Heres an interesting topic.
what is your religion?
christian, catholic, athiest etc.
please post!
Lock this, asap.
Quote-Calm debates on politics, religion, etc will be tolerated, but if things get out of hand then consequences will follow
Now that that's out of the way, I adhere to no religious belief.
didnt mean to make anybody mad just thought this would be an intersting question!
I guess technically I'm a catholic christian. But really, I'm not terribly religious. Haven't been to church in well over a year. I pray occasionally and kind of have my own religion. Religion is important, I suppose, but I can't go with a religion just because it was the one I was raised with.
Im a christian.
I've already been messaged by a person that wants to post their religious beliefs which involves not liking other certain religions; as in, this thread isn't a good idea.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 05, 2012, 05:20:40 PMQuote-Calm debates on politics, religion, etc will be tolerated, but if things get out of hand then consequences will follow
Now that that's out of the way, I adhere to no religious belief.
I just wanted to avoid flaming.
ANYWAY, I am proud to say that I am a Christian.
I was raised Protestant, but have since begun to doubt its validity. I feel like religion offers a lot of security for people, though, so I'll always be a pretty big proponent for its continuity.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports" - George Washington
Okay, listen.
Some people here would gladly say "I'm Christian and I'm proud of it!" and there are others here who would say "I'm Atheist and I'm proud of it!"
No argument there, right?
Actually, no. That's not how it will turn out. Someone on one side will say they highly disagree with the other side, or at least one branch of it, and somebody else from the other side will misinterpret it and say "Well fuck you too".
And we don't need that here.
This topic isn't really having a debate yet-think of it like that "What instrument do you play?" topic.
YET. Can we please avoid it altogether? Yes, we're mature people and we can avoid debate but curiosity isn't really worth raising tensions over.
also im a conspiracy theorist
i think theism and atheism are both frivolous. i transcend both science and religion with my own manifesto unknown to you simple humans.
Who's starting it? =/ As long as there's no argument, why are we worrying about it? We're smart people - we can talk about delicate topics without worry.
My family's Jewish, but I'm really not religious myself.
NEBBLES HOW DARE YOU BE JEWISH. >:O
Way to practice what you preach, Jub.
I'm Roman Catholic.
Now now, jub. You're the only one who currently has a problem with this topic.
Edit: Ninja'd by Maestro!
My roommate is Catholic. I've learned a lot about mass and rituals etc. Don't necessarily agree with all of it but it's pretty fascinating.
Quote from: Mashi on September 05, 2012, 08:09:30 PMi think theism and atheism are both frivolous. i transcend both science and religion with my own manifesto unknown to you simple humans.
^hahah so much win. Should post that HERE (http://www.ninsheetm.us/smf/index.php?topic=4809.0).
Wait do you guys think I'm being serious about this
e: (this is why we can't have good things)
Quote from: Jub3r7 on September 05, 2012, 08:15:57 PMWait do you guys think I'm being serious about this
e: (this is why we can't have good things)
I didn't think so :D Still a powder keg topic though. Which is why I'm going to waste a post and not say anything more.
Quote from: Mashi on September 05, 2012, 08:09:30 PMi think theism and atheism are both frivolous. i transcend both science and religion with my own manifesto unknown to you simple humans.
I am now Mashi-ist.
I am Presbyterian. or at least, I'm raised presbyterian. I really don't understand the difference, though.
although, my church might be separating from the PCUSA, which is the national Presbyterian group due to disagreements to do with the presbyterian teachings...so I might be changing religions...? I don't know, its weird.
Religion: None 8)
Officially I belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, like about 80% of the Finns. Though it's mostly just by tradition and doesn't really affect my life right now (apart from the 1% tax). The last time I went to church was...probably in the military, so year and a half ago? The next time I'll go is probably in a year, when my friend gets married.
The biggest difference belonging to a church has had on me after the confirmation (at age 15) was in the military. Those who belong to the church swear an oath before the almighty and all-knowing god and those who don't give an affirmation by their honor and conscience. Also chaplain's lectures and services in the field.
Then later in life there's (possibly) marriage. Only those who belong to the church can get married in one. It's mostly a nice tradition. Funerals are also somewhat easier and cheaper to organize if the deceased belonged to the church, but let's hope I don't need to worry about that anytime soon.
I was raised Catholic initally, parents got le divorce, mom raised me Protestant (note Saddleback Church) and then I went to Catholic High School, got "taught" Catholic beliefs and practice them with my dad's side of the family whenever... so I am a mix of both.
I'm not super religious, but I still have my core beliefs. I don't go to Church and I really don't read the Bible as much as I used to, but I still pray a lot and try to live my life like so.
I personally don't really care about the other religions out there affecting me personally, however everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs, so I won't judge/belittle/etc...
I'm Christian and proud of it, just like Olimar.
@ Nebbles- what's the difference between Judaism and Christianity?
Is that a serious question
....yeah, really, they are two separate religions, so... that's your difference right there.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 06, 2012, 01:57:47 PMIs that a serious question
What I was thinking.
Anyway, I am
Quote from: TheZeldaPianist275 on September 06, 2012, 01:55:14 PMChristian and proud of it
As well.
Quote from: Nebbles on September 06, 2012, 01:59:02 PM....yeah, really, they are two separate religions, so... that's your difference right there.
But Christianity sort of came out of Judism. In video game terminology, an "expansion pack", if you will. One continues the other.
