PDA

View Full Version : The ravenous beast called ignorance


Lime-Light
02-11-2003, 08:05 PM
I know there doesnt need to be another religion thread, but I could find anywhere where i could fit this in.

I'm going to look at religion in another way. Not as a belief system, or a club, but as an organism. What is an organisms goal? One, to survive, two, to expand and grow in numbers. If you look at religion in this way, you see that many of its rules and practices are there simply to ensure its further existence. You're going to eternal fiery torture if you dont believe in christianity. You go live in a wonderful place of peace and love with the supreme being if you believe. Sign me up! Take a look at buddhism for instance. Life is hell, you need nothing but to meditate and achieve zen so you can leave, instead of being reincarnated back to this hell. I dont understand what the positive result of sitting around trying to escape life is, but you certianly practice your religion if you want to be one with the universe, and so the religion survives.

Religions began as a primitive way to explian the occurences around man kind. Now they have evovled into a power struggle of who can obtian the most believers and finaly "enlighten" everyone over to thier side, with the exception of the extremists, who simply tries to erradicate the other side out of disgust.

What troubles me about this great war between beliefs, is what progress can be made? With the Christians bidding thier time untill they can be with god, the buddhists siting on thier asses meditating and the fundamentalists killing folks, were does man kind as a whole go? Nowhere.

Reborn Outcast
02-11-2003, 08:17 PM
Should I go off and make 15 threads about how atheists and their beliefs are stupid or ignorant? I could but I don't. And yet another religion thread pops up...

__CKY__
02-11-2003, 08:57 PM
Hmm a view from me is Priests of hippocratic love talk of peace and christ Power is their only goal.

Lime-Light
02-11-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Should I go off and make 15 threads about how atheists and their beliefs are stupid or ignorant? I could but I don't. And yet another religion thread pops up...

Go ahead, all you have in your defence is a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant men and translated by power seekers. And you'd miss the whole point in the process, I'm not even talking about christianity in particular, Im talking about the existence of religion as a direct consequence of ignorance and the feverish defense of it because its old and therefore "important". And you dont see athiests knocking on your door telling you youre going to burn for eternity unless you believe what they do. I certianly dont push my beliefs on someone, or even tell them what they are, partly out of fear. There is only one minority in America that is unprotected by laws or its constitution (the document yes, its enforcers, no). I dont have to tell which one it is.

ET Warrior
02-12-2003, 08:58 PM
You know, you have your beliefs, we have ours, simple as that. I think it silly that a LOT of atheists hate the way religion tries to push itself on people, but ahteists are THE worst about trying to belittle religion and get people who are religious to be like them. A CRY OF HIPPOCRACY ON ALL OF YOU! Well, just the ones who are trying to impose their beliefs on me.......

At least when religions try to push themselves onto you they have a noble goal, they believe that they are going to save your sould from eternal damnation. Atheists are simply trying to show us how smart and superior they are to us because they don't believe in God.

What troubles me about this great war between beliefs, is what progress can be made? With the Christians bidding thier time untill they can be with god, the buddhists siting on thier asses meditating and the fundamentalists killing folks, were does man kind as a whole go? Nowhere.
And where WOULD man kind as a whole go without the religion? The answer.....To Hell (Silently laughing at my joke)

But seriously, i'd like to know what I would do differently if I didn't believe in God, besides the free hour on sundays and the times i pray. I'd still be nice to people, i'd still be learning in school, i'd still go to college, still learn things, still get a job....hmmmm, I'm not in a rush to die and be with God, I have eternity to do that once I die.

NOTE, i do not hate atheists, I am glad you are happy with your views, i have atheist friends, and I like them just as much as my christian, muslim, and jewish friends. I only dont like the atheists who are ALWAYS at the throat of my religion. Just let me believe what i believe in peace, ahthankyou.

C'jais
02-13-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
You know, you have your beliefs

Do I believe there is no God?

Or do I not believe there is a God?

I don't need beliefs to live a good life.

ShadowTemplar
02-13-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
You know, you have your beliefs, we have ours, simple as that.

Wrong. Atheists, in the meaning of people without religion (buddists are also atheists, but not in the sense of this thread), have no faith, and no beliefs. Not believing in anything doesn't constitute belief.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I think it silly that a LOT of atheists hate the way religion tries to push itself on people, but ahteists are THE worst about trying to belittle religion and get people who are religious to be like them.

Simply not true. Jehova's Witnesses, for example. I have never heard about atheists going around trying to sell goods that have been obsolete for the past 20 centuries. Have you?

The reson why atheists can be viewed as bashing religion is that quite plainly most religious doctrines have no place in the real world. Keeping milk and vegetables from each other, no sex before marriage, creationism, ect. are all examples of religion being obsolete and utterly useless.

But, I hear you cry, what about all the places where religion is right: Don't steal, don't kill, ect.?

But the fact is that those norms would also be present in an unreligious society, because every society will desire some measure of stability.

What we would see in a faithless society would be abolishment of all those silly norms that are hopelessly outdated.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
A CRY OF HIPPOCRACY ON ALL OF YOU! Well, just the ones who are trying to impose their beliefs on me.......

No atheist (in the sense of this thread) is trying to push any beliefs on you.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
At least when religions try to push themselves onto you they have a noble goal, they believe that they are going to save your sould from eternal damnation. Atheists are simply trying to show us how smart and superior they are to us because they don't believe in God.

Atheists who try to cure you of your religious beliefs have the noble goal of improving the world. Religion has never produced anything of any value, rationalism (and therefore by extention, atheism) has. And by the way, if by "trying to show you how smart they are" you mean that they correct any utterly unphysical nonsense (such as the flood myth) that they come across, then you are way off. They aren't trying to show how smart they are (OK, some are, but the vast majority is not), they are trying to make you realise that all those things you "knew" about the world (such as thermo's second law, the magnetic field decay) are pathetically wrong, in order to get you to rethink your world veiw.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
And where WOULD man kind as a whole go without the religion?

To conquer the galaxy.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I only dont like the atheists who are ALWAYS at the throat of my religion. Just let me believe what i believe in peace, ahthankyou.

And I don't like those religious people who refuse to accept that their religion has never done anything good for anybody... Or rather I find it an extremely hypocritical veiw, but that doesn't mean that I can't like the person in question.

In short: I'm not asking you to believe what I say. I'm just asking you to think. I'm asking you to think without prejudice. I'm asking you to look out of your window and not overlaying everything with God...

Reborn Outcast
02-13-2003, 03:47 PM
Shadow and C'jais, do you accept as true or real that there is no God? Then you believe in something. Don't think that the word believe applies only to people who worship God...

Mandalorian54
02-13-2003, 06:02 PM
It's interesting what athiests think of religion. like it's some scary threat to thier existence. and what they think we think. I don't know how you get some of those ideas in your head, mabee you know a religiouse person or two, but you should assume they'r all the same.

were not a plague or a viruse, If you knew of somthing no one else did wouldn't you tell anyone?

I as a christian am not trying to over populate other religions, that's up to GOD. I'm just warning people of the wrath to come if they don't repent of the wrong things they do. It's not a compatition.

buddhism isn't escaping life, your thinking about alchohol.

Lime-Light
02-13-2003, 08:00 PM
Stimulating points, everyone.

One thing I want to get across is that I'm NOT saying I'm right. I'm saying organised religion to me seems little more than a club with thousand year old rules. I personaly cannot disprove the existence of god. Of course not. I dont know everything, nor do I claim to, but I can't accept what organised religions cliam as truth. It's too illogical and full of holes.

I dont really think humans are ready for our future. I dont think we live up to the challenge of being a united force that could solve the mysteries of existance. Our nature is to know why, but we hold on to antiquated beliefs, taking the easy way out instead of searching for the real truths. We've aparently "solved" the universe with this magical diety that takes care of everything for us, so what's there left to know? There's nothing left to strive for, if the big question is already solved. Thats what I call going nowhere. We've nothing to do but go extinct if we're willing to accept what we're told, in some sick, retarding tradition. I'm a giant pot of apathy and dislike for most poeple. Maybe religion would change that, but I refuse to be belittled by it just so I can tell myself it'll all be ok.

ET Warrior
02-13-2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Do I believe there is no God?

Or do I not believe there is a God?



ToMAYto
ToMAHto

i was simply making my point.

