I wholeheartedly believe without a shred of doubt that the year 2012 will end on December 31st.
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
You may have one guess.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not going to guess. I’ve been patient in an attempt to understand you better and answer your question. And, all I asked for was a clarification of what you were asking about. If you don’t want to do that, that is fine. [/quote]
A very nice dodge.[/quote]
How can I dodge something when you don’t make yourself clear? I asked what subject you were referring to and you act like a little school girl with a crush wanting her girlfriends to guess her favorite beau. [/quote]
This is just silly.[/quote]
He asked you for clarification and you wouldn’t give it. What’s silly is dodging his question for so long instead of simply answering it.
But hey, who am I kidding. This thread is a prime example of what I wrote earlier.
I don’t see too many people jumping into threads that have nothing to do with the subject of religion and degrading atheists for no reason…but clearly many atheists feel this need to do so in reverse.
Bottom line, people like that seem to care a little too much …about something they claim to not acknowledge at all. I personally don’t care at all about many subjects…which is why I don’t think about them all day long in random threads.
It is just an observation.
It is blatantly odd to care that much about something you claim to not care about.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
You may have one guess.[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not going to guess. I’ve been patient in an attempt to understand you better and answer your question. And, all I asked for was a clarification of what you were asking about. If you don’t want to do that, that is fine. [/quote]
A very nice dodge.[/quote]
How can I dodge something when you don’t make yourself clear? I asked what subject you were referring to and you act like a little school girl with a crush wanting her girlfriends to guess her favorite beau. [/quote]
This is just silly.[/quote]
He asked you for clarification and you wouldn’t give it. What’s silly is dodging his question for so long instead of simply answering it.
But hey, who am I kidding. This thread is a prime example of what I wrote earlier.
I don’t see too many people jumping into threads that have nothing to do with the subject of religion and degrading atheists for no reason…but clearly many atheists feel this need to do so in reverse.
Bottom line, people like that seem to care a little too much …about something they claim to not acknowledge at all. I personally don’t care at all about many subjects…which is why I don’t think about them all day long in random threads.
It is just an observation.
It is blatantly odd to care that much about something you claim to not care about.[/quote]
I find it an unintentionally hilarious example of logical, rational reasoning by the guy who mentioned it fitting religion in the first place considering the blatantly obvious reference.
It’s a direct question he can’t answer favorably and is instead fishing for extra material to spin.
So far a mutual discussion is occurring although collectively speaking as you are; Christians are the evangelists, or should be by their own doctrines and master.
Let’s not point fingers in the mirror, especially when an objective discussion is the subject of your judgement.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Wow people really do like to indulge themselves in mindless shit don’t they, next they will probably come up with an idea that an all powerful being who lives in the sky will save us.[/quote]
So, as science and computer technology evolve, it may become fully capable of building a very close model of the universe. We could input the rules of the universe, set up the initial conditions of the big bang, and hit run. With time compression we could literally simulate the origins of the world, watch life take shape, and even evolve into intelligent consciousness.
It would be interesting to see how many people on the simulated earth would deny the programmer who wrote the rules, the physicist who figured out the rules, the computer engineer who built the computer, and the creative force that dreamed them up, insisting instead, that an intelligent being creating their reality was equivalent to a spaghetti monster in the (simulated) sky.
You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.
I find that generally the people who are most outspoken and go to long lengths to claim rational and logical superiority are the same ones who actually lack critical thinking and virtually never critically examine the core of their own belief.
[quote]pstianb wrote:
There is no reason to find evidence that god exists, people believe what they need to believe to cope with their own life and problems. Who the fuck are you to say its wrong or right.
Saying that shitt dosent exist or is impossible is ignorant and stupid, we humans dont know shitt about anything. People try way to hard to find a logic reason for everything.[/quote]
That’s very funny because religious people have been deciding what is right or wrong for centuries. Wait, they still do!
Hypocrite.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.
[/quote]
Riiiiight. I’d like to know what you consider a fact, to be honest.
Atheism refuses the existence of any kind of god because there’s no proof, or there’s any need to find one, that those exist at all. There’s so many contradictions in all the religious stuff that it just doesn’t make any sense.
The fact that so many people believe in creationism or refuse evolution is enough proof of the idiocy of many.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
As for the original topic…a skull with magical powers that will prevent something that should have happened a few months already?
