|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted March 16, 2009 03:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How can you insult fantasies?
In other words you feel free to insult religous ideas and get bent out of shape when someone points out your own beliefs have nothing to back the up. Like I said, double standards.
Quote:
Simple question: HOW do you KNOW?
I know because I have a divinely inspired book and the Spirit of God living in me. Your ideas come from your own misguided opinions and many have absolutely no evidence from science. Your beliefs are just as religious in nature as mine are. You take them by faith, not fact.
Furthur, consider my previous arguments. There had to be a first cause. If there is a first cause that cause had to be eternal. The first cause is God. Since he is the source of all matter and energy it is obvious that he himself is not matter or energy. He has told us that he is a Spirit.
Now, there is no way you can refute my beliefs. But I can refute yours if you insist on an eternal universe or that matter and energy came into being on their own. That belief is decidedly unscientific.
Quote:
Elodin:
Quote:
Just as a painter is not bound within his work of art so God is not bound by the universe. God fills and transcends the universe.
Angelito:
Quote:
HOW do you KNOW?
Ummmm. My eyes can tell me a painter is not bound within his work of art. Draw a picture and tell me that you don't exist outside of the picture.
Quote:
Name ONE excuse..in opposit to about thousands from kind of yours
First, it is untrue to say I have ever made an "excuse" and most of what was posted as Christian "excuses" were stupid and bigoted statements that I have never heard except from the mouth of an atheist who is lying about Christianity. That is a common practice of the brand of atheists who are disciples of Dawkins and Hitchens. More narrow minded and bigoted than any religious person who has ever lived. Tolerance my ***. Facts only my ***. They love to paint themselves as being open minded but are quite close minded. "Freedom from Religion" said religious people are hard hearted and mentally enslaved but those words apply to that brand of atheism better than to anyone else.
Religion: Why does the universe exist.
Atheist: No reason
Religion: What caused the universe.
Atheist: Big Bang
Religion: What caused the BB?
Atheist: Don't know, but definitely not God.
Religion: Doesn't everthing need a cause? So what was the first cause?
Atheist: Don't know, but definitely not God.
Religion: Are morals absolute?
Atheist: No, they are relative.
Religion: So sometimes it is ok to rape babies?
Atheist: Duh....errrrr....ummmmm.
I have actually had some atheists tell me it is ok to rape babies! They had to or else admit there are moral absolutes which implies the existence of a Diety.
Quote:
Here comes the difference about people who "dream" of a God, and people who just don't care coz they will never know: I do not care what was BEFORE the BigBang, coz it is of NO interest for me. To bring back YOUR example with the painter: WHO cares about how the surface of a picture looked like before the painting was done? It is the picture which counts...
It is you who is dreaming. Wishing that God did not exist and pretending that he does not and ignoring evidence of God.
Cop out. You as an atheist have to explain how the universe could come into being without a cause.
The painting exists because the painter wanted to paint it. In the end it will look like what he wanted to paint. The painting had a cause. The painter.
Quote:
you shouldn't forget how touchy people are. Belittling their religion may be an insult, whether you think of it as stupid fairy tale or not.
I did not object. I did notice the double standards of it being ok to call ideas he doesn't agree with fairy tales but not being ok to reference ideas of his that can't be backed up as "magical." Like the unverse magically appearing from absolute nothing with no cause.
It is the double standards I objected to and it appears he is sensitive to his beliefs being challenged. I picked the word "magical" precisely because some atheists like to call religious beliefs fairy tales and God a sky pixie. They are blind to their own beliefs being only faith.
Quote:
Most people are religious because their parents/country/society "forced" (maybe its nicer to say "influenced") them to believe in something.
No, I don't believe that statement. It is true that some people are only "culturally" religious but there are many sincerely and deeply religious people. Aside from the religion of atheism.
Quote:
I didnt say anything about Jesucks (lol)
Your insults paint quite a picture of you.
Quote:
But many parents learn their children to believe in some religion.
A person who thinks atheists don't teach their children atheism also is foolish. Children learn by your words and deeds.
Quote:
And also religious people do force other people to believe in their religion.
Yes, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong among other atheist tyrants.
Quote:
I just have a problem with people who talk about God as if they wouldn't BELIEVE he exists, but they KNOW he exists.
