German Drops Mayan Skull, Endangers Mankind

Off Topic
141

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[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]
Ah, so it’s a deeply ingrained sense of exclusivity propagated by a culture traditionally ground underfoot, and only those who see it as superior to any other belief system or none at all get to experience eternity and the rest are trash, not storing up treasures for the next life where the weak are the strong forever and ever…

Sounds like a star wars convention.

142

Or maybe more like the collegiate Greek system:

“Join us, we’re better than those other guys! If you don’t, you can’t come to our parties… and they’re better, trust me.”

143

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
Ah, so it’s a deeply ingrained sense of exclusivity propagated by a culture traditionally ground underfoot . . . . [/quote]

You confuse me with someone who cares about what you believe.

144

[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]

I would agree with you if you used Deism instead of Theism.

145

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
Ah, so it’s a deeply ingrained sense of exclusivity propagated by a culture traditionally ground underfoot . . . . [/quote]

You confuse me with someone who cares about what you believe.[/quote]

That’s been my point as well. I don’t see why they care either.

146

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]

This is one of the problem with religions today. This is what they’re based on, and also why I’m more inclined towards Deism if there is a creator.

147

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
Ah, so it’s a deeply ingrained sense of exclusivity propagated by a culture traditionally ground underfoot . . . . [/quote]

You confuse me with someone who cares about what you believe.[/quote]

That’s been my point as well. I don’t see why they care either.[/quote]

Ah, but you have to not even care that they care!

Take it to a whole new level of not-give-a-shit. :wink:

148

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
There are things for which there is evidence, and things for which there is no evidence. I am saying we should hold mentally healthy adults to the standard of, “Its not OK to publicly espouse beliefs for which there is no evidence.”
[/quote]

In a court of law a witness may testify about events only he or she witnessed. Is this evidence? Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

The witness must be credible…[/quote]

Of course. That doesn’t answer my question though. Does the fact that nobody else saw what the witness saw automatically negate that evidence?[/quote]

Depends on the Jury;)[/quote]

That goes back to the credibility issue.

Try one more time. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “n” and ends in “o”.[/quote]

Of course you are correct. The fact that one person sees something, but nobody else sees it does not mean it didn’t happen. However, this is in no way relevant to the current discussion. Larger, more amazing claims require more evidence. If someone says, “I saw a blue car drive by,” I’m going to say OK. Not a very big claim, not very significant, so no big deal. If someone says, “There is an almighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe,” he/she better have some serious evidence to back it up. “Because I saw him” or “Because it makes me feel good to believe it” or “I just know it” isn’t good enough.[/quote]

It’s not good enough for YOU. And that’s the point. I can’t prove to you that God exists. But you can’t prove that God does not exist. You can merely state your opinion based on the evidence. If you draw the conclusion that God does not exist so be it. [/quote]

Unfalsifiable argument…I think the we are living in a man’s left testicle…no matter what you do you cant prove it wrong…but does that make it right?

149

[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]

I can somewhat understand your stance here, but my question is how do you know that God, the creator of this universe is the GOd you pray too. How do you differentiate between Jesus and Zues. This is usually what happens with most debates I have with Theists. They talk about Jesus and eventually back down to well something must have a cause/creator. Clearly though some evedince was presented to them that made them choose one God over the other. I am still waiting for that evidence…

150

To add, I’m not sure that the existence of this universe can work if there were a cause/creator.

By the way if everything must have a cause/creator then who created your God?

151

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Unfalsifiable argument…I think the we are living in a man’s left testicle…no matter what you do you cant prove it wrong…but does that make it right?[/quote]

Technically all arguments are unfalcifiable. Nothing is provable. Nothing is completely physically knowable.

And again, as I pointed out in my computer simulation example, a creator is completely rationally different than something like a spaghetti monster. There is a usefulness in life to answering the question of a first cause. There is a reason to ask and pursue the question. There is usefulness in determining an axiom in science. There is no usefulness or logical reasoning to propose that we live in a testicle. While it is unfalsifiable, there is plenty of logical reason to ignore the possibility because it’s useless.

Not all unfasifiable arguments are invalid because one is. You can no more relate one bad unfalsifiable argument to all unfalsifiable arguments, than one bad falsifiable argument to all falsifiable ones.

Not to mention there are scientific theories like specifics of black holes or origins of the universe or parts of quantum mechanics, that because of the nature of the universe (time, uncertainty, wave particle duality, est.) they aren’t really knowable or falsifiable.

“Not only does God play dice, but… he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.” â?? that doesn’t mean we shouldnâ??t speculate about what numbers were rolled.

152

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

Unfalsifiable argument…I think the we are living in a man’s left testicle…no matter what you do you cant prove it wrong…but does that make it right?[/quote]

Technically all arguments are unfalcifiable. Nothing is provable. Nothing is completely physically knowable.

And again, as I pointed out in my computer simulation example, a creator is completely rationally different than something like a spaghetti monster.

Not all unfasifiable arguments are invalid because one is. You can no more relate one bad unfalsifiable argument to all unfalsifiable arguments, than one bad falsifiable argument to all falsifiable ones.

[/quote]

I’m trying to figure out how to respond and take out what I’m responding too, so i tried to only keep the main points I want to discuss, I’m not good with computers.

anyway…

To that first point I would replace technically, with philisophically.

