you come home dead. I have pretty close to ZERO trust in some1 if the result of me being wrong for trusting them means I come home in a body bag. How did I remedy this when I was in the Air Force?? I learned MY job --- and I learned the job of the guy next to me. "I" watch my back... always have, always will. If you say you are going to pick me up for work at 7a, there is some1 else that knows to pick me up at 730 -- u show up, I cancel w/ my plan b and plan c, etc.
This is pretty close to saying that religious faith is the basis for respecting your neighbors or having a sense of morals. If some1 needs to identify themselves relgiously in order to gain moral absolute then they have more problems than they know. Suggesting you have to be a Christian to have a sense of moral absolute, or that morality comes from the Christian God, is patently ridiculous. It absolutely ignores the majority of the world's population that manages to live a more peaceful and harmonious life than our Christian forebears and I maintain that's a superior "morality."
In this case... what is the point?? If the cards are going to fall however they want regardless... then why waste time praying that they will fall in your favor? You're setting yourself up for fail. And your logic is faulty here --- I don't pray for ANYTHING. I don't pray for sick people just bc some1 asks. I do "hope" that they get better... but I don't "pray" to a "certain" theistic entity (God) and charge Him w/ forcing that result... that's ridiculous.
Again. I'm an opportunist. I learned Japanese ONLY b/c I lived in Japan and needed to barter and trade for the things that J'SON wanted to get. I "learned" information in college to get the grade that J'SON wanted to get the degree that J'SON wanted to get the job that J'SON wanted to get the money that J'SON wanted to buy the things that J'SON wants. But like you said "I prepared MYSELF". The information was available to the people that FLUNKED as well. I do not possess anymore aptitude for retaining information than they do. By your agument, the fact that the information is there should mean by putting faith in the INFORMATION that any1 could recall said information and pass. AT THE END OF THE DAY --- I PREPARED MYSELF. Thank you for agreeing... you're provingmy point perfectly.
Let's say that I agree w/ this statement -- what does this have to do w/ RELIGION and GOD?? I do NOT believe in either and I am in the top 10% of salaries (per careerbuilder.com) - I enjoy my life --- great health - healthy offspring - I could go on. NO WHERE in attaining this happiness is "believing in God" responsible for this.
I'll leave you w/ some food for thought...
All religions depend on appeals to authority as a justification for their beliefs and dogmas. Since there is no contemporary, unambiguous way to demonstrate the claims of supernaturalism, citations to prior authorities are used as the primary means of justification. Thus we get the words of the founders or prophets as well as commentaries from others gathered into various foundational books... some of which you have posted in this very thread SPORT. Modern religious leaders cite some special connection with the past as the source of their present "authority."
Difficulties arise from both the conflicting claims of competing contemporary religions as well as from discrepancies within the dogma of each religion itself. People who are dissatisfied with some aspect of their current religious affiliation often switch to another that they find more in keeping with THEIR own view of the world. (this is where personalization comes in... and how in the END you are leaning on YOURSELF and pulling from INSIDE just the same as I do and just the same as I explained above).
You basically say science sucks and is inaccurate. Yet you are WELL aware of the research, math and CONCISE efforts/tools used in any science... correct? Well.. given this degree of unknowability in the world of SCIENCE it seems unsurprising that you would take the statements of religious leaders or the writings of a-jabillion year-old "prophets" (who even at the pinacle of smartness had nowhere NEAR the intelligence of a simple college grad from today) trustworthy. By your own words... the rest of our world is too complicated for surety, so why not is the belief in the supernatural as well?? Why does the supernatural get the magic nod?
Religious believers should apply the same critical tests to all forms of authority and not let appeals to "faith" lead to unquestioning trust.
Last edited by BABY J; 06-02-2009 at 08:25 PM.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
^^ EDIT
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
This whole paragraph leads me to believe that you are trying to make me believe in something. Comparing Jesus to the pyramids is ridiculous, and comparing the historians that wrote about Jesus to the historians that wrote about the Pyramids is ridiculous. One is an architectural marvel and the other is a debatable mystery. I am not asking for the credibility of the historians, because there is no way you can prove it other than a document.