How can you say someone does not know God exists? That is quite arrogant of you. I am filled with the Spirit of God. I speak in tongues (Pentecostal.) I am quite certain God exists. Yes, my experiences with God are personal and relative but they are real and relevant to me.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 09:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's because you - like most - mistake knowing for believing and vice versa.
My opinion differs here.
"To believe" is a term which is clearly described in any kind of dictionary. So there can't be two different meanings about this word. If I "believe" God exists, I am NOT able to tell what he thinks, what his motivations are, what he is going to do, etc... Everything I think about him are nothing else but pure personal opinions.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 09:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I know a book will fall if I let go of it in mid-air
I believe its because an invisible hand is pushing it down
see the difference?
Great example. Now change these 2 words (know/believe) in your example vice versa , and then you have what I described above: Believers KNOW there is an invisible hand putting it down, instead of believing it. At least most of them talk like this.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 09:57 AM |
|
|
Elodin...I only can say one thing: If I read your lines (not only these above, also others here in this thread), I would discribe you as an religious extremist. This is not meant to be an insult, but the result of the experiences I have made during the latest discussions.
You bring up the old phrase "What was before the BB?" and think it is an accurate question, but when someone brings up "What was before God?", it is told "No accurate question".
You bring up a point about "raping babies", but deny all the murders named in the bible. (many example have been posted so far).
If you have made personal experiences with God...fine. Still this must not be true. You may have just dreamed. Just ask people who regularely take drugs, what kind of spiritual experiences they make. Are they true aswell?
We often have heard about "The devil told me to kill them" as excuse when serial killers have been caught. Do you believe this?
There are tons of different religions all over the world. Which of them is the "real" one, even though they differ pretty much?
Just as an example:
- The Jehowa's witnesses believe, only a specific amount of people will go to heaven / paradise. This can't have a good end in my opinion, because too many people already died who probably were good enough to sit besides God. What happens if this "amount" has been reached? No one can't go to heaven anymore? No matter how good he/she was? Or will God make some kind of "replacement"?
- They also refuse to recieve Blood donations when they have a surgery. They would rather die than taking blood from other humans. So is it ok to let the own baby die, when the only solution/help would be to recieve other's blood?
-There are people living in the rain forest in Brasilia, who eat the brain of their enemies when they killed them. They think they get their knowledge that way. They do this because their "spirits" tell them to do so. That's their "belief".
Imagine someone would do this here in europe (or in the States). And he would say "God said I should do this so the knowledge of this guy wouldn't get lost". What would happen? And now let's think about this fellow in Brasilia. Will he be punished by any kind of God when he has died? But how can he know he was doing wrong?
Talking about double standards...
And I may repeat myself: I don't "believe" in any kind of theory describing the beginning of the universe, because my mind is not developed enough to understand the whole BigBang theory, or the String theory, or the God theory.
These are, as their name already expresses, theories. I don't believe in any of them. I think I am just too small and negligible to take care about these things. Maybe there comes a time where we will understand more about this. Maybe science will evolve that much so it will prove God exists? So science and religion will meld together sometimes? I don't know and I don't care.
But I refuse to accept a "God theory" only to have an explanation for everything which can't be explained currently. I'd rather live without explanation then.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 10:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I know a book will fall if I let go of it in mid-air
I believe its because an invisible hand is pushing it down
see the difference?
Great example. Now change these 2 words (know/believe) in your example vice versa , and then you have what I described above: Believers KNOW there is an invisible hand putting it down, instead of believing it. At least most of them talk like this.
No, that it's a completely wrong example, like TheDeath already said, because it mixes apples with oranges.
It's as follows: 1) You OBSERVE that B happens when you do A; 2) You OBSERVE that B ALWAYS happens when you do A; 3) At this point you are extremely CERTAIN that B ALWAYS happens when you do A. However you don't KNOW it, because at this point you don't know the reason why.
So to be absolutely certain - to KNOW - you must find out WHY B happens when you do A.
The example will involve a coule millenia of scientific research - with CHANGING LAWS OF PHYSICS, as Death already said -, and we are quite certain that mass and gravitation plays a starring role in this example. But an exact knowledge of those WE DO NOT POSESS.