To the second, as I have mentioned in another post, I can see some rationale there, but my main question is why do people choose spaghetti monsters. There is a difference in believeing that the univesie was created by something, and believing in the God of Abraham. To believe in the latter, in my opionion, is no different than a child believing in Santa Claus.

To your third point, I would disagree. But I think we need to clarify the difference between Probability and Possibility. There is inherent possibility in any argument of a deity, but the probability is astronoimcally low, especially when such details are “known” about said deity (Yahweh).

153

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]BootScootBoogy wrote:
Ah, so it’s a deeply ingrained sense of exclusivity propagated by a culture traditionally ground underfoot . . . . [/quote]

You confuse me with someone who cares about what you believe.[/quote]

That’s been my point as well. I don’t see why they care either.[/quote]

Ah, but you have to not even care that they care!

Take it to a whole new level of not-give-a-shit. ;-)[/quote]
Yet here you both are… what do I believe?

154

[quote]colt44 wrote:

I can somewhat understand your stance here, but my question is how do you know that God, the creator of this universe is the GOd you pray too.

[/quote]
Simple, I don’t. That’s what makes it faith.

[quote]

How do you differentiate between Jesus and Zues. This is usually what happens with most debates I have with Theists. They talk about Jesus and eventually back down to well something must have a cause/creator. Clearly though some evedince was presented to them that made them choose one God over the other. I am still waiting for that evidence… [/quote]

Zues is the guy carrying the lightning bolts.

Basically, what it boils down to, for me, is a rational evaluation of usefulness. One of my fundamental beliefs is that god gave us brains so we could use them.

I would suggest you look first at what is written on your own heart, then investigate, with an open mind, what truth might be out there.

Jesus agrees with the truth I already knew in my heart and evaluated with my head.

But, to begin that journey, first you have to be willing to admit that your heart is more than flesh and blood.

155

[quote]colt44 wrote:
To add, I’m not sure that the existence of this universe can work if there were a cause/creator.

By the way if everything must have a cause/creator then who created your God?[/quote]

Well, just be aware, I don’t feel qualified to represent any specific faith. Thoughts expressed are my own.

Basically, you cannot use the rules of the universe to apply them to something, by definition, that isn’t part if it. Causation is a rule of the universe, as such, it wouldn’t apply any more to a creator than gravity does. Which of course is basically me saying the question is invalid, rather than answering. My only real answer in applying that some intuition would be that I don’t know.

156

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:

I can somewhat understand your stance here, but my question is how do you know that God, the creator of this universe is the GOd you pray too.

[/quote]
Simple, I don’t. That’s what makes it faith.

[quote]

How do you differentiate between Jesus and Zues. This is usually what happens with most debates I have with Theists. They talk about Jesus and eventually back down to well something must have a cause/creator. Clearly though some evedince was presented to them that made them choose one God over the other. I am still waiting for that evidence… [/quote]

Zues is the guy carrying the lightning bolts.

Basically, what it boils down to, for me, is a rational evaluation of usefulness. One of my fundamental beliefs is that god gave us brains so we could use them.

I would suggest you look first at what is written on your own heart, then investigate, with an open mind, what truth might be out there.

Jesus agrees with the truth I already knew in my heart and evaluated with my head.

But, to begin that journey, first you have to be willing to admit that your heart is more than flesh and blood.[/quote]

But would you know that if you were born in India? or Iran? I would have a feeling if you were born in Classical Greece a few thousand years ago, you would have different thoughts on Zues.

At the end of the day, most people believe what was first presented to them, and what they grew up hearing in their community. But does that validate their belief?

I think not

157

My prediction: One day in the near or distant future humans will look at Christianity/Catholicism/Hinduism/Islam the same way we look at the acnient egyptian, greek, and mayan religions: as those interesting but slightly naive beliefs thatthe ancient people held.

158

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
My prediction: One day in the near or distant future humans will look at Christianity/Catholicism/Hinduism/Islam the same way we look at the acnient egyptian, greek, and mayan religions: as those interesting but slightly naive beliefs thatthe ancient people held. [/quote]

If you change Humans to Octopus I may agree.

159

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
My prediction: One day in the near or distant future humans will look at Christianity/Catholicism/Hinduism/Islam the same way we look at the acnient egyptian, greek, and mayan religions: as those interesting but slightly naive beliefs thatthe ancient people held. [/quote]

Yeah, they first said that about Judaism 3,500 years ago.

The ancient Eqyptians said it 3200 years ago.

The Philisteens said it 3,000 years.

The Babylonians said it 2,700 years ago.

The Greeks said it 2,300 years ago.

The Romans said it 2,000 years ago.

The Catholics said it over-and-over starting 1800 years ago, with a big push in 600 years ago.

The Kossacks and Soviets tried it on-and-off 150 to 70 years ago.

The Nazis said it 60ish years ago.

The entire arab world said it 50 years ago, and still says it today.

But, somehow, we live on. It’s like we have help or something.

160

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]

This is one of the problem with religions today. This is what they’re based on, and also why I’m more inclined towards Deism if there is a creator.[/quote]

Where in the Bible is God described as a man?