So you don't believe in ANYTHING? You believe in SOMETHING, like, you believe in evolution methinks, if not, you probably believe in physics.....so HA! ;)

And to shadow, your post is exactly the thing that bothers me th emost about atheists. They just can't seem to accept that not everyone wants to be an atheist like them. I accept that you are not a christian.......
In short: I'm not asking you to believe what I say. I'm just asking you to think. I'm asking you to think without prejudice. I'm asking you to look out of your window and not overlaying everything with God...

But how can I when i can look outside and SEE the brilliance of God all around me? He's everywhere and in everything. You can yell at me that there is no God until you're blue in the face and I'm not going to believe you.

Luc Solar
02-14-2003, 06:16 AM
Q: How can you tell when someone is wrong?

A: When they try to suppress you from gaining knowledge. When they try to hinder research. When they restrain freedom of speech and resort to censoring.

If you knew Dublin is in Ireland, would you do everything in your power to stop people from trying to prove you wrong? There would be no need for that 'cause you're right.
The more people do research on the subject, the more it strenghtens your position.

To those who are now wondering what the hell I'm talking about and why I posted here >>>

A: Just felt like sharing my wisdom randomly. :D

ShadowTemplar
02-14-2003, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Shadow and C'jais, do you accept as true or real that there is no God?

No, we don't accept as true or real anything.

The keyword here is accept.

This means that we only include something in our world veiw if it can be documented to such a degree that we don't need to accept it, because we know for a fact that it is so.

But how can I when i can look outside and SEE the brilliance of God all around me? He's everywhere and in everything. You can yell at me that there is no God until you're blue in the face and I'm not going to believe you.

Show me this god of yours... You see him because you want to. If you saw him because he was there then I would be able to see him too.

Reborn Outcast
02-14-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
No, we don't accept as true or real anything.

The keyword here is accept.

This means that we only include something in our world veiw if it can be documented to such a degree that we don't need to accept it, because we know for a fact that it is so.

I could say the same thing for God. I could say that I know for a fact that he exists because of the Bible but then you would come out and say that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash so its a never-ending circle.



Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Show me this god of yours... You see him because you want to. If you saw him because he was there then I would be able to see him too.

Its called faith. You guys don't seem to get it that we Christians believe by faith.

C'jais
02-14-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
ToMAYto
ToMAHto

i was simply making my point.

So you don't believe in ANYTHING? You believe in SOMETHING, like, you believe in evolution methinks, if not, you probably believe in physics.....so HA! ;)

You didn't get the subtle distinction between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god. Lack of belief can never, ever constitute having a belief. Not believing is that - not believing.

And no, you cannot believe in fact. You can't believe in the theory of gravity.

But how can I when i can look outside and SEE the brilliance of God all around me? He's everywhere and in everything.

Sorry, that's not evidence of anything. You're the one making the connection between nature and God. By the same non-reasoning, I could connect nature to the fan in my PC, Cthulhu, or my grandmother. It doesn't work.

You can yell at me that there is no God until you're blue in the face and I'm not going to believe you.

That's not what we're saying. There might be gods around us, but so far they haven't made their presence known, making believing in them an illogical step taken too far.

C'jais
02-14-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I could say the same thing for God. I could say that I know for a fact that he exists because of the Bible but then you would come out and say that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash so its a never-ending circle.

Words alone cannot manifest a god, or make him real in any way. By the same non-reasoning, countless gods have been created merely by writing a few lines in a book, and subsequently "forgetting" to prove them.



Its called faith. You guys don't seem to get it that we Christians believe by faith.

Ahh. So, since you have now accepted that God isn't fact, you've also accepted that he is a purely subjective opinion originating from you. There is no middle ground.

ShockV1.89
02-14-2003, 03:09 PM
I think.... to have faith.... you have to stop thinking and reasoning for a minute and just believe. You dont need any evidence for it, you just DO believe. You suspend all reason, logic, judgement, and physical observations in favor of simply believing.

I'm sorry, I cant do that. I cant suspend my reason and judgement and logic, because they are a part of me. I cant live my life according to an unseen deity who may or may not exist, as well as by thousands year old book that may or may not be legit. My life is too important to me, and I'm not going to waste it away on a maybe.

But how can I when i can look outside and SEE the brilliance of God all around me? He's everywhere and in everything.

I look outside and I see a tree. The wind is blowing, northeast, at around 15 mph. The wind is caused by varying degrees in airpressure, as well as cool air rising off the Great Lakes and coming across NY to the coast. It's deflected up the coast by the warmer air circulated up from the carribean.

I dont see the brilliance of god in this, because there are so many other more reasonable, logical, tangible, REAL explanations for all of this.

Lime-Light
02-14-2003, 08:05 PM
There is no possible way to prove the existence of god. You can simply choose to accept and swallow. The human need to be part of something and be important is what keeps god alive in the minds of believers. You're part of a special club where an all powerful deity acknowlegdes your existence and whom you can turn to for a feigned comfort. The fact that it delivers you from all requirement of objectivity or reason is a plus. Its easy.

The existence of religion can be explianed by known and proven social and phsycological trends. It's teachings can be better explianed by new verifyable theories.

Yet, if poeple are around long enough, I imagine we'll find out the truth, followed by a very large "I ****ING TOLD YOU SO".

Pnut_Man
02-14-2003, 11:46 PM
I'm personally disgusted with how you guys treat each in these "religion threads". I for one think they should be banned from the senate chambers..

If you have a religion then that's great, it also means you don't need to talk about here on the internet.. (there are reasons for community churches).
If you don't have a religion that's great as well. Just don't go bashing Christians or any other religious group just because you think you have proof and facts. From where everyone is right now no one has facts, everything is just theory upon theory.

Psydan
02-15-2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Lime-Light
I know there doesnt need to be another religion thread, but I could find anywhere where i could fit this in.

I'm going to look at religion in another way. Not as a belief system, or a club, but as an organism. What is an organisms goal? One, to survive, two, to expand and grow in numbers. If you look at religion in this way, you see that many of its rules and practices are there simply to ensure its further existence. You're going to eternal fiery torture if you dont believe in christianity. You go live in a wonderful place of peace and love with the supreme being if you believe. Sign me up! Take a look at buddhism for instance. Life is hell, you need nothing but to meditate and achieve zen so you can leave, instead of being reincarnated back to this hell. I dont understand what the positive result of sitting around trying to escape life is, but you certianly practice your religion if you want to be one with the universe, and so the religion survives.

Religions began as a primitive way to explian the occurences around man kind. Now they have evovled into a power struggle of who can obtian the most believers and finaly "enlighten" everyone over to thier side, with the exception of the extremists, who simply tries to erradicate the other side out of disgust.

What troubles me about this great war between beliefs, is what progress can be made? With the Christians bidding thier time untill they can be with god, the buddhists siting on thier asses meditating and the fundamentalists killing folks, were does man kind as a whole go? Nowhere.


Yah, you could look at it that way, but why would a religion want more believers? Well in Christianity it would be to save your soul from eternal torture, but I guess you could go on believing its all just a game, and that we're just trying to get the most followers...

ET Warrior
02-15-2003, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Pnut_Master
If you have a religion then that's great, it also means you don't need to talk about here on the internet.. (there are reasons for community churches).
If you don't have a religion that's great as well. Just don't go bashing Christians or any other religious group just because you think you have proof and facts. From where everyone is right now no one has facts, everything is just theory upon theory.

Ahhhhhh, that is exactly what I'm trying to say. I dont want to debate about religion. I dont want to have you knock my religion, and me defend it, while i CANT defend it because there must be faith to believe and since you guys don't have it you won't get it. And i'm HAPPY for you, that you are happy living your life the way you want to. So why can't I live my life the way I want to without you ragging on me/my religion?
There is no possible way to prove the existence of god

There is no possible way to prove the non-existence of God.

ShadowTemplar
02-15-2003, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I could say the same thing for God. I could say that I know for a fact that he exists because of the Bible but then you would come out and say that the Bible is a bunch of hogwash so its a never-ending circle.

No I would say that that's circular reasoning.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Its called faith. You guys don't seem to get it that we Christians believe by faith.

We do. That's what make your belief inferior to our knowledge.

I think.... to have faith.... you have to stop thinking and reasoning for a minute and just believe. You dont need any evidence for it, you just DO believe. You suspend all reason, logic, judgement, and physical observations in favor of simply believing.

And then you can start crashing planes into buildings. While I realise that far from all religious people do so the mindset that drive religious zeal and fundamentalist suicide bombings are the same, only on different levels.