Oh boy... me and religion, do we have an interesting past. Was a Presbyterian since that's the church we went to when I was little. Then became a non-affiliated Christian because the churches are all kind of awful. And it was around that time I became super crazy Christian. Not like, GAYS ARE TERRIBLE AND SIIIIIIIIN or anything like that, but I was super devote to following the Bible. And I think I became a bit of an asshole about it somewhere in the mix. But sometime around 15, my Christian-ness dropped off the face of the Earth in exchange for some strange mix of religions to where I don't even know how to begin classifying my beliefs. I kind of like it that way.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on September 06, 2012, 01:57:47 PMIs that a serious question
I was initiating a discussion. Just wanted to hear her take on it.
I'm a Jedi.
I'm a Long Hobbit.
Best religion ever.
Then I can be a follower of Arceus?
Sweet.
Oh no! I have to do a favorite hobby of mine for a bunch of people I love! What an arduous task!
How has this not been locked yet -_-
Because there's no fighting?
As long as things remain peaceful it shouldn't be a problem. We're just staing what religion we follow or not.
Quote from: shadowkirby on September 06, 2012, 09:16:12 PMHow has this not been locked yet -_-
You sound like Jub...or me, referring to my first post.
I'm a Christian.
Rozoïsm. I'm my own god.
All joking aside, I'm an atheist.
ALL PRAISE TALOS!!!!!!
I'm a devoted ZUNist.
Quote from: Dude on September 07, 2012, 10:20:42 AMI'm a devoted ZUNist.
Is that like for people who worship Zunawe?
I spent this evening watching Legend of Korra.
I'm an Amonist now.
blahblahblahBENDERSblahblahblahEQUALITYblahblahblahBENDERS
Quote from: Kman96 on September 07, 2012, 10:21:50 AMIs that like for people who worship Zunawe?
eww no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Shanghai_Alice#Member
Like most of the northern-European people who have posted in this thread, I'm an atheist. Grew up in a Christian - though largely secularized - environment (my family's stance on religion seems to be that it's a nice tradition, but no big deal really), and just after my Confirmation I took some time to consider my stance on religion and decided that no, I don't believe in the supernatural.
Anyway, that's enough about me. Let's talk about Arceism!
Arceism (its followers, had there been any, would be known as Arceists) is the religion that one can see traces of in the Pokémon games. It is hard to pin down whether it's a deist or polytheist religion. Its formal teaching is that life is sacred and should be valued. Prayer is not neccessary, but it's nice to sit down and think things through every once in a while.
"When joy and enjoyment come natural as the very air, that is happiness" - The Sinnoh Myth
The mythology of Arceism:
In the beginning, there was only chaos and turmoil. At the heart of Chaos, an Egg appeared. From that Egg, the Creator, Arceus, was hatched.
Out of itself, Arceus made two other beings: Time and Space. A third being was made, but vanished away unseen. Time and Space - or Dialga and Palkia, as they are known - brought order to Chaos. The third being preserved Chaos in a separate dimension of its own creation. Now with a room to contain it, Willpower, Emotions and Knowledge were created, contained in a single Egg the Creator Arceus made. The Universe now created, Arceus made its Hall of Origin and went to sleep there, never to be heard of since.
From there on, Time and Space were busy. At some point, the five Beings (it's unclear whether the sixth took part in it) created life. Life went on on its own, and at some point, Earth was created.
Life on Earth began when the beings of Land, Sea and Sky were born. Sky had the entire Z-axis to itself, while Land and Sea were confined to the surface and began fighting over areas. Titanic volcanoes rose from the ocean, while giant tsunamis reclaimed land to the sea. Intense sunlight scorched the land, while torrential rain made the seas even wetter. The planet was a chaos of magma and stormy sea when Sky put an end to the fighting. Land and Sea went to sleep in ancient caves far beneath the surface, while Sky began roaming the atmosphere. At some point, another being pulled the continents into place, while the ancestor of all Pokémon (save for the few who were already created) settled to colonize the planet. Other Life was also thriving beside the Pokémon, and the ecosystem is still going strong.
At least, that's what happened in the Pokémon world.
However, many believe that Land, Sky and Sea were sent to chosen planets to form the basis for life, and that their presence is what made some planets habitable. Far from all planets are, so something special might have happened to the lucky few. Perhaps our own planet has been formed, like a kneaded dough, by beings of Land, Sea and Sky? If so, they are still sleeping somewhere, far below the surface.
Quote from: Cobraroll on September 08, 2012, 11:24:40 AMLike most of the northern-European people who have posted in this thread, I'm an atheist.
If you're referring to me, I'm just letting you know; I'm not an atheist. I do believe in God, but I'm not a member of the church anymore. That means I have no official religion. I can't say that I'm a Christian anymore, but I do believe the same stuff as Christians.(hard to explain)
Quote from: FSM-Reapr on September 08, 2012, 11:33:26 AMI do believe in God, but I'm not a member of the church anymore. That means I have no official religion. I can't say that I'm a Christian anymore, but I do believe the same stuff as Christians.(hard to explain)
So, you're Agnostic?
No. I'm not Agnostic. I don't believe AT ALL that God wouldn't be real. I'm exactly like any other Christian, I'm just not part of the church. Agnosticism means that I'd believe in God, but on the other hand, I wouldn't be sure is God real or not.
I'm not sure if there's an exact word, but I think that calling yourself Monotheistic and part of Disorganised Religion would be descriptive enough in your case. You could also say that you follow Christian practices but simply aren't part of the Church too, I suppose.
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.
FSM-Reapr seems to be describing himself as a non-affiliated Christian, which is a christian that does not associate themselves with any organized church.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on September 08, 2012, 01:00:31 PMAgnosticism is the belief that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.