Now, the point I was making is, that people believing in science (and scientifical explanations) do KNOW only the small fish, the things dependent on something else, but as I said the absolute yardstick is missing, and therefore the "knowledge" is relative and limited, and it is ultimately based on things we cannot explain or know scientifically. That's why they ultimately thing they had answers, but haven't got any: the THINK they know, but in fact they believe.
Whereas the people who believe in god ARE CERTAIN that they know the only truth that counts: they do not hope that it is so, or hypothesize, they KNOW there is a god because for them that's the only thing that makes sense and they even find evidence because they know what to look for.
Ultimately science and religion don't intersect or interface. It's folly to try and argue scientifically against religion, because god is something science can make no statement about, while religion doesn't make one about science. Religion goes to where science can't.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 11:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Religion goes to where science can't.
But does it make it more true this way?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 11:17 AM |
|
|
I totally agree with JJ.
angelito: That's the question you have to ask yourself. And since you already did (you've chosen not to believe in any God or gods), no need to ask us 
Don't forget science is based on assumptions, too.
But comparing science and religion is like comparing religion and sport. Unrelated.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 01:10 PM |
|
|
Religion: Why does the universe exist.
Atheist: No reason
Non-beliver: It just happend.
Religion: What caused the universe.
Atheist: Big Bang
Non-beliver: There are teories about it
Religion: What caused the BB?
Atheist: Don't know, but definitely not God.
Non-beliver: Who said it was the big bang that started the univers was we know it?
Religion: Doesn't everthing need a cause? So what was the first cause?
Atheist: Don't know, but definitely not God.
Non-beliver: Someting, maybe just a random dice throw?
Religion: Are morals absolute?
Atheist: No, they are relative.
Non-beliver: Morals depends on society, there are a few common ones that keep going: "No stealing, no murdering" but beyond that its pretty much relativ. We are humans, and we form these societies and most also get into similar norms.
Religion: So sometimes it is ok to rape babies?
Atheist: Duh....errrrr....ummmmm.
Non-beliver: The baby cannot agree, and the baby is mindless. Raping the baby would imply force, so its kind of wrong. However in the same society forced marriage is ok could also happen.
Quote:
I have actually had some atheists tell me it is ok to rape babies! They had to or else admit there are moral absolutes which implies the existence of a Diety.
They never had to do that, however they could say that there are a few of the norms that keeps going on because of society and the fact we humans form it.
Quote:
Cop out. You as an atheist have to explain how the universe could come into being without a cause.
Actually, we could just use the "it just happened".
To ask: Why do the univers need a meaning to be created? I really wonder.
Quote:
How can you say someone does not know God exists?
"How can you say someone does know God exists?"
Lets face it, its an eternal argument.
Atethist = Do not belife there is a or several deity(s)
Religius = Belives there is a or several deity(s)
Non-beliver: A buddhist or agnostic, they don't know or want to find out. Its a "screw that" thingy
____________
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 01:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But comparing science and religion is like comparing religion and sport. Unrelated.
Just don't tell that to Kaka.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 01:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Religion goes to where science can't.
But does it make it more true this way?
Truth is actually a rather complicated concept.
As far as I know it is impossible to prove that the concept of solipsism is wrong or untrue, although most people firmly believe in a reality outside of their mind...
Goedel's law, amounting to the proven fact that in every sufficiently complex axiomatic system there are statements that cannot be proven this or that way.
The idea of "truth" means that there would be, like, an "all-knowing" mind or state or whatever, un ultimate truth beyond it: As in, the universe is either finite or infinite (and whether we can prove one or another is another question altogether).
However, this concept of an absolute truth "behind the scenes" is EXTREMELY doubtful, not just because of Goedel, but because of quantum mechanics as well.
Example: Is the number of prime twins finite or infinite? As far as I know there is no proven answer to this, yet, and let's assume this would be one of the unprovable things Goedel is talking about (remember, he PROVED there MUST exist some of those). You'd intuitively say that IN TRUTH it IS either finite or infinite - but what truth are we talking about here?
Since we KNOW that there are things that CANNOT be proven, can they be KNOWN then? Can there be something like an absolute truth then?
Another paradox.
