Dr.Worthless Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Religion is not God created. Some religions don't have a God. I think one of the biggest confusions here is between Christianity and religion.No, I think thats you're mistake in this situation. If you have a problem with the word "God".. replae it with "X".. every religion has a pinacle to reach.. a example of perfection.. The human eye isn't perfect. If it was 'designed', our vision could have been designed better. The same goes for the rest of the body. I've read plausable articles that explain the evolution of the human eye. I'd like to read it. No ones ever been able to explain to me where life started, and how it got there. If you believe in the big bang theory.. then this earth started as a god aweful firey ball of molten mass How did organisms start on that? I never said the human eye was perfect, I said it was to complex to have been created by chance.. I think your watch analogy could easily be used against you. If I had never seen a watch before, and had never seen any similar technology, I might think that it was designed by a higher being - maybe aliens, or maybe some kind of deity. That is exactly the !@#$%^&*umption that you are making about the human eye. You don't understand it or how it was created so it must be evidence of God. Fiddlesticks.Heh, actually you just used my analogy correctly. The correct !@#$%^&*umption about an item as complex as a watch is that some being with knowledge of how to build that object must have made it, since its obviously to complex to have been created at random (by nature.) Christianity is built on faith. Faith requires no proof. It just is. Hence no-one will ever be able to disprove the existance of God. But by the same token you will never be able to disprove the existance of one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters. That doesn't mean they exist. Very true. Its the Catch-22. But the basis of the arguement is that "God" is the best answer at this moment for the answer to complex questions, and to assume that it isn't the right answer just because you don't believe in it, well.. under that ideology science is equally as wrong.. Murder is not murder until Jake at BurgerKing claims it is.The classic "If a tree falls in the forest...." Machine vs organism. Because I accept that adaptation and evolution DO take place, you simply cannot make a comparison.The same animals we have today were different from those found in the past. Why would there be any reason humans would be exempt from this.A machine holds no qualities of an organism, and that is why it is classified as such. You missed the core of the arguement, but regardless I should have clarified my position on Creationism. I do believe in "evolution" in the sense that creatures will adapt to their surroundings. So yes.. the animals we have now are different from the past.
MonteZuma Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 The universe was not a fiery, molten ball when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago, 9 or 10 billion years after the big bang. A "pinnacle to reach" is not a God. * When I was a kid I wanted to be a train driver. Train drivers are not Gods.* Buddha was not a God. I think people use 'God' as a catch all to explain anything that is unknowable and some things that are just unknown. The way christians use nature's complexity as 'evidence' of divine intervention confirms this in my mind. Complexity is explainable as the result of 13 billion years of cosmic evolution. Complexity is not evidence of intervention by a God.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 The universe was not a fiery, molten ball when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago, 9 or 10 billion years after the big bang. So, explain to me how something goes from a fiery bolten ball of lava to sitting on his !@#$%^&* typing on a computer about to go to class?
Aileron Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 I seriously think there is enough gaps in both theories that they can both simltaneously exist at the same time. An author can introduce a character on page 3, then go over that character's past on page 7. Who's to say that God didn't create the universe, then "write" the universe' past afterwards? (This requires that God must be outside the time frame of our universe, which actually is the only thing that makes sense and is explicitly stated in the Bible. In our reference frame, it would be impossible for us to tell the difference - the only difference would be in His reference frame.) Walk into any Physics Class, and ask "why" something happens. The physics instructer will referr you to your local cleric. I have done my research in this...all of my physics teachers and professors hold this view, and they come from different backgrounds. It is a constant view in science that one cannot answer "why" but only "how" our universe works. Thus, it is unscientific to use science against relgion. How can our understanding of our universe possibly give us insight as to what is beyond our universe? Besides, as both the most scientific/logical AND the most religious person here - I can claim complete monopoly over this whole issue. You are wrong, I am right, end of story. Theology aside...you guys simply don't realise how much society needs religion. Religion is supposed to be the social equilizer, and our current social problems stem from people like yourself cutting her legs out from underneath her. Who better to look after the poor? Any religion that fails in this task is hypocritical. After all, you can have meetings and rituals, but at the end of the day, a person's faith in that religion is dependant upon how many of the lowly are helped by it. How can one ignore a man who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, provides shelter for the homeless, etc.? Thus, a religion needs to be a social equilizer in order to survive. A government survives by looking after its cons-*BAD WORD*-uents, a business by looking after its owner. A religion NEEDS to look after the poor...and that is why religion is needed in every society. That role needs to be filled...current modern problems stem from people trying to put government into that role.
Zetirix Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Very mature. Like most religious people I know. - Z
Zetirix Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Besides, as both the most scientific/logical AND the most religious person here - I can claim complete monopoly over this whole issue. You are wrong, I am right, end of story. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Dr.Worthless Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Zetirix, if you couldn't sense the sarcasm in that paragraph you're a joke, just like the other 85% of the folks that -*BAD WORD*- this board. Worthless - Who's considering going the way of Recombo. This forum will die anyway in 5 weeks once Bush wins the US election again.