FSM-Reapr seems to be describing himself as a non-affiliated Christian, which is a christian that does not associate themselves with any organized church.
You are perfectly right.
But I have to write in my (ex.) health insurance: "Religion: Not a member of any religion"
Quote from: Jamaha on September 06, 2012, 12:10:46 AMThe biggest difference belonging to a church has had on me after the confirmation (at age 15) was in the military. Those who belong to the church swear an oath before the almighty and all-knowing god and those who don't give an affirmation by their honor and conscience. Also chaplain's lectures and services in the field.
That's pretty interesting...
How to tell you probably dont believe your own religion: When people say "shes in a better place" it just makes you angry
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on April 19, 2013, 08:39:49 PMHow to tell you probably dont believe your own religion: When people say "shes in a better place" it just makes you angry
I believe it would be called "grief."
no
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on April 19, 2013, 08:39:49 PMHow to tell you probably dont believe your own religion: When people say "shes in a better place" it just makes you angry
Well when we die, our bodies return to the Earth as petty payment for everything it had given us in life. We give ourselves back to this world and we become one with the planet again. It is the greatest state of being a creature can experience. It may not be as conveniently materialistic as the Christian Heaven, which is what "a better place" usually refers to, but that's my personal view on things.
Also, LMGTFY is what you use to be a sarcastic asshole, BDS. A sarcastic asshole is something you don't want to be to an emotionally distressed person. Seriously, quit being a dick.
My view on religion:
Some people think theres a god, some people don't. I've realized recently why some people do, since its difficult to go through life thinking that theres nothing but this life and its nice to believe in something nice. Honestly, as long as you respect other people and everything that deserves respect, it doesn't matter if you constantly pray to some omnipotent being. They know how much you love and value life, and thats enough for you to be considered "holy" or whatever else people do religion for
and ehh idk if I'm "emotionally distressed"...yet. I'm just kinda waiting for it to hit me, since I don't think it has yet
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on April 19, 2013, 09:04:10 PMAlso, LMGTFY is what you use to be a sarcastic asshole, BDS. A sarcastic asshole is something you don't want to be to an emotionally distressed person. Seriously, quit being a dick.
I can assure you that was not what my purpose was. I was obviously not using- or, for that matter, trying to use- it for sarcastic purposes (e.g. A sarcastic purpose being: posting a link to the definition of "obviously"). I merely did not feel that it was right (as in, at least to me, it seemed
more condescending in such a context) to post the definition itself in my post, like I sometimes do.
If it really bothers you, though, I'll just remove the link.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just think you're being kind of a dick.
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on April 19, 2013, 09:12:15 PMMy view on religion:
Some people think theres a god, some people don't. I've realized recently why some people do, since its difficult to go through life thinking that theres nothing but this life and its nice to believe in something nice. Honestly, as long as you respect other people and everything that deserves respect, it doesn't matter if you constantly pray to some omnipotent being. They know how much you love and value life, and thats enough for you to be considered "holy" or whatever else people do religion for
and ehh idk if I'm "emotionally distressed"...yet. I'm just kinda waiting for it to hit me, since I don't think it has yet
Maybe it won't "hit you". Or it might take way longer than you might imagine. I've had both cases happen to me when people close to me have died. But, "the "a better place" thing is just to reassure people who are grieving, more than anything. When someone tells you that, they're basically just say, "Don't worry, everything's going to be alright."
It's like when adults tell you that everything's going to be fine because they don't want you to worry, but deep down inside you really know that they're secretly lying to you and that nothing is going according to plan anyways.
Yeah. Everything's going to be fine.
"You know when adults tell you everything's going to be fine,and you think they're probably lying just to make you feel better?"
"Yes..."
"Everything's going to be fine..."
- Doctor Who
Practicing catholic christian. Proud to be and I wish more people would be religious.
It's our business. Technically I was confirmed catholic Christian but I disagree with a lot of things that go along with it.
Biggest reason I don't go to church: most everyone there is a phony, acting like a good Christian person and then going home and judging someone for their clothes or their job or their sexuality. At the end of the day, a good many people going to church are just there for show, and don't practice the most important part of being a Christian--being a great person who accepts everyone--which strikes me as incredibly hypocritical.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on April 20, 2013, 07:14:21 AMIt's our business. Technically I was confirmed catholic Christian but I disagree with a lot of things that go along with it.
Biggest reason I don't go to church: most everyone there is a phony, acting like a good Christian person and then going home and judging someone for their clothes or their job or their sexuality. At the end of the day, a good many people going to church are just there for show, and don't practice the most important part of being a Christian--being a great person who accepts everyone--which strikes me as incredibly hypocritical.
Yeah, well, that depends. None is perfect, we are all sinners, there's a reason we have confessions. You shouldn't limit your beliefs because other people aren't doing it well. People today are very busy and it's often easy to forget about God in your everyday life. But that's not really an excuse to act in a non-Christian way when you're a Christian (as in the examples you've mentioned).
I have my own religion and I'm okay with that.
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on April 19, 2013, 08:39:49 PMHow to tell you probably dont believe your own religion: When people say "shes in a better place" it just makes you angry
That's annoying. Like Slow said, some people just say those things for show, to make themselves sound religious. I feel for ya.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on April 20, 2013, 07:14:21 AMIt's our business. Technically I was confirmed catholic Christian but I disagree with a lot of things that go along with it.
Biggest reason I don't go to church: most everyone there is a phony, acting like a good Christian person and then going home and judging someone for their clothes or their job or their sexuality. At the end of the day, a good many people going to church are just there for show, and don't practice the most important part of being a Christian--being a great person who accepts everyone--which strikes me as incredibly hypocritical.