I'm sorry, I cant do that. I cant suspend my reason and judgement and logic, because they are a part of me. I cant live my life according to an unseen deity who may or may not exist, as well as by thousands year old book that may or may not be legit. My life is too important to me, and I'm not going to waste it away on a maybe.

"I believe in life before death." I can't remember who said that, but he was sooo right.

I look outside and I see a tree. The wind is blowing, northeast, at around 15 mph. The wind is caused by varying degrees in airpressure, as well as cool air rising off the Great Lakes and coming across NY to the coast. It's deflected up the coast by the warmer air circulated up from the carribean.

I dont see the brilliance of god in this, because there are so many other more reasonable, logical, tangible, REAL explanations for all of this.

LOL. Right in one.

I'm personally disgusted with how you guys treat each in these "religion threads". I for one think they should be banned from the senate chambers..

Fine by me, if you in the same action, ban religious 'reasoning' from the Chambers. But you can't enforce that, and so we Free Thinkers have to have a way to point out the vast and numerous holes in this so-called 'reasoning'.

If you have a religion then that's great, it also means you don't need to talk about here on the internet.. (there are reasons for community churches).

And for those who wish to broaden their mind by speaking with someone who isn't from his community about something that matters to him?

If you don't have a religion that's great as well. Just don't go bashing Christians or any other religious group just because you think you have proof and facts. From where everyone is right now no one has facts, everything is just theory upon theory.

We have both proof and fact. Furthermore, science has produced the technology that you are using right now in defiance of religion, not supported by it, and religion has caused genocides on a massive scale which science has not. Therefore, religion should be abolished for its uselesness and harmfulness, whereas science should be promoted for its usefulness and mindbroadening effect.

Yah, you could look at it that way, but why would a religion want more believers? Well in Christianity it would be to save your soul from eternal torture, but I guess you could go on believing its all just a game, and that we're just trying to get the most followers...

Look at it this way: Religion is a subjectively governed organisation. Since its laws are subjective, you need someone to interpret those laws. He will have a mandate that trancends logic, because if you start using logic for or agains their rulings, then you are making your decision based on what is the most objectively rational thing to do, not what is the most subjectively just thing to do.

This means that there will, no matter how you initially choose who are to govern, in time be established an 'aristocracy of belief', that dictate how people are to think on the subjects that belong in their area of jurisdiction.

Since they are also human, they will seek to increase their own power and status, by broadening the area of jurisdiction until it is all-encompassing.

At this stage the only way to increase their power will be by getting more people under their sway. All current religions (save the animistic and shamanistic) have reached this stage. Therefore the thread starter was perfectly sound reasoning.

So why can't I live my life the way I want to without you ragging on me/my religion?

See the Evolution/Creation thread for a gruesome example of what religion does to your mind.

Then read up on the history of Europe (or for that matter America), to see what atrocities religion has promoted.

Then realise that 9/11, no matter how terrifying, heaped only an infinitisimal amount of corpses on the pyre.

Therefore religion cannot be allowed to run rampant.

There is no possible way to prove the non-existence of God.

There is no way to prove that pigs cannot fly. At best you can say that no-one has ever proved that pigs can fly. But you can't prove that it isn't possible.

It seems to me that you cannot imagine the mindset of an atheist, whereas most atheists can put themselves in your stead well enough to predict your response...

Reborn Outcast
02-15-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
We do. That's what make your belief inferior to our knowledge.

Knowledge of what? The non-existance of a God which you don't have and can't prove? One more time, religion doesn't teach science, it teaches that there is a God who watches over us and that those who belive in Him will go to Heaven. Science can never prove that there is no God nor can it prove that there is one. That is why religion and science are nearly un-comparable.

obi
02-15-2003, 11:30 PM
After readin every post here, and my head about to explode, let me say this:

I, for one, am a devout Christian. I believe in the Bible to it's entirety. I am guided by faith, and my wisdom, I believe, comes from God.

Now, before you go saying I am a nutcase, let me explain why I believe the way I believe.


I have seen things that Science cannot explain. I have felt things that science cannot explain. I have even gone so far as to prophisy(sp?) the birth of a child. One night, during service at my church, the preacher's wife was crying and nealing at the alter, and praying for something. For some reason, I got up, walked to her, touched her on the shoulder, and said: "Don't worry, sister, you will have your Baby."

Surely enough, nearly three days later, she was diagnosed pregnant. Three days. how do you explain that? Was it some sort of chemical that shocked in my brain causing the world to go forward in time to show me that she was pregnant? Of course not. I belive(or I should say KNOW), that this came from God.

As I said earlier, there is only one explanation for this. If I ever turned away from God after this experience, I would need the living crap beat out of me.

ShadowTemplar
02-16-2003, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
One more time, religion doesn't teach science, it teaches that there is a God who watches over us and that those who belive in Him will go to Heaven.

The moment you say "there is", you enter the metier of science.

Obiwan: Much as I applaud your empathy I must say that it was a fairly probable guess. If you see a girl you know put down her cell phone and start crying, for example, you will be pretty sure that it's because her boyfriend just broke with her. But that's not some godsent premonition. I'd say that your 'prophesy' was based not so much on divine inspiration as on an admirable knowledge of the human animal.

ET Warrior
02-16-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
The moment you say "there is", you enter the metier of science.

Obiwan: Much as I applaud your empathy I must say that it was a fairly probable guess. If you see a girl you know put down her cell phone and start crying, for example, you will be pretty sure that it's because her boyfriend just broke with her. But that's not some godsent premonition. I'd say that your 'prophesy' was based not so much on divine inspiration as on an admirable knowledge of the human animal.

"There is" an open can of pepsi in my refrigerator.......doesn't seem very science like to me.....;)


And how, exactly, does knowing that a girl who maybe just got broken up with have to do with a prophesy of pregnancy? I dont see the correlation. Because it was a woman crying and praying at the altar.........no real reason to suspect she is pregnant, let alone to be certain enough about it to approach said crying woman and comfort her.


These debates will never end, and you must know this. Your argument will ALWAYS be the same. Science, reasoning, blah blah blah. And then MY argument will always be the same. I simply believe. So why can't we just agree to disagree? WHY must proclaim your rightness to the world?

ET Warrior
02-16-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
It seems to me that you cannot imagine the mindset of an atheist, whereas most atheists can put themselves in your stead well enough to predict your response...

Oh but I can imagine it. I have at points in my life questioned religion, looked at the world differently. But now i'm a firm believer in God. I can pretty much predict EVERYTHING you will say to ANYTHING i post......"You can't prove it" "Religion causes evil" "You can't prove that" "Science conquers all"


I think i've covered about 98% of the arguments you will use.

Admittedly, I only have one argument, but it's the one that works for me. I believe.

munik
02-16-2003, 03:20 AM
I skipped most of these posts, so hopefully joining in at the end I'm not repeating anything much.

Anyhow, I myself don't criticize christianity in attempt to sway someone to the darkside. I just do it to point out the fallacy of it. If someone got all their hope and spiritual guidance and whatnot from a baloney sandwich, well, I would point out the oddness of the baloney sandwich.

The bible is chock full of inane commandments, doubletalk, idle threats, just plain nonsense. And people use the bible to bully(Ha!) others. I don't care whether or not there is a way to prove christianity and god. It would still be stupid.

If rapture occured at this second, I still would not convert. If I saw jesus walking above the ground in front of my house, I still would not convert. If I saw on the news that there was irrefutable proof that the Ark is on Mt. Ararat, with photos and twenty scientist claiming it to be true, I still would not convert.

I am not a christian because I disbelieve in God. It is because being a christian is just not a good thing.



Just to point out, some people are too apathetic to be labeled atheist. You can call these people agnostic. Instead of lumping them all into one group. Not everyone is against you. Don't be so paranoid.

ET Warrior
02-16-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by munik
being a christian is just not a good thing.

Well that's awfully nice of you to say...........[/sarcasm]

BCanr2d2
02-16-2003, 06:52 AM
Some people can have "blind faith", others can not, they have to see things to prove a lot of things. I fall into the tactile group, that if I can see it, that it exists.

All I will say is that without Christianity, and it's sister religion Muslim (Based on almost the same texts), we would rid ourselves of a lot of the problems that exists now...
We would still have almost the same laws and structures in the world, since most of them came not from religion but from civilisations that existed pre-christianity.