Anyway, if there is no absolute truth, we are back to the subjective truth, and if a person is absolutely certain in his or her belief in god, then this is his or her personal truth. All problems arise only, when people try to convince others that their personal truth is the absolute and ultimate truth.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted March 16, 2009 02:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, if there is no absolute truth, we are back to the subjective truth, and if a person is absolutely certain in his or her belief in god, then this is his or her personal truth. All problems arise only, when people try to convince others that their personal truth is the absolute and ultimate truth.
I liked this part of your post the most, because it sounds similar to my point of view on this matter: Religion and Belief is something personal. It's not something which counts worldwide the same (hence the different types of religion).
So it seems every kind of Religion is somehow true for many people, and on the other hand somehow wrong for others. Just the basic idea itself may be equivalent in all subsidiaries.
Maybe we could compare this to a big jigsaw (puzzle):
We have thousands of pieces laying around.
- Religion tells us how it looks like when it is completed.
- Science puts in piece after piece every now and then. Sometimes they discover a wrong piece ("Damnit! It has fit so well when I have put it in!"), but mostly the picture is getting more and more real.
As the matter of fact we do NOT KNOW how it looks like (because it is yet to be completed), we have a group of people who believe what the religion part says and "paint" the picture in their own imagination.
On the other hand, there are people who doubt the explanation of Religion and they look how science put it together piece by piece. Still they are far far away from completing the jigsaw, but they like how the picture is getting in shape more and more. Sometimes they discover parts of that picture which are completely different to what Religion has described before, which makes them sure Religion is wrong in its explanations, but Religion (justifiably) doesn't make a big deal out if it ("Only because parts don't fit 100% doesn't mean the whole idea the picture is shown is wrong!").
So the best would be to wait till science has put in that much pieces so we can discover or divine how the picture will look like when it is completed. And see if Religion was right or wrong.
How is that?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 04:14 PM |
|
|
I agree that religion is and should be a PERSONAL thing; no discussion there.
With the puzzle I somewhat disagree with your interpretation. I'd say, we are living in a puzzle that is already complete somehow, and we start in or on one piece and now try to explore as many pieces as possible to try and get the big picture. On our way we have no idea how big the pictre is, whether it's the only one, and so on, but science ans logic are the tools helping to discover that picture. At this stage this is all science wants and science can and it does a good job in making our own little piece indeed our own.
Religion is now more or less, like, trying to put that whole picture in an absolute frame: the whole puzzle has been made by Mr. God for his purposes and we play some role in his big plan and so.
The bottom line is, that science doesn't say anything about what is beyond the puzzle (only that there IS something, but it's something we lack the dimensions for to grasp), because it CAN'T.
Religion does start there - where science can't go.
That's the reason for scientists being religious, agnostics and atheists: they don't interfere, actually.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 04:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin...I only can say one thing: If I read your lines (not only these above, also others here in this thread), I would discribe you as an religious extremist. This is not meant to be an insult, but the result of the experiences I have made during the latest discussions.
Funny, I would describe you as a religious extremist also. Your brand of atheism is as "religious" as any religion in the world.
I know what I believe and why I believe it. I have thought through my beliefs and examined them thouroughly. That is why I can always present Scripture to back up what point I am presenting. Because I believe the Bible is the Word of God that is where I draw my doctrine from rather than from particular person or denominational dogma.
Quote:
You bring up the old phrase "What was before the BB?" and think it is an accurate question, but when someone brings up "What was before God?", it is told "No accurate question".
Not so. I brought up a question and you can't answer it. I answered the "what was before God" question. God is eternal. Nothing was before God. God is the first cause, without whom nothing else would exist.
Quote:
You bring up a point about "raping babies", but deny all the murders named in the bible. (many example have been posted so far).
First, please link to a quote where I denied any murders.
Second, what murders are you talking about? God has a right to judge, if that is what you are whining about.
Third, you avoided the question again. Are morals absolute or are they not.
Quote:
If you have made personal experiences with God...fine. Still this must not be true. You may have just dreamed.
No, my experiences are real. And I presented the evidence of the universe itself and the laws of thermodynamics.
You have presented no evidence that God does not exist because no such evidence exists.
Quote:
We often have heard about "The devil told me to kill them" as excuse when serial killers have been caught. Do you believe this?