A Soldier Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Who's to say that God didn't create the universe, then "write" the universe' past afterwards? (This requires that God must be outside the time frame of our universe, which actually is the only thing that makes sense and is explicitly stated in the Bible. In our reference frame, it would be impossible for us to tell the difference - the only difference would be in His reference frame.)The one million dollars question: who created God? Who created the creator of God? Etc... To me, it is difficult to accept an argument based on what is said in the bible, since there are many contradictions. For exemple, in the Exodus, at one point they say you must take revenge (an eye for an eye), while in Matthew's, he says you should turn the other cheek. An other problem I believe is people who strongly think everything written in the Bible is correct, while, for exemple, most of us know that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth. Walk into any Physics Class, and ask "why" something happens. The physics instructer will referr you to your local cleric.You have strange teachers :/ heh. Theology aside...you guys simply don't realise how much society needs religion.I would be more tempted to say many men and women need religion - not society as a whole necessarly. Why? They need to find a meaning to their life, and they think religion can give them the answer. Religion is supposed to be the social equilizer, and our current social problems stem from people like yourself cutting her legs out from underneath her.Charity is a way to help the poorer population indeed. I trust social welfare more though.
MasterDrake Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 social welfare n : governmental provision of economic !@#$%^&*istance to persons in need I don't know how it works in Canada but here in the US alot of people abuse welfare.
Dr.Worthless Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 For exemple, in the Exodus, at one point they say you must take revenge (an eye for an eye), while in Matthew's, he says you should turn the other cheek. Exodus = Old Testament (Before Christ coming and passing) Mathew = New Testament (After Christ) The Old testament is just that, Old. None of the rules setup in the old testament apply to those existing after Christs coming. New Testament = What we should be following now.
»Ducky Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 I seriously think there is enough gaps in both theories that they can both simltaneously exist at the same time.Blah, choose a side -*BAD WORD*- Nah.. I'm just !@#$%^&*in with you.The arguement was well enough, and my prior views still stand that I would rather accept ignorance than unproven theology. Theology aside...you guys simply don't realise how much society needs religion. Religion is supposed to be the social equilizer, and our current social problems stem from people like yourself cutting her legs out from underneath her.I am with soldier on this one. I have stated many times that religion in general is needed greatly, but not in the public eye of education, business and all things of that nature. Find and accept faith in churches, at concerts, or in the privacy of your own home. (The places where you have a greater choice of going to or not.)Who better to look after the poor? Any religion that fails in this task is hypocritical. After all, you can have meetings and rituals, but at the end of the day, a person's faith in that religion is dependant upon how many of the lowly are helped by it. How can one ignore a man who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, provides shelter for the homeless, etc.? Thus, a religion needs to be a social equilizer in order to survive. A government survives by looking after its cons-*BAD WORD*-uents, a business by looking after its owner. A religion NEEDS to look after the poor...and that is why religion is needed in every society. That role needs to be filled...current modern problems stem from people trying to put government into that role.I don't like the paragraph for one solemn reason. Not all religion requires you to help the poor in mass I don't see one single difference between the church and state and who "recieves" the oppurtunity to help the poor.You donate, they get it. Simple story.What is the difference from anti-christ joe millionaire donating $100,000 and 72 middle aged women doing a bake sale to ac!@#$%^&*ulate the same amount. It all goes to help others in the end.The government has problems doing it because they try to elaborate and create a better way. New innovations are always flawed and only get better in time.
MonteZuma Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 The universe was not a fiery, molten ball when life appeared on Earth 4 billion years ago, 9 or 10 billion years after the big bang. So, explain to me how something goes from a fiery bolten ball of lava to sitting on his !@#$%^&* typing on a computer about to go to class?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't know. I don't know How Krispy Kreme make their donuts taste so yummy either? Perhaps God makes them? Perhaps if you asked an astronomer, a physicist, , a geologist, a biologist, an anthropologist, and a few engineers you might start to get a sensible answer to your question. Just because you, or I or the rest of the human race don't understand something doesn't make it a miracle.
MonteZuma Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 Zetirix, if you couldn't sense the sarcasm in that paragraph you're a joke, just like the other 85% of the folks that -*BAD WORD*- this board. Worthless - Who's considering going the way of Recombo. This forum will die anyway in 5 weeks once Bush wins the US election again.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Nah. Bush will provide us with plenty more !@#$%^&*ups that will keep us occupied for years to come.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 Just because you, or I or the rest of the human race don't understand something doesn't make it a miracle. Heh, it doesn't make it *not* a miracle either. Does open your mind mean anything to you?