I do not belittle those that believe in religion, only to try to point out that the text that you believe in isn't totally accurate, especially after it has been translated. We can't take the innaccuries of the years into account, since the Romans got it wrong by about 26 years in the backward application of their calander. By leaders in some of it's sects it has been taken out of context, and it is no longer considered that those that wrote it were ones who wrote in parables, and not literally.......

Lime-Light
02-16-2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I dont want to debate about religion. I dont want to have you knock my religion, and me defend it, while i CANT defend it because there must be faith to believe and since you guys don't have it you won't get it. And i'm HAPPY for you, that you are happy living your life the way you want to. So why can't I live my life the way I want to without you ragging on me/my religion?

Then go away. No one told you to come here, unless it was your god, in which case I'm sorry, its your mission to wander the abundant religion posts. Other poeple want to debate this, if you don't, ignore the religion posts.

One thing I've come to realize reading these posts, is that logic and religion are incompatible, and rational people are incompatible with illogic.

And even should christ or muhammed or whoever come down and demonstrate the existence of god, I still wouldnt submit to religion, because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it.

Reborn Outcast
02-16-2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Lime-Light
because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it.

Lol then I wouldn't want to become an athiest because of all the atrocities that have been commited by athiests... (ex.... Hitler and his trying to rid of all the Jews.)

(Sorry if the athiest thing came out harsh... but I was countering your point.)

And what happened to my post? Was it deleated?

Psydan
02-16-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Lime-Light

One thing I've come to realize reading these posts, is that logic and religion are incompatible, and rational people are incompatible with illogic.

And even should christ or muhammed or whoever come down and demonstrate the existence of god, I still wouldnt submit to religion, because of all the attrocities poeple have used it to justify, through thier "interpretations" of it.

LOL, well see what you guys are doing isn't really logical, you're saying that you don't care if religion is right or not, because of all the awful things PEOPLE have done in the name of it. But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it? When scientists made the A-bomb and they dropped it on Hiroshima, does that make you stop using science or technology just because of what some people use it for?

ShockV1.89
02-17-2003, 01:24 AM
Well, while we're talking about big things that certain belief systems did for the world, why dont we talk about the good as well as the bad?

Science: Vaccines, astronomy, all aspects of medicine, chemistry, glass, styrofoam, the car, plastic, the space program, TVs, the light bulb, the camera, the telephone, and many, many, many free thinkers.

Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest)

ET Warrior
02-17-2003, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest)


ME!!!!! :D

Pnut_Man
02-17-2003, 03:10 PM
Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket.

Reborn Outcast
02-17-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by ShockV1.89
Well, while we're talking about big things that certain belief systems did for the world, why dont we talk about the good as well as the bad?

Science: Vaccines, astronomy, all aspects of medicine, chemistry, glass, styrofoam, the car, plastic, the space program, TVs, the light bulb, the camera, the telephone, and many, many, many free thinkers.

Religion: ?________________________ ( <---- Fill in the blank, and be honest)

Once again!!! SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT ABLE TO BE COMPARED IN THIS MANNER BECAUSE SCIENCE COVERS MILLIONS OF THINGS THAT RELIGION WASN'T MEANT TO COVER!!!For example...

Science: How does mitosis occur?
Religion: Who is God?

Science: Why is the sky blue?
Religion: Does God love me?

Science: What is snow made of?
Religion: Is there an afterlife?


Do you see? These things cannot be compared. Religion teaches how to get to Heaven and that there is a God. Science cannot disprove the existance of a God, science does not teach how to get to Heaven. Get my drift?

ShockV1.89
02-17-2003, 06:20 PM
I was simply responding to people talking about how science did bad things (like the a-bomb and such). I was just trying to show that it's done very good things.

In addition, I was actually ASKING for the religious people here to tell what religion has done for the world. I mean, I literally want to know. Dont worry, I'm not trying to compare.

C'jais
02-17-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it?

Science is a tool, not a belief system, which many of you don't get.

Science is the opposite of believing. It's showing what's real, proving and finding evidence, which is what religion have this strange aversion towards. While science is suspension of belief, religion is suspension of logic. This is clearly evident in how religious people twist the past of the Earth into how they would like to perceive it, not how it is objectively seen.

Science is a way of thinking, not a cause in itself. What you describe is social darwinism - improving our collective genepool and stuff like that. The problem is, then we're already talking about a belief, and well into the Nietzschian "über mench" and whatnot. Science is merely a tool for understanding the world - if it entails killing people, we're well into beliefs and far removed from the logic of preserving the race of man.

"There is" an open can of pepsi in my refrigerator.......doesn't seem very science like to me.....

Yet it is. You can see there is a can of pepsi. It's interpretation of data, it's science. You don't "believe" there's a soda can in your fridge - you can clearly deduce, prove and see evidence for the positive of that statement. Now, if you were to postulate that there would be an elephant in your fridge, then the positive proof of that assertion would be quickly rooted out. But the negative proof of it, that there is not an elephant in the fridge would be impossible to ascertain given that you work under the assumption that said elephant had the ability to turn invisible and shrink in size to fit the fridge.

In the dark ages long gone, people thought the world was indeed flat. It was logical to assume so, since people back then didn't have any means to tell otherwise - why in the name of God would the earth be round since any fool can see that it's completely flat? While a flat earth was the barenaked reality and nature back then, there was no need to build another layer on top of that. Where is the logical inference that the sun is orbiting the sun, or that the earth is standing atop three elephants riding around the universe on a whale? It's not there, there's no reason to believe it. We can only make logical guesses and assumptions on the things we know - anything else and you could be considered midly delusional.

We can likely never disprove God. But there's no positive evidence for Him, making believing in Him a futile and worthless effort, bordering on insanity. It's not logically sane to believe there exist a government conspiracy, hiding extra-terristials on earth, or that Sai Baba is an avatar of some supernatural power. Or believing that Jesus is the Saviour, for that matter.

We can only reason from what we know, and work a logical way towards the unknown. Projecting God into anything we don't know is folly at best, and raving mad at worst - as evidenced in the history of science, reasoning is taking the place and filling the gaps in God's place, making his territory of the unexplained smaller by the day.

Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket.

Without going too much into social darwinism, the people that cannot live without accepting that they are at heart truly insignificant, and obey their primate desire to invent something to watch over them and place themselves above mere nature, are blind to the pitiless reality in which we exist, for better or worse.

In fact, if this silly postulate was indeed true, the people of my country would be commiting suicide on a huge scale - it's simply not evident that atheists kill themselves due to realizing their perceived hollow existance.

C'jais
02-17-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Do you see? These things cannot be compared. Religion teaches how to get to Heaven and that there is a God.

As I said before, religion is the antithesis to logic and reasoning.

When you're purely using logic and your senses, you'll realize that the earth was not created how some people want it to, and that there's no need to believe in a supernatural entity.

In short: Cling to religion and place yourself further from logical reasoning, which produces such useful tools as electricity and nuclear weapons.

ET Warrior
02-18-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by C'jais
Yet it is. You can see there is a can of pepsi. It's interpretation of data, it's science. You don't "believe" there's a soda can in your fridge - you can clearly deduce, prove and see evidence for the positive of that statement. Now, if you were to postulate that there would be an elephant in your fridge, then the positive proof of that assertion would be quickly rooted out. But the negative proof of it, that there is not an elephant in the fridge would be impossible to ascertain given that you work under the assumption that said elephant had the ability to turn invisible and shrink in size to fit the fridge.

Alright then.............."There is" a God. BWAHAHA your science has proven the existance of my God....BWAHAHAHAHA...;)

Psydan
02-18-2003, 11:58 PM
As for those saying "what has religion done? ". Im out of time, so Im gonna keep it simple, but if you believe like me, then religion is in the buissness of saving souls for eternity... That's a goal, and if you believe in A heaven and hell, well, thats the Good, but how did we go from "Religion has done bad things, I wouldn't be a Christian if God came down and walked on my lawn" to "Science has done a lot of "good" things, so I use its benefits"...
BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system.

C'jais
02-19-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Psydan
BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system.

But all religions are belief systems and the pure truth at the same time. Every religion saves its followers from a fate in hell.

Because all religions claim they are the truth, I'm asking for evidence of what good the individual religions have done on an objective, secular basis, because that is the only thing that matters when we aren't in a position to judge the truthfulness of each belief system.