No. And I have heard of atheist tyrants killing over 100 million people in the past century. It is in the interest of a serial killer to try to plead insanity and say something to try to get reduced punishment.
Quote:
There are tons of different religions all over the world. Which of them is the "real" one, even though they differ pretty much?
Christianity. In particular Pentecostals follow what is described in the book of Acts. The most important beliefs of Christianity are shared by most denominations. Many denominations have relatively minor differences.
Yes the canibal will be punished and yes at one time he knew what he did was wrong. You can sear you conscience and many people do.
Quote:
Actually, we could just use the "it just happened".
No. "It just happened" contradicts the laws of thermodynamics.
Quote:
Lets face it, its an eternal argument.
You did not answer the question. How can you say someone does not know God exists?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 04:31 PM |
|
|
Elodin you didn't answer my question, would you be a Christian now if you were born and live in Afghanistan?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, I think we have to just give up and start worshiping God, as we can't know if anything exists, thus God must exist. [/sarcasm]
What?
This isn't about proof of God. This is about those who say that they do not need beliefs (maybe personal, not organized), some atheists (not all), when in fact, they all have beliefs. Why put words in my mouth?
i.e: I'm not going to say "Here is proof of God", I am just replying to the BS "I don't need beliefs, I know the truth!" justification when it is already a belief.
Quote:
Since laws of physics has not been noticed to change ever in the history of human race, it is pointless to assume that. I mean, why would you?
Pointless to assume what? That's your religion then, or philosophy, or whatever.
And by the way, most of science has changed. It's called classical mechanics versus relativity. And not just that, but once "science" said the Earth is flat too -- with the stuff "back then" it was pretty reasonable. Also remember the old models of the atom? OMG I guess they were absolute truths 
What now? If you lived "back then" you would say this is truth? Oh, I get it, we live in a weird world then. Earth is both flat and round, at the same time. Awesome.
When you make truth out of science, you get religion.
Quote:
And so what if Planck had read his Hume well? What does that prove? Read Kant for a change. 
There's a fine line between an honest scientist and a philosopher. SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH TRUTH.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 05:38 PM |
|
|
I meant that living your life, thinking that one day this book will not fall to the ground because the laws of physics could have changed. What is the point?
There was nothing scientific in determining the flatness of the Earth - no measurements took place etc. It was assumed flat by philosophers and Christian theologists - Church directly opposed the round Earth concept.
Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth, noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and that the Earth's surface therefore could not be flat. Note that there is something scientific about this - as there are empirical observations and a theory.
Does a philosopher deal with truth? I didn't understand your last quote... Did you mean that Kant is a scientist and Hume a philosopher?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 05:54 PM |
|
|
Religion fails over science because it sticks to one belief all the time.
If science will show that Big Bang isnt very likely to have happened and another theory works better, then they work on the new theory instead and research about new possibilites and ways etc.
In religion its always "God just said something and exists for no reason" and they never try to improve and flesh up their belief. They always stick to "God said something".
Science is therefor much more likely to be "true", but truth is hard to define.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 05:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Church directly opposed the round Earth concept
The Church didn't have a say in the matter, since it was already known before Rome was an institution or the (eastern roman) Emperor cared about that.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Ednaguy
Supreme Hero
My water just broke! No, wait.
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 05:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In religion its always "God just said something and exists for no reason" and they never try to improve and flesh up their belief. They always stick to "God said something".
You really only know of one kind of religion, don't you? For me religion isn't about hwo the world was created, and how mankind cam into existence. Let science figure that out. For me, religion is about what's right and wrong (although most of it is decided by common sense), life after death, the reason we live etc. IMO religion is supposed to be used for answering the questions that science can't answer.
Yes, I know there are people who use religion to answer absolutely everything, but they're just lame, so let's not talk about them
____________
"Edna, there's a special, tiny, tiny place in hell, waiting just for you... "
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2009 06:05 PM |
|
Edited by xerdux at 18:06, 16 Mar 2009.
|
I think its acceptable to kill one baby to save 10 puppies.
In my eyes all life is equal and not "zomg humans to rule them all!!!" like in most religion.
Also I find most moral questions in most religions today (except Buddhism, I agree with the buddhists even though I will never bother to become one myself) very wrong and weird.
Science adapts to survive advancements in knowledge over the universe etc while religion doesnt.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