Aileron Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that the way Japan defended themselves from the Mongols when they were out taking over the world (they didn't, a sudden storm did most of the work) and the way the same thing happened to the Spanish Armada after losing to Great Britain. (While they lost the battle beforehand, a storm did most of the damage) might qualify as miracles. Though we can easily explain the sceince which causes storms at sea happen, its just the shear odds of a sudden storm croping up in normally clear waters just as a major invasion is happening is kinda miraculous. Theorhetically anything is possible, on the subatomic level, things like electrons and protons don't really exist, but are a probability of charge and m!@#$%^&* distribution. Thus, its physically possible for a solid object to teleport over great distances, though the odds of the center of m!@#$%^&* for every subatomic particle in that object to move in the same direction and distance, though infinitesimally small. Thus, I don't think any miracle really violated the laws of physics, its just that they had a very small chance of happening at a very convenient time I mean, just think how you could play Subspace if you could control every dice rolled? Bullets would do almost no damage to you, their damage is random. No one on the other team would dare pick up a green (engine shut-down), as a matter of fact, such greens would spawn underneath them at very bad times. You would have shields and super ALL the time. No one could repel your fire. (Repel strengths are random, the lowest being completely useless) You wouldn't need ports, all you need to do is pick up the nearest warp green and decide where you want to go. Every else unfortunate enough to go through a gate or get sucked into a wormwhole would warp directly on top of your mines. Your rating would be great...players would pick up 500 useless greens of the same type that spawed directly underneath them to moment before you killed them. And if after all that the entire other team got together and somehow got you down to red...the server would crash. Basically, you would probably even kick the Twister player's !@#$%^&*es, and it would all be perfectly explainable in the laws of Subspace. Consider the impact on a much more random real world. Miracles are probably the same way...they all CAN be explained by science, its just unprobable. Social government probrams might be made to work for domestic programs, but what about when foreigners are in trouble? The fundimental role of government is to serve their own people - there is a limit to how charitable they can be to other countries. And yes, all religions have to be charitable, because all of them have an element of social conciousness in them...even the very old religions required that you be charitable to others - they might be gods in disguise. The extremely old, such as anchient Egypt, didn't have as much...but no other organization from their time and before would work today either.
»nintendo64 Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 I do agree Science cannot answer Why and only Hows, and surely we don't know Why the Universe is the way it is, and probably it lead us to think something or someone created it or built it, but Who created God? and if God always existe? then isn't it possible the Universe always existed?
Bacchus Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 Can't be. Aristotle called that the "3rd person argument" (i'm translating). He was trying to picture the "first cause" (translating again) and reckon that if you say something like "God is the universe, or nature in it's many forms", you'll eventually have to ask yourself:"what created nature, or God?". So God, or the first cause, have to be "out of this world" kinda. It's just Aristotle but it does make some sense without having the pretention to understand parts or God's nature.
Aileron Posted October 2, 2004 Report Posted October 2, 2004 Well, yeah, it doesn't make sense for something to create the universe He is inhabiting. As for the "who created God" question, it is considered that God simply always existed, and had no beginning.
»Ducky Posted October 2, 2004 Report Posted October 2, 2004 Aye, I can see how it is so much more enticing than that of the Universe theory that states it always existed :-p
Yupa Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 There are several books available today pointing out that America is struggling with a major moral dilemna.There have always been books like that - only fools read them.As more and more supreme court judges p!@#$%^&* decisions to allow things like gay marriage and homosexuality it seems America casts a deaf ear to it.Gay marriage is imo merely stupid or abnormal, but not immoral - it's clear you take too much of what is undoubtedly the religion you were _born_ into without questioning it at all. Judges don't p!@#$%^&* things to allow homosexuality - no organization has the authority to allow something like that, it's a right you're born with. They "cast a deaf ear" because they don't care - neither should you. Unfortunately, loss of moral values will lead to grave cir!@#$%^&*stances.You're not really talking about morality so far, just homophobia.If it's gay marriage today, will it be free sex in the streets tomorrow,Gosh I hope so. Sex has always been free and many people already do it in the streets. Wouldn't it be nice if the government made it law that everyone abandon their ridiculous Puritan-induced taboos about sex and we could just have orgies in public.then legalizing various forms of assault,sex...!@#$%^&*ault? Wtf, lack of segue much. Don't be stupidthen finding rights in the slaying of each other? Surely anyone can conceive where we could go in just a few short years without a fundamental grip on what is right and wrong.America is screwed man (nothing to do with homosexuality or sex, btw), stfu already. As I think about this I am concerned. It really comes down to one thing when you talk about morals: concern for your fellow man (or woman).Actual when you talk about morals, it comes down to something else entirely - the DEFINITION of "moral" Here in these short few words I have expressed no form of religious bias for a set of common rules.Yes, you have. You might reply with "no, dumb!@#$%^&*", but I'm telling you, you have a religious bias and have clearly not thought much about your religion (or are merely stupid).
Recommended Posts