I am able to set myself in your shoes and see the world as something God built, but what is the point of it all? The only thing I'll get from it is a sense of juvenile self-affirmation and reassurance that something is looking after me and holds me safe, and an infantile feeling of knowing I'm right without bothering to check if I am right.

Since the world cannot live on happy toughts alone, I'm choosing to see it in an objective, secular way where we're concerned with building a better future - and that means looking past petty beliefs and high 'n mighty morals that are only hindering the literal saving of millions of people.

ShadowTemplar
02-20-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Lol then I wouldn't want to become an athiest because of all the atrocities that have been commited by athiests... (ex.... Hitler and his trying to rid of all the Jews.)

Hitler was not an atheist in the sense of this thread: He had a religion: Nazism. But even if we assume that Hitler was an Atheist in the sense of this thread then it would still not have mattered, because he did what he did because he was a Nazist, not because he was not a Christian. See below.

Psydan
Bantha Fodder

LOL, well see what you guys are doing isn't really logical, you're saying that you don't care if religion is right or not, because of all the awful things PEOPLE have done in the name of it. But if a thousand scientists and I went out tomorrow and said that were going to kill all of the stupid people in the name of a more advanced and scientific world, would you stop using science just because of the awful things some PEOPLE did in the name of it? When scientists made the A-bomb and they dropped it on Hiroshima, does that make you stop using science or technology just because of what some people use it for?

You are forgetting that we do not blame religion for what has been done in its name, but for the actions that it has induced. In the example above, I would not blame science for some scientists who had gone mad, or used it to justify their idiological crusade. I would, on the other hand, blame science if the rationalistic, critical, and non-dogmatic mindset promoted by science forced someone to do something like the outlined. But how likely is that? Methinks very unlikely.

Compairing the above example to a religious one: Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) issues a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. If we assume that this was done purely because Khomeni wanted to create an outer enemy to consolidate his power, this wouldn't make me blame Islam or religion in general for the Fatwa (though more than likely he was also motivated by his religious beliefs). What I would blame religion in general, and Islam in particular, for is the fact that this Fatwa forces every zealous Muslim to pursue the death of Salman Rushdie. And I do mean forces.

Pnut_Master
Bantha

Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket.

Granted, for some people. Though I find it very, very cowardly not to be able to handle the infinite indifference of the Universe, I am not to tell who should live and die. But saving a few spineless people still leaves a looong way to excusing the millenia of oppression caused by religion.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

Religion: Who is God?

[...]

Religion: Does God love me?

[...]

Religion: Is there an afterlife?

When you say "is", you enter the metier of science. There go the first and last statements. The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. So there is (no pun intended) in fact an overlapping field.

C'jais
Prophet of Nothing

We can only reason from what we know, and work a logical way towards the unknown. Projecting God into anything we don't know is folly at best, and raving mad at worst - as evidenced in the history of science, reasoning is taking the place and filling the gaps in God's place, making his territory of the unexplained smaller by the day.

And could be outright harmful. Think of medicine. Once the Church told people that disease was the punishment that God sent to man for his sins... This meant that there was no need to do research on the topic, because there was already an explanation. Case closed. And I'm not just making it up, the Church did get quite pissed off when people started challenging this view.

C'jais
Prophet of Nothing

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion: Gives some people a reason to live on. Without religion suicide rates would sky rocket.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, if this silly postulate was indeed true, the people of my country would be commiting suicide on a huge scale - it's simply not evident that atheists kill themselves due to realizing their perceived hollow existance.

Not quite true, C'Jais. We have many 'sleeping cells' of Christianity in Denmark. But fortunately their influence on the law has been largely curtailed.

ET Warrior
Avalanche Fan

Alright then.............."There is" a God. BWAHAHA your science has proven the existance of my God....BWAHAHAHAHA...

I fail to see what you base that statement on.

Psydan
Bantha Fodder

As for those saying "what has religion done? ". Im out of time, so Im gonna keep it simple, but if you believe like me, then religion is in the buissness of saving souls for eternity... That's a goal, and if you believe in A heaven and hell, well, thats the Good, but how did we go from "Religion has done bad things, I wouldn't be a Christian if God came down and walked on my lawn" to "Science has done a lot of "good" things, so I use its benefits"...
BTW, Im asking that you ASSUME that religion is a truth, not just a belief system.

I am glad that you use the word "assume" rather than "believe". That means that we Atheists can play the game too. However your assessment is irrelevant, if not flat out wrong. This thread concerns itself solely with the real world, y'see.

C'jais
Prophet of Nothing

I am able to set myself in your shoes and see the world as something God built

Another benefit of D&D, apart from the improved reading skills (just to bug Hotrod).

Reborn Outcast
02-20-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Hitler was not an atheist in the sense of this thread: He had a religion: Nazism. But even if we assume that Hitler was an Atheist in the sense of this thread then it would still not have mattered, because he did what he did because he was a Nazist, not because he was not a Christian. See below.

Ah so you're chosing to ignore him because he wasn't a Christian? And I don't think that Nazism was a religion in a sense that Christianity, Islam or Buddihsm is.

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

That is one of the definitons of religion. I could say the same for
space travel, or the war against terrorism that Bush is trying to wage. Space travel is an activity pursued with zeal and the war against terrorism is a cause pursued with zeal. Are they religions? No.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You are forgetting that we do not blame religion for what has been done in its name, but for the actions that it has induced. In the example above, I would not blame science for some scientists who had gone mad, or used it to justify their idiological crusade. I would, on the other hand, blame science if the rationalistic, critical, and non-dogmatic mindset promoted by science forced someone to do something like the outlined. But how likely is that? Methinks very unlikely.

How about the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?) killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Science caused that A-bomb to be build, scince made that plane that dropped the A-bomb. It was all sciences fault. Why do you still believe in science after that?

Also, you wouldn't blame science if a scientist went mad and did something horrible? What if those Christians who went on the Crusades were mad? Would you still blame them for what they did?

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Compairing the above example to a religious one: Ayatollah Khomeni (sp?) issues a Fatwa against Salman Rushdie. If we assume that this was done purely because Khomeni wanted to create an outer enemy to consolidate his power, this wouldn't make me blame Islam or religion in general for the Fatwa (though more than likely he was also motivated by his religious beliefs). What I would blame religion in general, and Islam in particular, for is the fact that this Fatwa forces every zealous Muslim to pursue the death of Salman Rushdie. And I do mean forces.

Key word there in the last sentence. Forces. The Muslims weren't doing it for their own good, they were doing it because they were forced to. What if that Ayatollah Khomeni was mad. Would you still blame him? Cause you sure wouldn't blame a scientist if they went mad and did something very wrong.


Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
When you say "is", you enter the metier of science. There go the first and last statements. The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. So there is (no pun intended) in fact an overlapping field.

"Look, there is a boy." "Where is Bob?" "That is so awesome."

Are those scientific? You're probably going to go out onto some far limb and try and twist science to provide answers in order to prove that they are. You're twisting science in order to try and prove me wrong.

I could phrase it another way. "When did the earth form?" Hmm there's no "there is" or "is" so it must not be science. Of courese you're going to come back and say, "when you use the word when you're entereing the metier of science." Ok how about "How did the earth form?" There's no "there is", "is", or "when" so is it science? You're going to come back and say "well when you say how you're entering the metier of science."

Stop twisting science in every little possible way to try and prove us wrong.

ShockV1.89
02-20-2003, 02:47 PM
The fact remains that there are better explanations for world phenomena than "God did it." I mean, these are tangible, real solutions that are far more feasible than simply blaming it on some deity that may or may not exist.

Lets stop dancing around words. I cant prove god doesnt exist, which is why I'm not an atheist. He may very well exist, and if he does, AND was the architect of the universe.... bravo to him, nicely done.

But nobody, and I mean nobody, can prove God DOES exist. Only God can do this. God should be the last, last explanation when people wonder why something happened, mostly because in THIS universe, there is almost definitley a physical reason.

As for organized religion... it's no real surprise that people got stupid about it. Any belief system that becomes organized goes weird and gets away from its original purpose. Just look at the new Black Panther Party... :rolleyes:

ShadowTemplar
02-20-2003, 03:42 PM
Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

And I don't think that Nazism was a religion in a sense that Christianity, Islam or Buddihsm is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is one of the definitons of religion. I could say the same for
space travel, or the war against terrorism that Bush is trying to wage. Space travel is an activity pursued with zeal and the war against terrorism is a cause pursued with zeal. Are they religions? No.