I see where you're coming from. It is kind of absurd how many people are hypocrites, but they'll always be there. And I don't think Christians should just accept people blindly. As in, some people just say 'well it's their choice' and just let it lie. There's an art to accepting someone without necessarily agreeing with them.
Precisely. Going to church is a personal thing that you have to decide for yourself.
And really, being religious doesn't mean going to church like every day of your life. I hate people that think just because you go to church makes you so righteous and if you miss a service you're going to hell and blah blah blah
Quote from: SlowPokemon on April 20, 2013, 08:26:48 AMI have my own religion and I'm okay with that.
ALL WORSHIP SLOWPOKEMON
Yes, SlowPokemonism is quickly spreading across the world.
Sounds like the most mediocre religion evur.
I hardly go to church, yet I'm still a devout Catholic and know more about the nature of my faith and the church's doctrines than those who attend mass every sunday.
No, I don't agree with everything my church teaches, but that doesn't make my faith any weaker than others'.
I have a lot of respect for Catholics like you, Maestro. Too many that I know are indifferent to the church's teachings. >.>
My brother is having his confirmation as a catholic tonight.
Moving this here because I'm a rule follower *halo emoji*
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 12:31:56 PMGenerally speaking, if it doesn't have evidence, in science it's not considered to be fact.
It COULD be fact, but so could all the other 4000+ religions throughout history.
looking at it from a science based perspective. Not everything applies to science rules and its ironically close minded that you're pushing that
QuoteI've always been interested in this side of religion, as I've know people who go through a patch of depression and then take up religion for the aspects of unconditional love it gives them.
Seems to me like it would be better to learn to love yourself unconditionally than to just rely on someone else's, even if that person is supernatural.
For a second ignore the personification of God and see it as more of a concept. Teachings of Catholicism vary widely even just through the U.S., but from what I understand God is not meant to be seen as a supernatural person, it's just easier to refer to him that way. Focusing thoughts in prayer is an easier and more logical way to reflect for most people than to try and wrap your head around a concept that can't be explained in words. Sort of like how death is sometimes personified to help people understand. God is not necessarily a person, it's just a visible way to explain it.
QuoteI somewhat agree, but the reason I have an issue with Christianity is that is practices suspension of critical thinking (everything is based on faith), as well as it tending to get special privileges within government (for example, I believe it was a Missouri police department that put "In God we trust" stickers on the back of their police cars).
A good example of this is the pledge of allegiance- the phrase "Under God" wasn't added until the 50's because we were separating ourselves from the "Godless Communists", and it's still mandated by many schools to be said each week (clearly violating the establishment clause of the first amendment).
Catholicism or religion itself is not the issue in instances like this, it's the way it's been skewed and interpreted differently as it passed through the generations. Catholicism does not require all of its members to have the exact same beliefs and act the exact same way. Plenty of things are lost in translation, as well as changing systems of belief throughout history. It's difficult for Catholicism to adapt to changing times because of their long history and the sense of tradition that defines the religion.
As for government, the same thing applies. The majority always wins in things like that, so since the majority believes in some form of Christianity of course their beliefs are going to be reflected in their actions because it's a part of who they are. I'm not condoning it, in just trying to get you to understand instead of just complain.
QuoteReligion is far from necessary. All things that religion promises (being healed if you're sick, eternal salvation) can all come from other much better places (secularism and most sciences), or simply don't exist.
Get this: that's your own personal belief. What if I called that your religion? Exactly what your thinking could be changed to a religion and it would stand true to that person practicing it. Religion is a way to help humans attempt to understand what they can't, adding a sense of comfort and allowing them to actually focus on living instead of being in constant fear of the unknown.
Bubbles, what do you think happens when you die? Just curious
^You enter the void and become non-existence
I'm atheist.
Quote from: Bubbles on August 10, 2015, 01:22:48 PMMoving this here because I'm a rule follower *halo emoji*
looking at it from a science based perspective. Not everything applies to science rules and its ironically close minded that you're pushing that
If it's not applicable to science, or not provable by science, that would mean it doesn't have evidence. Thus, I give you Hitchen's Razor-
Quote from: Christopher HitchensThat which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
QuoteFor a second ignore the personification of God and see it as more of a concept. Teachings of Catholicism vary widely even just through the U.S., but from what I understand God is not meant to be seen as a supernatural person, it's just easier to refer to him that way. Focusing thoughts in prayer is an easier and more logical way to reflect for most people than to try and wrap your head around a concept that can't be explained in words. Sort of like how death is sometimes personified to help people understand. God is not necessarily a person, it's just a visible way to explain it.
What is God exactly, then? Because he's certainly characterized as a being that does actions that have an effect on our world, both by the Bible and by preachers.
QuoteCatholicism or religion itself is not the issue in instances like this, it's the way it's been skewed and interpreted differently as it passed through the generations. Catholicism does not require all of its members to have the exact same beliefs and act the exact same way. Plenty of things are lost in translation, as well as changing systems of belief throughout history. It's difficult for Catholicism to adapt to changing times because of their long history and the sense of tradition that defines the religion.
Sure, that makes sense.
QuoteAs for government, the same thing applies. The majority always wins in things like that, so since the majority believes in some form of Christianity of course their beliefs are going to be reflected in their actions because it's a part of who they are. I'm not condoning it, in just trying to get you to understand instead of just complain.
No, I understand that well. The issue is that since it's a constitutional issue, it doesn't matter what the majority wants, it matters what the constitution says- and what is says is to keep Church and State separate.