[/quote]
That’s because the skulls are working their hoodoo.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.
[/quote]
Riiiiight. I’d like to know what you consider a fact, to be honest.
Atheism refuses the existence of any kind of god because there’s no proof, or there’s any need to find one, that those exist at all. There’s so many contradictions in all the religious stuff that it just doesn’t make any sense.
The fact that so many people believe in creationism or refuse evolution is enough proof of the idiocy of many.[/quote]
No. You are muddling the issue. There is one question that all other things flow from. Does the universe have a cause? Everything we have ever rationally known or observed has a cause. Best guess, the universe does too. Theism, in my rational evaluation as an engineer, is far more logical than atheism.
There is as much proof and as much rational logical reason, to believe in god, as there is to believe in the axioms of science. Everything in science is first based on a entirely un-provable leap of faith. That one measure of faith is then used as the foundation on which an elaborate system is constructed.
Why do you believe the laws of the universe are unchanging? Why does physics believe there is a universal nature to the laws of the universe? Why assume its pre-determined or even analytic at all?
Theism works the same way. Once a person has answered the question of “is there a cause?”, yes. It is something that is simply built on. Having a cause means that the rules of the universe are not unchanging and that, in fact, they have been violated at some point. Once you have arrived there you must acknowledge that there is no rational difference as to a specific time for that violation. Could have been to start the big bang, could have been 10 minutes ago. Logically, there is no difference. So, from that first question I have just gotten to a point that, in absolute terms and following my rational engineering senses, creationism and evolution are logically equivalent (though not equally useful).
But again, this requires a critical examination of self most people aren’t willing to honestly do. It really isn’t that long of a logical walk from asking the most simple question, looking at the evidence you do have, and arriving at a place where creation is entirely possible. It is, however, a steep and difficult slope for a lot of people.
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer!
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer![/quote]
If I can make some people think and consider a little, I consider it a win.
My version of a concise resolution is:
There is a god. I’m not him.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can argue against tenants and dogma of individual belief. However, Atheism is no more rationally based or logically derived than Theism. That is an actual fact.
[/quote]
Riiiiight. I’d like to know what you consider a fact, to be honest.
Atheism refuses the existence of any kind of god because there’s no proof, or there’s any need to find one, that those exist at all. There’s so many contradictions in all the religious stuff that it just doesn’t make any sense.
The fact that so many people believe in creationism or refuse evolution is enough proof of the idiocy of many.[/quote]
No. You are muddling the issue. There is one question that all other things flow from. Does the universe have a cause? Everything we have ever rationally known or observed has a cause. Best guess, the universe does too. Theism, in my rational evaluation as an engineer, is far more logical than atheism.
There is as much proof and as much rational logical reason, to believe in god, as there is to believe in the axioms of science. Everything in science is first based on a entirely un-provable leap of faith. That one measure of faith is then used as the foundation on which an elaborate system is constructed.
Why do you believe the laws of the universe are unchanging? Why does physics believe there is a universal nature to the laws of the universe? Why assume its pre-determined or even analytic at all?
Theism works the same way. Once a person has answered the question of “is there a cause?”, yes. It is something that is simply built on. Having a cause means that the rules of the universe are not unchanging and that, in fact, they have been violated at some point. Once you have arrived there you must acknowledge that there is no rational difference as to a specific time for that violation. Could have been to start the big bang, could have been 10 minutes ago. Logically, there is no difference. So, from that first question I have just gotten to a point that, in absolute terms and following my rational engineering senses, creationism and evolution are logically equivalent (though not equally useful).
But again, this requires a critical examination of self most people aren’t willing to honestly do. It really isn’t that long of a logical walk from asking the most simple question, looking at the evidence you do have, and arriving at a place where creation is entirely possible. It is, however, a steep and difficult slope for a lot of people.
[/quote]
That’s very nice (no sarcasm).
But where, in all this, fits a personified being that did nothing for millions of years and suddenly appeared in our lives? It punishes people (not a single proof that this happened) and helps people who pray (not a single proof that this works). Mind that many gods fit this criteria with minor alterations. Hindu gods, Scandinavian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods (same as Greek), Egyptian gods (influenced as well), even Christian theology has stolen many things from Egyptian gods.