No. The problem with that argument is that these activities are not pursued with zeal.

Zeal is: "Enthusiastic devotion to a cause, ideal, or goal and tireless diligence in its furtherance." according to www.dictionary.com.

The key here is: Devotion. It is not devotion that drives these people (ok, maybe el Presidente, but his "war on terror" sounds kinda like a new Crusade to me anyway).

And if we can now quit these silly wordgames and get back to the real issue:

Hitler did not kill people because he was an Atheist (which he wasn't anyway). While Urban II may or may not have ordered the Crusades for materialistic reasons (there are quite a few), those who went on them most certainly did so out of faith in Christianity.

That is the real issue here: Religion forces compulsive behavior and, in the most extreme of cases, outright madness. Therefore it is bad. There is no proof that Atheism causes madness, or compulsive behavior. Therefore Atheism is not bad, in this respect.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

How about the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (sp?) killing hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Science caused that A-bomb to be build, scince made that plane that dropped the A-bomb.

But it was not science that made people use these things. I obviously can provide no religious analogy for this, as religion has never invented anything useful, but basically it is like saying that the guy who invented the baseball bat is responsible for the mugging of old ladies if the mugger used a baseball bat.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

Why do you still believe in science after that?

I don't. And I never have.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

Also, you wouldn't blame science if a scientist went mad and did something horrible? What if those Christians who went on the Crusades were mad? Would you still blame them for what they did?

You are talking about two different things here: First you ask me what I would say about science if some scientists went mad. Well, since science has not had anything to do with it, I wouldn't blame it on science.

Then you ask me whether I would blame a madman for his actions. Yes I would. But I wouldn't blame the club, profession, religion, or whatever he was a member of unless they had something to do with him developing the said insanity.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

Key word there in the last sentence. Forces. The Muslims weren't doing it for their own good, they were doing it because they were forced to. What if that Ayatollah Khomeni was mad. Would you still blame him? Cause you sure wouldn't blame a scientist if they went mad and did something very wrong.

What I meant by forced was a compulsive behavior induced by their faith. And yes, I would blame Khomeni even if he was mad. And I would still blame a madman for his atrocities, no matter how much scientist he was, thankyeverymuch, so the last accusation was rather unfounded in my very honest opinion.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

"Look, there is a boy." "Where is Bob?" "That is so awesome."

Are those scientific? You're probably going to go out onto some far limb and try and twist science to provide answers in order to prove that they are. You're twisting science in order to try and prove me wrong.

You are talking about physical phenomena which all belong in the metier of science ('cept perhaps the last one, but that is a subjective statement, as opposed to the objective (and objectively wrong) statement "there is a god").

So no, I don't need to twist anything.

Reborn Outcast
Very, Very Muscular

I could phrase it another way. "When did the earth form?" Hmm there's no "there is" or "is" so it must not be science.

There is a logical error in that: I said that if you have a sentence with the words "there is", then you are talking about the real, physical world. The parameter here is "if you have a sentence with the words "there is"". The logical operation is a "then", and the conclusion is "you are talking about the real, physical world".

What I said is that if you fulfill the parameter, then the conclusion is correct. I did not say anything about what happened if you did not fulfill the parameter. Your response assumes that I did.

An analogous situation would be:

I say that: "Cows do not fly."

Or:

X=Cow => Y=Can't fly.

To which you respond: "Since a pig is not a cow, then pigs can fly, right?"

Or:

X=/=Cow=>Y=/=Can't fly.

Sorry, but the rules of logic don't work that way.

ShockV1.89
Sith Lord

Any belief system that becomes organized goes weird and gets away from its original purpose. Just look at the new Black Panther Party...

Which is yet another advantage that science has over religion (apart from not being a belief system): It's not organised, in the sense of having a 'government'. It's more like an open-source program: There are many contributers, but no 'big boss'.

BTW: What is this "Black Panther" thing?

ET Warrior
02-20-2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
When you say "is", you enter the metier of science.

I fail to see what you base that statement on.

I base my statement on the fact that you said, whenever you say "IS" you enter into science. Therefore, saying "There is a God" is apparently science, and therefore must be true. ;)

obi
02-20-2003, 09:05 PM
I still want an answer for what I posted earlier. How can science explain, or anything other then God, explain my experiance?

I don't buy into that "it was a good guess" thing.....

ShockV1.89
02-20-2003, 09:24 PM
Although it's something of a stretch, some sort of ESP could be to blame. I certainly consider that more of a possibility than divine intervention, although again, I dont have any real evidence to it.

The Black Panther Party was a militant group in the US whose aim was to reform racial inequalities through a showing of force and aggressive protest. They were volatile, but actually fairly noble for the time. The new Black Panther Party, however, is basically a whole bunch of black supremists in disguise. Really a sorry shadow of the original entity, and a good example of what happens when radicals get a hold of a belief system and an organization. (Another example would be in the French Revolution, which started nice, and then the radical fundamentalists got a hold of it... but thats an extreme)

Psydan
02-20-2003, 09:45 PM
Well, First of all, where do I start. That IS wrong, not every sentence containing "is" IS scientific. (hehe this IS fun.)
The second one requires the existance of God, which includes an "is", and so is meaningless. It IS meaningless? IS that scientific? Anything using "IS" IS simply a statement saying that there IS a sence of rightness to it, that it can be proven, or that it IS believed to be true. I could say there IS a soda in my fridge, and it doesn't enter into a "scientific" realm.
~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
No one IS doing any of that to my soda (except that it can be observed, but not all observable things are science), however it IS logical to assume that there IS a soda in my fridge, because I can see and feel it, but that IS not science!

Also, those people were doing the same thing as a crazed scientist. There IS nothing in the Bible that says to crusade against the muslims in God's name(though there are passages about war, but hey, it does exist, and the Bible doesn't tell others to go to war). There IS though passages that speak of peace, and respect and love for all humans. They were using religion as an excuse, but they were actually going against what their religion IS actually about.

C'jais
02-20-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by ET Warrior
I base my statement on the fact that you said, whenever you say "IS" you enter into science. Therefore, saying "There is a God" is apparently science, and therefore must be true. ;)

Yes, when you talk about "there is a god", you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact. It has not.

You're making a leap of faith.

C'jais
02-20-2003, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
Anything using "IS" IS simply a statement saying that there IS a sence of rightness to it, that it can be proven, or that it IS believed to be true.

Yes, what you're describing here is basically a scientific statement.

I could say there IS a soda in my fridge, and it doesn't enter into a "scientific" realm.

Yes, you do. You have to prove with hard data that there is a soda in your fridge.

~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

I'd say that you're using experimental investigation to deduce whether or not there's something in your fridge. Observation, identification and description are prerequiresites for doing this, and the theoretical explanation for how it came to be in your fridge is that it's cold and you want it to stay cold.

(except that it can be observed, but not all observable things are science)

All observable things are science.

There are just so many things which have been observed countless of times that we simply do not care to research it anymore. Such as the fact that rocks drop when released from your hand.

Also, those people were doing the same thing as a crazed scientist. There IS nothing in the Bible that says to crusade against the muslims in God's name

What the Bible says is completely irrelevant. Fact is that a religious conviction was able to incite war. Whether it was Biblical or even Christian is of no relevance to this thread. All that matters is that it was religion, and religion alone that committed those genocides.

They were using religion as an excuse, but they were actually going against what their religion IS actually about.

The fact that the people in power were able to recruit thousands of brainwashed followers to whatever cause they saw fit is testament to the harmful effects of religion.

You can be sure it wasn't for material gain that those peasants left their crops to wither and went to war in some distant land, probably never to see their wife and kids again.

C'jais
02-20-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
I still want an answer for what I posted earlier. How can science explain, or anything other then God, explain my experiance?

I don't buy into that "it was a good guess" thing.....

What would it take to convince you that it wasn't God who influenced you?

A good guess is loads better than simply substituting God for whatever you can't immediately explain. This is the essence of "God-gapping", and it simply doesn't logically work.

It's like saying that "we can't explain light, so God must have done it". But we have explained light, and a good, fair load of other things that have been attributed to gods in the past.

Also god-gapping has serious negative implications on science. Take, for example, the discovery of UV (or maybe it was IR, but it doesn't really matter which):

During the earliest experiments with spectroscopy, there was a scientist who wondered how his thermometer could show a higher temperture when it was on the desk on which he conducted the experiment (but still by some distance seperated from any visible light), than when it was hanging on the wall. This is how UV (or IR) was discovered.