[/quote] Get this: that's your own personal belief. What if I called that your religion? Exactly what your thinking could be changed to a religion and it would stand true to that person practicing it.[/quote]
Here's the definition of Religion:
Religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
Anti-theism, what we're discussing, is certainly a belief (the belief that religion is harmful), and I am anti-theistic to an extent. Atheism, however, is not- atheism is the lack of belief in any God or Gods. To say that atheism is a religion is to say that off is also a TV channel- it's not, it's the lack of one.
QuoteReligion is a way to help humans attempt to understand what they can't, adding a sense of comfort and allowing them to actually focus on living instead of being in constant fear of the unknown.
But that doesn't make it factually correct- the belief in God is a dubious one at best, and even if you believe in a God, you then have to go a step further and answer as to why you believe in the God of one particular religion, out of the thousands of religions that have ever existed that have just as much evidence (none).
Hey. I'd love to join this conversation but wouldn't it be easier to do it on Skype? Anyone who's interested in chatting about it I could add to the same conversation.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 03:02:02 PMTo say that atheism is a religion is to say that off is also a TV channel
I'm pretty sure you can stare at a TV that's off and still call that "watching TV"
Truly committing to atheism takes just as much faith as Christianity and therefore I count it as a religion.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 02:35:21 PMBubbles, what do you think happens when you die? Just curious
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's not a big deal to me, I'm comfortable with just brushing the whole thing off because I know I won't find an answer and I'm not trying to stress
But I'd love for reincarnation to be real. Life is too great for us to have only one life, it's almost not fair for it to end in nothing or a new life in heaven or some other afterlife
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on August 10, 2015, 03:57:29 PM^You enter the void and become non-existence wind Kassadin
Quote from: blueflower999 on August 10, 2015, 03:31:21 PMTruly committing to atheism takes just as much faith as Christianity and therefore I count it as a religion.
Committing to having no faith takes just as much faith as a faith based system of thinking, right.
Not sure if you are agreeing with Blue, or if you worded that incorrectly...
I was sarcastically agreeing with him.
part of the problem with that statement is that it used the word faith 3 times
Your supposed sarcasm was weak though : /
I agree with PDS on a lot of points but there are much nicer and less offensive ways to say what he wants to.
I have a question for PDS ~ what would you do if you died and there actually was a god and a heaven/afterlife?
he'd remember this conversation and feel foolish xD
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 04:30:49 PMhe'd remember this conversation and feel foolish xD
Quote from: ZeldaFan on August 10, 2015, 04:29:54 PMI have a question for PDS ~ what would you do if you died and there actually was a god and a heaven/afterlife?
I should've added some more wit to it, you're right, but I had to get off the computer XD
Allow me to reword it: Atheism takes no faith. The whole point of atheism is a lack of faith, so to say that it takes as much faith as an actual religion is illogical.
Quote from: ZeldaFan on August 10, 2015, 04:29:54 PMI have a question for PDS ~ what would you do if you died and there actually was a god and a heaven/afterlife?
I would first ask, "Which god are you?", followed by "Why did you play a game of hide and seek with us", followed with "So, ebola, huh? And pediatric cancer? And Tay-Sachs? You created all those. What kind of sick person creates a world for his children that has such sickness?"
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 04:30:49 PMhe'd remember this conversation and feel foolish xD
Hardly- if there is a God, I'd hope that A) He recognizes that I'm a mostly good person, and B) appreciates a search for the truth rather than believing simply "just in case" or because I happened to be born into the one religion out of thousands and out of one point in history that just happened to be correct.
Forget it I don't want to align with PDS at all in this...you're saying some pretty horrible things
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 10, 2015, 04:33:29 PMForget it I don't want to align with PDS at all in this...you're saying some pretty horrible things
Which things do you object to?
Frankly, I'm actually not as bad as many.. look at Hitchens XD And Dawkins, and Kyle Kulinski (though he's more of a political commentator than anything else)
The things I'm saying would be nothing compared to the tyrannic figure that God seems to be :P
PDS: What Blue meant though was that it takes just as much faith to not have a faith than it would to have a specific belief. (Just narrowly avoided using the word "faith" three times xD )
And being religious is not about being a "good person."
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 04:35:25 PMPDS: What Blue meant though was that it takes just as much faith to not have a faith than it would to have a specific belief. (Just narrowly avoided using the word "faith" three times xD )
Except it doesn't, lol.
It takes just as much ___ to have none of that object than it does to have a lot of it.
Substitute this with, say, medicine. It takes just as much medicine to have no medicine than it does to have all the standard vaccines children are mandated by schools to have.
Lol but let's go back to your scientific theory thing: if the existence of God isn't a proven fact, then you have to have faith to believe that there isn't such a being.
I don't know for an absolute fact that God doesn't exist- just as you and I don't know for an absolute fact that the tooth fairy or the easter bunny don't exist, just as we don't know for a fact there aren't leprechauns at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold.
It's impossible to disprove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is own those making the claim- in this case, the claim of the existence of a God.
But if you don't believe there is a God, then that belief itself is still a belief.
Basically, this:
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 03:27:38 PMI'm pretty sure you can stare at a TV that's off and still call that "watching TV"
A belief would be a positive claim, or rather, trusting a positive claim to be true. In this case, I'm saying I don't accept your positive claim, and revert to the default position- that there isn't a god is essentially the default, because that's where the evidence points. If you're watching a blank TV, you might as well be staring at the wall and call it watching TV- you can call it what you like, but you aren't watching anything.