I was not referring to the theory of evolution, but rather the advancement of science. Historians, architects, geologists etc all over the world use APPLIED science and technology to determine history.Technology is applied science, and evolution is scientific theory... so I don't understand what you mean. I read it as:
"I agree science has a margin of error, but technology(applied science) along with evolution (a scientific theory) has been able to make this margin of error so small, that it barely effects us...
This is a confusing statement using the practical definitions of technology and evolution. But I think you are saying that the advances in science are decreasing margin of error? The problem lies in that statement. You should not use inaccurate creations of the origin to justify or define the accuracy of the origin. This erases the ability to make errors.
I think what you are trying to say is, it is very hard to translate ancient text. I agree with you completely, but if this is the case, how can you believe in a lot of it. Translating Hebrew text is an age old process that is confusing. You know how the words in this language hold a numerical value, so a lot of the words have been lost in translation, like the words God and Love have the same numerical value.
I never blamed the religion for the shitty people in it. I never blame the law when I see a power hungry cop, I just blame the person. You keep misunderstanding me, I never said stop the religion, but I will not believe in it. What's so hard to understand with that? You know what I hate, missionaries and random people that try to convince me into the religion. This goes to anyone----What makes you so your religion so right, that you must go around spreading it?
How can you say the margin of error for science is more than .1? For which science are you referring to? The numbers I stated were just to make a point, not real numbers. Proven means it has been proven through applied mathematics and science to work for the reason it was created for without defects.
In a world with no religion, you choose what is right or wrong, not your religion. LOL
Ahh, debating about religion has always been my favorite topic.
A simple yes or no answer would suffice, maybe followed by a short story as to why or an event that has caused them to turned one way over the other, but it can't be that simple can it? Nope. Everyone gets all asshurt when someone doesn't believe, and the believers have this unexplainable urge to defend it. Why is that?
Did you think that someone would read something like evolution isn't real and be like omg, they are probably right, I believe in god now.
That works on 3 year olds.
~ Der F u h r e r
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves...
...and now here's Tom with the weather.
Do I believe in 'God,' yes or no? No.
In my opinion, Christanity is simply the most recent in a long line of religions dating back to when neanderthals/early humans quelled their anxieties about existence and death through made-up 'supreme beings.' The Gods of ancient Rome and Egypt were no more invalid as today's incarnations at the time. Egyptians had no knowledge of 'Christ' or the Christian 'God' because that particular religion had not been invented yet. But their gods of the time suited them just fine. There was no Christian heaven or hell during that epoch but I can bet you Ra and his fellow Egyptian gods had the same promises of delight mixed with damnation.
I do also believe there must be life elsewhere in the universe. And in, perhaps, multiple universes. We're talking sheer numbers here. You can use the Drake Equation and arrive at approximately 10,000 unique and technological civilizations in our Milky Way galaxy alone. Multiply that by the number of galaxies in our obsevable universe (200 billion, give or take) and I think you can see that life is most likely abundant in the cosmos.
Evolution? Yes, proven. Fruit flies can mutate at an incredible rate. That's why they're so popular with researchers. Mutation is the backbone on which Darwin's work was based. A slight genetic mistake that would turn out to be either beneficial or, at worst, fatal to an organism. Those that accidently received a 'good' mutation perhaps gained bigger wings as to avoid predators more efficiently. This allowed the newly-mutated bird a greater chance of surviving and passing on this new advantageous gene. Those with a newly-acquired 'bad' gene mutation (again, by chance alone)would be more susceptible to disease or deformity and would not be as likely to procreate succesfully. Genes don't care if they give you the prettiest blue eyes or a huge tumor. They just do what they're programmed to do.
Here are my thoughts on my own death...
1) Suspend heartbeat and breathing.
2) Lose consciousness forever.
3) Decompose.
No pearly gates in my future. Whatever it is that is me will simply cease to exist.
~ Der F u h r e r
Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves...
...and now here's Tom with the weather.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