Now imagine that this guy had just god-gapped, and said: "God did it!"

That would be a showstopper. Too bad. Then we would have to wait until someone else noticed it, and if he also god-gapped...

Reborn Outcast
02-20-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Yes, what you're describing here is basically a scientific statement]

No because science doesn't believe anything according to you. So it was a not scientific statement.

obi
02-20-2003, 11:52 PM
So, I am psychic?

:confused:

But, what if it was God, or some sort of divine intervention? Can you imagine how great a priveledge it is to do that work?


I'm sure you think i'm a nutcase, but even if it wasn't by God or something, it is still cool to know that I predicted a child's birth. THAT, is a fact.

ShockV1.89
02-21-2003, 12:16 AM
If it was god, then it is indeed an honor to do that sort of work. Just the same, if it is some sort of latent psychic ability (hey, anythings possible), then it's simply a testament to the fact that you are a good person, god or not, and wanted to help that woman feel better. Thats the important part.

And you're right, it is pretty cool. :D

C'jais
02-21-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
No because science doesn't believe anything according to you. So it was a not scientific statement.

No.

He said that which can be proven has a sense of rightness to it, which is correct. That which can be proven is science.

C'jais
02-21-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
So, I am psychic?

Whatever it is, it's probably not from sheer coincidence that you acted as you did.

Pheromones, compassion or psychic bonding - any guess is good, as long as you don't connect something unexplained with God for lack of an immediately better alternative.

But, what if it was God, or some sort of divine intervention? Can you imagine how great a privilege it is to do that work?

I can imagine the feeling. I can likewise imagine the feeling that Hare Krishnas get from their trancic dancing, the feeling that a painter gets from completing a masterwork, the feeling that a heroin addict gets from injecting drugs into his blood stream, and the feeling that a member of a gang gets from sharing a bond between the group.

I can imagine much pleasure. A strong sense of stimuli alone does not justify something.

I'm sure you think i'm a nutcase

No, I don't. Anyone can suspend logic and shelter himself in the glow of a diety that cares for him, protects him, and justifies his actions. It's only natural.

But what's natural is not always logical. It's the act itself that's illogical, futile and delusional. Then again, don't stall at the word "insane" - I'm braindamaged due to being lefthanded. We do many things in our daily life that could be labelled insane if actively pursued and imprinted on our forehead - such as only eating from a specific plate.

but even if it wasn't by God or something, it is still cool to know that I predicted a child's birth. THAT, is a fact.

"...then it's simply a testament to the fact that you are a good person, god or not, and wanted to help that woman feel better. Thats the important part."

Listen to Shock. He speaketh the truthe.

Take joy from knowing that you cared for the woman so much, and that you have more insight in these matters that many people do not. It is admirable.

You don't need God to be a good person, Obi. That's my belief.

Psydan
02-21-2003, 06:59 PM
LOL, this is a fun argument, arguing over whether all things using the word "is" enter into the scientific realm

IS~Third person singular present indicative of be. (dictionary definition of "is")

Well, I guess that means that all things use the word "be", "are", "is", "was", "were", "being", "been", and "am", which are all the forms. and the definition of be:
To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.

To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
Used as a copula in such senses as:
To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).
To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.


Also, it has been said many times, Science isn't always right, so when I "prove" something, that doesn't always make it science, it could be diproven, and therefore wrong, which many things have been.

"~Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

I have observed God, through his works( along with all those in the Bible who have observed the power of God). I have Identified it as the devine power of God. I have heard God described, and his power described, I have done experimental investigation of God (yes he's always there for you, he always helps those who cry out to him, but I see what you're doing to Obi, he has "proof" for himself, you don't believe it because you haven't experienced it, well, I think that's a pretty good experimental investigation ) And There has been a theoretical explanation of God as an awsome diety that created the universe and rules it. GOD IS SCIENCE.


AND C'jais, you said "you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact" well, what about the "theory" of evolution, they are still refining the idea, because it still isn't perfect, therefore it still isn't proven right, so it isn't a fact. But it's still science, right?

C'jais
02-22-2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Psydan
LOL, this is a fun argument, arguing over whether all things using the word "is" enter into the scientific realm

IS~Third person singular present indicative of be. (dictionary definition of "is")

Stop fooling around with that word. It's meant solely to objectively describe an object's placement, being or nature.

To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.

That's observation and data interpretation - it's science.

To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.

Subjective statement - not science.

To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.

Science.

To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?

Nothing to do with science in this sense.


To equal in identity: “To be a Christian was to be a Roman” (James Bryce).

Completely subjective opinion, unless all Christians indeed were Romans.

To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.

Science.

To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.

Science, if it's used with regards to further classification. Otherwise it's subjective.

To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.

The first is a subjective opinion of a person. The last is an objective classification of humans. You should be able to guess which is science.

To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

More subjective crap.

Also, it has been said many times, Science isn't always right

You speak of science as an unfallible concept. If something is interpreted wrongly, it's not the fault of science (which is classified as what you just wrote a few lines down) - it's the fault of the limited humans trying to do so.

so when I "prove" something, that doesn't always make it science, it could be diproven, and therefore wrong, which many things have been.

LOL. Regardless of whether it is being proven wrong, it's still science in the concept.

I have observed God, through his works( along with all those in the Bible who have observed the power of God).

Science doesn't care about God, as he can't be tested, observed or identified rationally. He is only in your mind, as far as science is concerned.

All of which you wrote isn't rational. It solely your subjective opinion and projecting of "God" unto things which cannot logically be attributed to "him".

AND C'jais, you said "you enter the realm of science. The fact that you enter it means that your statement must be proven right for it to be fact" well, what about the "theory" of evolution, they are still refining the idea, because it still isn't perfect, therefore it still isn't proven right, so it isn't a fact. But it's still science, right?

I've wrote this a thousand times before: Evolution is a theory and a fact. It can be proven wrong, which makes it science. The theory is not perfect for logical reasons, but that doesn't stop it in any way from being fact.

Reborn Outcast
02-22-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Science doesn't care about God, as he can't be tested, observed or identified rationally. He is only in your mind, as far as science is concerned.

As is "dark matter" which is needed to fill the theory of the Big Bang. It hasn't been observed, tested or identified rationally.

C'jais
02-22-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
As is "dark matter" which is needed to fill the theory of the Big Bang. It hasn't been observed, tested or identified rationally.

It has, as Templar explained to you specifically a short while back.

Reborn Outcast
02-22-2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
It has, as Templar explained to you specifically a short while back.

Where? I can't seem to find it. It was in this thread right?

It was in the abortion thread:

"I don't know the Big Bang theory very well, but there is observational evidence that suggests the existence of Dark Matter (movement of stellar bodies that could not be explained with conventional Newtonian dynamics, ect). So it can be 'seen' by our measurement instruments."

-C'jais

obi
02-22-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by C'jais

You don't need God to be a good person, Obi. That's my belief.

Oh, I agree completely. I know several atheists who would give you the shirt off of their back.

One quick note though, when you found the response to Reborn Outcast, (the big bang theory thingy), you could have just posted the reply instead of just editing his post. He'd be more likely to see it if it is another reply.

C'jais
02-22-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
One quick note though, when you found the response to Reborn Outcast, (the big bang theory thingy), you could have just posted the reply instead of just editing his post. He'd be more likely to see it if it is another reply.

Yeah, I though about that as well.

He could, however, just have run a simple search in this forum.

munik
02-22-2003, 08:45 PM
Just wanted to add my opinion about this.
Originally posted by obi-wan13

I have seen things that Science cannot explain. I have felt things that science cannot explain. I have even gone so far as to prophisy(sp?) the birth of a child. One night, during service at my church, the preacher's wife was crying and nealing at the alter, and praying for something. For some reason, I got up, walked to her, touched her on the shoulder, and said: "Don't worry, sister, you will have your Baby."

Surely enough, nearly three days later, she was diagnosed pregnant. Three days.
I would chalk this up to empathy or pheromes. For starters, your statement "Don't worry, sister, you will have your Baby." implies that she knew she was pregnant and was distraught over losing it, and you were reassuring her. That wouldn't make it a prophecy, as the pregnancy was already known. Also, to further point out that she knew, you said she was "diagnosed" as pregnant 3 days later. Women know when they are pregnant. They may not tell another soul, but they know. That is why women go and get pregnancy tests in the first place. Women who either know, or think they are pregnant, are the only ones who go and get pregnancy tests. There is no reason to go get a test otherwise. But to explain how you would know? I dunno, maybe that she would have been pregnant for some time before a test would show it, and that may support the pherome detection.