But, say there is a God/gods- how can you be sure it's the God of Christianity, and not of Islam, or Hinduism, or Scientology, or Mormonism (though that's similar to Christianity), or Paganism, or Wicca?
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:45:48 PMIf you're watching a blank TV, you might as well be staring at the wall and call it watching TV- you can call it what you like, but you aren't watching anything.
this makes 0 sense
If you're watching a TV that isn't playing anything, you're watching, literally, nothing. Complete and utter blackness- so, for all intents and purposes, you might as well stare at the wall.
you're all becoming so existential
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:32:22 PMAllow me to reword it: Atheism takes no faith. The whole point of atheism is a lack of faith, so to say that it takes as much faith as an actual religion is illogical.
If we're gonna get
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally technical, this statement points to agnosticism, not atheism. Agnosticism is the decision not to believe if there is a god or not, whereas atheism is the
belief that there is no god. Since you are adamant that you are not believing in anything, you are therefore agnostic. Continuing to say you're an atheist denotes a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Ninjad
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:45:48 PMA belief would be a positive claim, or rather, trusting a positive claim to be true. In this case, I'm saying I don't accept your positive claim, and revert to the default position- that there isn't a god is essentially the default, because that's where the evidence points.
Positive claim? That's just a perspective! You could just as easily say "I believe there is not a God!"
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:45:48 PMIf you're watching a blank TV, you might as well be staring at the wall and call it watching TV- you can call it what you like, but you aren't watching anything.
While I agree that watching a blank TV yields you fruit, you are still watching it. Call it what you like.
Lack of belief in God does not equate to belief in the lack of God. That being said, the tv analogy is complete nonsense.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 04:51:40 PMIf we're gonna get reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally technical, this statement points to agnosticism, not atheism. Agnosticism is the decision not to believe if there is a god or not, whereas atheism is the belief that there is no god. Since you are adamant that you are not believing in anything, you are therefore agnostic. Continuing to say you're an atheist denotes a belief in the non-existence of a god.
Basically these:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 04:52:03 PMPositive claim? That's just a perspective! You could just as easily say "I believe there is not a God!"
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on August 10, 2015, 04:52:46 PMLack of belief in God does not equate to belief in the lack of God. That being said, the tv analogy is complete nonsense.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 04:51:40 PMIf we're gonna get reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally technical, this statement points to agnosticism, not atheism. Agnosticism is the decision not to believe if there is a god or not, whereas atheism is the belief that there is no god. Since you are adamant that you are not believing in anything, you are therefore agnostic. Continuing to say you're an atheist denotes a belief in the non-existence of a god.
From
Dictionary.com,
An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 04:52:03 PMNinjad
Positive claim? That's just a perspective! You could just as easily say "I believe there is not a God!"
A positive claim, in logic terms, is the claim that something exists or that something is true. Your positive claim is that God exists, and actually, even further, that it is the God of some sect of Christianity.
QuoteWhile I agree that watching a blank TV yields you fruit, you are still watching it. Call it what you like.
You're not watching TV at that point. You're watching literally, nothingness.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:56:43 PMYou're not watching TV at that point.
yes you are, you just aren't watching any channels.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:56:43 PMA positive claim, in logic terms, is the claim that something exists or that something is true. Your positive claim is that God exists, and actually, even further, that it is the God of some sect of Christianity.
So you're saying that it's impossible to have a possible claim that God didn't exist? What if your beliefs are that the truth lies in a world without a devine being? Why can't that be a positive claim? It's as if you're centered around believing there is a God d:
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:56:43 PMYou're not watching TV at that point. You're watching literally, nothingness.
How is staring at a TV not watching a TV? This, like many other things you continue to argue, makes no sense.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:32:22 PM"Which god are you?"
Well it's not Allah because the Quran is based off of the Bible. The Bible was written first and not changed.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:56:43 PMYour positive claim is that God exists, and actually, even further, that it is the God of some sect of Christianity.
Not a sect. God doesn't hate or like someone more than someone else regardless of what they did or what "sect" they're apart of. He loves all. He'll accept into anyone into Heaven as long as they accept the free gift of salvation and believe that Jesus is Lord. Simple as that. :P
And Ebola, sickness, pain, war, etc. is man's fault not God's.
And enough with the tv lol
WHAT? TV IS EVIL!!
;)
Well if we're going to TV up this thread, might as well go religion up this (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=3290.0) thread.
Only joking :P
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 05:06:27 PMWell it's not Allah because the Quran is based off of the Bible. The Bible was written first and not changed.
Not a sect. God doesn't hate or like someone more than someone else regardless of what they did or what "sect" they're apart of. He loves all. He'll accept into anyone into Heaven as long as they accept the free gift of salvation and believe that Jesus is Lord. Simple as that. :P
And Ebola, sickness, pain, war, etc. is man's fault not God's.
The Qu'ran and the Bible share many similarities, that's true. But there are many fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity- my point was, it could just as well be Islam for all we know.
God says, in the Bible, that if you don't believe in him, along with many other petty crimes, you're sent off to eternal fire and damnation. Not really unconditional love.
Ebola, sickness, pain and the like are set onto the rest of the world for generations to come because of one person's screwup? Seems pretty stupid to me.
QuoteAnd enough with the tv lol
THANK YOU
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 05:02:38 PMSo you're saying that it's impossible to have a possible claim that God didn't exist? What if your beliefs are that the truth lies in a world without a devine being? Why can't that be a positive claim? It's as if you're centered around believing there is a God d:
It's impossible to verify the positive claim that there is a God.