Why this superior force must be a person? Why does it have to be Allah, Odin, Shiva or whatever?
That’s not rational at all because those are product of human mind.
IF there’s a superior force, it’s not based on Earth and it’s not a person.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
So the prerequisite for salvation is a fear of Hell?
[/quote]
Fear of the L-RD is the beginning of wisdom.[/quote]
Hey man what up, how is life?[/quote]
Doing better than I deserve, I think. Moving to the Golan for the summer.
(My sister owns a vineyard there and it’s cool, temperature wise, most of the summer.)
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
So the prerequisite for salvation is a fear of Hell?
[/quote]
Fear of the L-RD is the beginning of wisdom.[/quote]
That is certainly a positive spin. Unless the lord holds the key to Hell, then its kind of a manipulative, love-hate relationship with one cultures Elvis.
Still waiting on those magic revelations…
Sadly I don’t think they exist.[/quote]
You’re correct. They will not for you. G-d seldom forces Himself on anyone. Jonah, maybe. You’re not in that league.[/quote]
So you have to open your mind to believe and believe to receive? Sounds like willing justification and a choice in faith of one particular stripe over any other. [/quote]
No. It’s just that eternity will be better without you, so you won’t get to go.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
That’s very nice (no sarcasm).
But where, in all this, fits a personified being that did nothing for millions of years and suddenly appeared in our lives? [/quote]
The alternate view is that everything done for millions of years had a plan for us now. We are getting into philosophy and most of you don’t seem able to even think on those terms.
[quote]
Why this superior force must be a person? Why does it have to be Allah, Odin, Shiva or whatever?[/quote]
I would think it to be a major flaw for any human to think of God as a “person”. I don’t. I doubt any human’s current mental state could even comprehend what God would actually be. That means if your comprehension of what others believe lies in the most juvenile concept you can think of, you will no doubt waste your time picking apart what matters least.
Uh, yeah. I agree. My guess is “heaven” isn’t literally covered in gold and pearls. You would need to have a mind open enough to understand the difference between allegory and literal interpretation. That is why there is so much debate even within Christianity about parts of the Bible.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer![/quote]
Come back in December then you’ll know what the skulls had to say about it all.
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer![/quote]
Actually, the skulls talked. All they said was “42.”
Everyone is very confused.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
That’s very nice (no sarcasm).
But where, in all this, fits a personified being that did nothing for millions of years and suddenly appeared in our lives? It punishes people (not a single proof that this happened) and helps people who pray (not a single proof that this works). Mind that many gods fit this criteria with minor alterations. Hindu gods, Scandinavian gods, Greek gods, Roman gods (same as Greek), Egyptian gods (influenced as well), even Christian theology has stolen many things from Egyptian gods.
Why this superior force must be a person? Why does it have to be Allah, Odin, Shiva or whatever?
That’s not rational at all because those are product of human mind.
IF there’s a superior force, it’s not based on Earth and it’s not a person.
[/quote]
Well, your interpretation bias aside, my point is not to prove a religion. I don’t think anyone is contending that religion is provable. The most ardent Christian claims a basis in faith after all.
I’m just pointing out first, that faith is something everyone has and everyone does. It makes little sense to accept faith in one part of life and reject it, on the basis that it is faith, in another part of life. And second, that at the very core religion has a base in the answer to a very simple question everyone should ask and that, when objectively and logically approached, can result in a belief in god.
Once you are there, there is a world of possibility in what you believe from there. The only point I’m making is that it is possible and not devoid of rational thinking.
“IF there’s a superior force, it’s not based on Earth and it’s not a person.” And just remember, in my very straight forward initial hypothetical I proposed, you’d be wrong about that too. =0)
[quote]Jason van Wyk wrote:
They’ve even been seen in Alabama.[/quote]
Are you being serious??
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer![/quote]
Actually, the skulls talked. All they said was “42.”
Everyone is very confused.[/quote]
[quote]Nards wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
I’m coming back by the time this thread gets to page 20…by then this religion thing will certainly have been sorted out.
I can see it now…page 21 will have a nice, clean answer![/quote]
Actually, the skulls talked. All they said was “42.”
Everyone is very confused.[/quote]
[/quote]
Unfortunately, the skull that was supposed to know the question was destroyed 800 years ago…