I'd just say that you know people.

El Sitherino
03-20-2003, 08:35 PM
einstein disproves existence of god (http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/evangelical_ath/einstein_emc2.htm)

Reborn Outcast
03-20-2003, 11:04 PM
And did you know that E=Mc^2 is not the complete equation? :D There were a couple of scientists who did something on this, I'll see if I can find the article...

El Sitherino
03-20-2003, 11:53 PM
duh i think everyone knows that.

ShadowTemplar
03-21-2003, 02:07 PM
Without being an expert on either satire or physics, I'd say that they were joking... And it was an extremely funny joke.

But the way I always understood E=mc^2, was that energy could be transformed to matter, and vice versa... But they don't even need to go as far as matter anyway, because the concept of infinte energy is just as paradoxical.

BTW, you guys may want to disable your sigs when writing one-liners. I've taken as my policy to cut the sig if the post is shorter than the sig, but that's up to you.

Now, to get back on topic:

1) A religion is a group of people sharing similiar beliefs.

2) In order for a group of people to share similiar beliefs, these beliefs must be invented (or defined, if you like that word better), as they cannot be documented.

3) In order for the beliefs to be fairly uniform (crossref: pnt 1), they must be defined by a relatively small group of people.

4) Since the decisions made by this group of people concerns faith, they must be taken unquestioningly, on face value (questioning them/trying to prove them would be an application of rationalism, which would mean that the end result would be deviod of faith, regardless of the outcome).

5) Since any group of people will, over time, work to obtain greater power (crossref: Social classes), the priesthood will, over time, consolidate its position at the top of society*, unless another class keeps them from getting to the top of society (ie: Keeps them at the bottom of society).

*Remember that there is no way that you can talk back to them without being branded a heretic (crossref: pnt 4)

6) Any class which is allowed to consolidate its position at the top of society unopposed will, over time, become permanently reactionary (if you're at the top, you desire a status quo, (crossref: pnt 5)).

7) Since the priesthood will become permanently reactionary over time, if they are at the top of society, society will become permanently reactionary over time.

8) Any permanently reactionary society is a totalitarian society.

9) Totalitarian regimes survive on the ignorance of the people.

Therefore:

All religions will become totalitarian unless they are kept at the bottom of society, ie: Are being oppressed.

And

All religions promote ignorance, as it serves the dual role of making people more suceptible to their preachings, thereby making it harder to oppress said religions, and enforcing totalitarian ideologies once in power.

q.e.d.

I believe that there is a word for this kind of situation: Touché!

Kurgan
03-24-2003, 02:01 AM
Sigh... no offense but.. amateurs!

*longs for the days of the "God Thread" and all its glorious civilized and interesting debate*


One thing, you want proof that atheists can be equal opportunity oppressors? "Stalin."

I'm convinced it's not what you say you believe that truly matters, it's how you live.

ShadowTemplar
03-24-2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurgan
One thing, you want proof that atheists can be equal opportunity oppressors? "Stalin."

I have heard that a lot. And I have given identical replies. Atheism did not cause Stalin to go bananas. Stalin was a Communist. He founded his own religion: Communism (actually Leninism). On the other hand, we have adequately proven Religion to be bad.

Kurgan
03-24-2003, 03:52 PM
I have heard that a lot. And I have given identical replies. Atheism did not cause Stalin to go bananas. Stalin was a Communist. He founded his own religion: Communism (actually Leninism). On the other hand, we have adequately proven Religion to be bad.

Wrong, and wrong. Communism isn't a religion anymore than capitalism or republicanism, it's a political ideology (and economic system). And it does have a wide spectrum within that ideology. All communists are not murderers. But, some of the worst murderers in history have happened to be communists (and atheists).

"Communism" as we know it was founded on Lenin's interpretation of the writings of Marx (and Engles). If you study history you'll see that Marx really didn't "invent" it so much as popularize it and give it direction into a philosophy of history and plan for social revolution.

Marx wrote that religion was the opiate of the masses, teaching that it was a device invented by the ruling class to enslave the masses, thus all Communists dedicated themselves to atheism and the suppression of religion. About the only real progress away from that is seen in the People's Republic of China, where religion is okay if it acknowledges the sovereignty of the state to control it (witness the treatment of the Fulon Gong and the Tibetan buddhists... the People's Patriotic Catholic Association, etc). On a side note there is "Liberation Theology" that incorporates some Marxist theories of revolution into Christian thinking... and it has been widely denounced by mainstream Churches as being self-contradictory and dangerous.

Atheism didn't make Stalin crazy, no, but many of the murders he and his fellow communists committed were to suppress religious belief. He killed more people than Hitler, after all.

Sigmund Freud believed that religion was a psychological disorder... a neurosis. Of course most of his ideas today (while interesting from a sociological viewpoint or historical curiosity) are regarded as pseudoscience.

How many people did Mother Teresa murder? Pope John Paul II? Ghandi? MLK Jr?

There have been plenty of good and bad people who had religion and plenty of good and bad people who didn't have religion.

My point in all this is to give you examples of why you can't say "religion is bad, wipe it out" or that atheists are more moral than people who believe in a god (the reverse of what some atheists resent religionists for... the claim that they are more moral).

Belief systems (or lack of them) alone won't determine whether you are moral or not.

The only way to get rid of religion would be to commit mass murder and enslavement (as the Communists did). And anyway, all that would do is drive it under-ground.

Why not just let people believe what they want and judge conduct instead?

ShadowTemplar
05-22-2003, 11:05 AM
Wrong, and wrong. Communism isn't a religion anymore than capitalism or republicanism, it's a political ideology

Nice recap of the history of Communism. I knew that already, though.

It is totalitarian. Which brings me to the second part of my point:

1) Totalitarism is based on irrationality (Nazis saying that they are the übermenchen, Commies saying that wheat planted in a cornfield will become corn over a few generations, because all that matters to your development is you environment, not your inheiritance (no wonder they ended up starving)).

2) Since it is irrational, it cannot be proven, and so must be believed.

3) Religion is the organised preaching/adherance to irrational beliefs.

4) Pts 2) and 3), when put together, lead, logically, to the following conclusion: Totalitarism is always religious.

Thus Stalin was a religious person. q.e.d.

Originally posted by Kurgan
How many people did Mother Teresa murder? Pope John Paul II? Ghandi? MLK Jr?

PJP has a lot of blood on his hands, for not allowing abortion and condoms. But that's different story. Basically, you can't use such stand-alone examples, because in order to get a statistically significant amount of data, you'd have to put so much data here that the forums would go down.

Still, I cite such people as bin Laden, Urban II, Whatever-moronic-pope-ordered-the-Inquisition, and a quick flip throught any half-decent history book will give you more names. The blokes who preach hatred in Northern Ireland, for example (can't remember their names right now). Ariel Sharon for another. The bloke who murdered Gandhi. Mohammed Atta.

There have been plenty of good and bad people who had religion and plenty of good and bad people who didn't have religion.

My point in all this is to give you examples of why you can't say "religion is bad, wipe it out" or that atheists are more moral than people who believe in a god (the reverse of what some atheists resent religionists for... the claim that they are more moral).

Look, I can't remember seeing anyone except you labeling 'all-this-and-that' as bad people in this thread (but I'll admit that it's a long time since I last posted here, so I may have forgotten).

My point is not that Skepticism is a fail-save against becoming a psycotic mass murderer. Rather the point is that Skepticism has never been proven do make anyone murder anyone else. Religion has (the current pope, anyone).

Belief systems (or lack of them) alone won't determine whether you are moral or not.

Not alone. But they do contribute. As most everyone else will tell you.

The only way to get rid of religion would be to commit mass murder and enslavement (as the Communists did). And anyway, all that would do is drive it under-ground.

Get rid of it, yes. But my sights are lower set. I'd settle for suppression. Make damn sure that religion answers to the state, and the state alone. Additionally, we should tell the real story about religion: That it murdered (relative to population size) more people than Communism, Nazism, and Fascism combined. That it's as totalitarian as the above three combined, too.

Why not just let people believe what they want and judge conduct instead?

I'll answer this in an E-mail, if you want me to... I'm not posting my thoughts on that subject here, because that would get me banned, I'm afraid.