You don't seem to understand what a positive claim means. A positive claim is simply "X is true/not true in relationship to the default perspective". The positive claim you suggested, that a world without a divine being is where the truth lies, could be a positive claim, but like any other, you would need to present the evidence for your claim.
QuoteHow is staring at a TV not watching a TV? This, like many other things you continue to argue, makes no sense.
Fuck, this TV analogy is really annoying XD
The original analogy is that "off" is not a TV channel.
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 04:59:54 PMyes you are (watching TV), you just aren't watching any channels.
Again. Off isn't a channel, just like atheism isn't a religion.
Also, to clear up the TV analogy.
The ORIGINAL analogy was that off isn't a TV channel. And as Dude so kindly admitted,
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 04:59:54 PMyes you are (watching TV), you just aren't watching any channels.
Eh I think I'll waste my time doing something else. This topic is getting nowhere slowly.
if you want to say that then it's technically also impossible to prove a scientific law
Do explain?
But even if we can't 100% prove a scientific law, the evidence we have would bring us to about 80-90%, whereas religion sits at a solid 0%
[snip]
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 05:13:47 PMThe Qu'ran and the Bible share many similarities, that's true. But there are many fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity- my point was, it could just as well be Islam for all we know.
As I said before on tinychat, I did a study on it but unfortunately I didn't take notes. Maybe someday you can talk with my Dad (A genius) about it.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 05:13:47 PMGod says, in the Bible, that if you don't believe in him, along with many other petty crimes, you're sent off to eternal fire and damnation. Not really unconditional love.
Actually, it's says if you don't believe in him. It doesn't have anything to do with your crimes.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 05:13:47 PMEbola, sickness, pain and the like are set onto the rest of the world for generations to come because of one person's screwup? Seems pretty stupid to me.
Well, the curse came because of Adam and Eve. It was the Flood that truly ruined the Earth. Also before the Flood, life was much much easier. Again, It was the Flood that ruined the Earth not the Fall.....I know what you're gonna say next XD
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 05:15:31 PMAlso, to clear up the TV analogy.
The ORIGINAL analogy was that off isn't a TV channel. And as Dude so kindly admitted,
we never said it wasn't tho... Your analogy sucks anyway.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 05:19:38 PMDo explain?
But even if we can't 100% prove a scientific law, the evidence we have would bring us to about 80-90%, whereas religion sits at a solid 0%
that's what YOU think
hey olimar wanna play sm4sh
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 05:24:02 PMActually, it's says if you don't believe in him. It doesn't have anything to do with your crimes.
pretty sure that's just a Catholic scare tactic
Dude let's play smash
Head hurts too much sry maybe l8r
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 05:25:02 PMpretty sure that's just a Catholic scare tactic
I agree.....but Catholicism is a whole other topic XD
This is really unrelated but why does God have to be a man.
What do you mean?
I've been told that there's also a mother in heaven
I mean obviously I don't believe in God so it doesn't really matter to me, and I'm aware because of my religious education prior to rejecting Christianity that god isn't supposed to be any gender. So why does the Bible refer to god as "he" throughout
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 10, 2015, 05:52:25 PMI mean obviously I don't believe in God so it doesn't really matter to me, and I'm aware because of my religious education prior to rejecting Christianity that god isn't supposed to be any gender. So why does the Bible refer to god as "he" throughout
Why does the bible always refer to man(/woman)kind as "man?"
Idk I'm pretty sureGod is male, I've never heard of him being genderless, that just seems weird
Doesn't it seem weirder that your God only represents one gender tho
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 10, 2015, 05:59:26 PMDoesn't it seem weirder that your God only represents one gender tho
What's wrong with that?
I'm feeling like I should back out of this conversation tbh I just wanted to change the subject but it didn't do any good xD
haha
We don't need to change the subject haha. I'm actually really happy how this discussion has been going. No one is mad, there's no fighting or flaming, and no mods have locked it up :P
It's kind of a cultural instinct that humankind is governed patriarchally, which is an extension of God's male personification. And don't start throwing around feminist stuff at that because women are just as important as men; men are purposed to be the leaders of society, and women are purposed to be the protectors of society. And that's probably gonna start a whole other debate so I'd better back out now that I've said my piece.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 05:51:51 PMI've been told that there's also a mother in heaven
Um, could you be a bit more specific?
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 06:18:00 PMhaha
We don't need to change the subject haha. I'm actually really happy how this discussion has been going. No one is mad, there's no fighting or flaming, and no mods have locked it up :P
qft even if we've still been a bit passive aggressive at points.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 06:21:29 PMmen are purposed to be the leaders of society, and women are purposed to be the protectors of society.
holy shit stop stop stop what the fuck
yep this was what i was worried would happen
yeah I'm angry now so I'm just gonna stop talking what the actual fuck what the fuck do you mean you were worried this would happen you can't make a statement like that and not expect someone to call you out on it
But no I'm done I don't want to start a flame war
sorry and i dont blame you
I suppose I now see why there are not many girls on this site lmao
I don't really see how what Dudeman said was offensive in any way lol
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 06:21:29 PMmen are purposed to be the leaders of society, and women are purposed to be the protectors of society.
Well, yes and no. I don't think women shouldn't be leaders though. I don't mind if we have a woman President or a woman Governor etc.
Sexism is basically that women aren't allowed to do what men can which I think is stupid. Women should be able to do what Men can.....
however Men
can be better than Women at some things and Women can be better than Men at some things. It's not Women shouldn't be leaders or shouldn't be able to do what Men do but that they probably wouldn't do as good as a job as a man
but Men can't do some things as good as a Woman either. So it's not that Women are weaker or inferior to men or vise versa. All Men and Women are equal.
And I think everyone here agrees with me so there should be no problem :P
stahp before this turns into the sexism thread let's get back to does god exist i liked that conversation
holy shit
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 06:35:07 PMstahp before this turns into the sexism thread let's get back to does god exist i liked that conversation
I think you meant to say nurturers of society
For some clarification: The male Judeo-Christian god usually just referred to as "God" stems from the Jewish god Yahweh, who was the national of Israel(the kingdom, not the country). Also, according to the Old Testament there are many gods, but Yahweh commanded that the Israelites worship only him(my Bible knowledge is a bit rusty but its basically that).
Christians interpretted this to mean that there is only one god. But because this God, originally among many gods both male and female, happened to be male(plus, like, patriarchy and shit), it carried over into Christianity.
Everyone be friends pls
I'm assuming we're using this definition of faith, correct?
"belief that is not based on proof"
So, if by extension, I choose to only believe things that I have proof of, wouldn't that be the exact opposite. If you claim that denying something beyond the realm of proof is faith, well, guys I have a confession, I'm God. You can't disprove my claim since I can just respond to anything with "I'm omnipotent, I allowed that inconsistency to happen", thus anyone who doesn't believe me is doing so entirely out of faith. In fact, so much so to the point that it could be called it it's own religion. I'll name it "FireArrow is an idiot."
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 06:21:29 PMAnd don't start throwing around feminist stuff at that because women are just as important as men; men are purposed to be the leaders of society, and women are purposed to be the protectors of society.
There is no other reason people think that way other than our society being steeped in patriarchy. Stating things like that as facts is what causes people to throw around "feminist stuff."
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 06:34:25 PMSexism is basically that women aren't allowed to do what men can which I think is stupid. Women should be able to do what Men can.....however Men can be better than Women at some things and Women can be better than Men at some things. It's not Women shouldn't be leaders or shouldn't be able to do what Men do but that they probably wouldn't do as good as a job as a man but Men can't do some things as good as a Woman either. So it's not that Women are weaker or inferior to men or vise versa. All Men and Women are equal.
And I think everyone here agrees with me so there should be no problem :P
You can't take a generalization of a group of people and apply it to an individual. Sure, you can say "Men, on average, can carry larger loads than women." However that statement has absolutely no bearing on day to day life, because given any man, there would be plenty of woman who could carry larger loads. You also run into the problem of conflicting stereotypes. "Blondes are stupid." "People with glasses are smart." What about a blonde with glasses?
Fuck man, everyone is posting so fast. I like this topic, I'm studying ethics and religion as one of my major subjects atm. plus the fact that this topic was made by my favourite member on nsm shoutouts wariopiano :]
response @mlf shitting on Islam
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 05:06:27 PMWell it's not Allah because the Quran is based off of the Bible. The Bible was written first and not changed.
The Muslims follow the Quran because they believe that Muhammed was the last messenger/prophet of God and that he "corrected" the teachings of the Bible which according to Muhammed had been corrupted by man, and this is a really valid reason to believe in Islam. Things like the gender of God(like SFK just described) show that the bible isn't 100% the word of a god so it can easily be assumed that it was corrupted my mankind. Try not to make the entirety of Islam invalid because of frivolous reasoning like that in the future k thx :]
shoutouts yahoo user bye bye
Ironically, claiming that a god exists is just as frivolous as denying the existence of a god. Denying
the chance of knowledge(and not the higher being itself!) of the existence of a "god" is known as agnosticism, because there is no indication that we could ever confirm the existence of a god and universalize its existence to a fact. However, agnosticism also suffers from the same argument of how you can't know that you can't know, meaning you can't know that you can't know that a god exists or not.
(
tl;dr, we don't know if you can or can't know that you can't know that you can or can't know that a higher being exists.)
that is legitimately one of the best sentences i've ever written call me socrates
@Dudeman don't be sexist in the future, there aren't gender roles for what anyone should or shouldn't do -_-
but but but
men and women are different
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 06:44:32 PMI'm assuming we're using this definition of faith, correct?
"belief that is not based on proof"
So, if by extension, I choose to only believe things that I have proof of, wouldn't that be the exact opposite. If you claim that denying something beyond the realm of proof is faith, well, guys I have a confession, I'm God. You can't disprove my claim since I can just respond to anything with "I'm omnipotent, I allowed that inconsistency to happen", thus anyone who doesn't believe me is doing so entirely out of faith. In fact, so much so to the point that it could be called it it's own religion. I'll name it "FireArrow is an idiot."
The definition of faith I prefer is "belief in what cannot be seen."
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 10, 2015, 05:59:26 PMDoesn't it seem weirder that your God only represents one gender tho
I'm not quite sure if a god would have a sex, but I think that His image or form would be closer to a human male, and that's why it's easier to just refer to God as "he." Like, in the book of Genesis it's said that Adam was made in God's image first, and then Eve was made later off of Adam. So just off of that, because Adam was made in God's likeness, God would be closer to a man than a woman (and also why God would be closer to a human than like a giraffe or an owl or something).
There's also another passage of Genesis which talks about this dude named Jacob, who wrestles with this man, and then the crazy plot twist is that the guy Jacob was fighting actually turned out to be God (sorry for the spoilers). So there's an example of God taking a physical form on Earth, and closer resembling a human male than anything else.
So yeah, just easier to identify God as a "he," with maybe language limitations like no proper gender-neutral pronouns.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 05:06:27 PMWell it's not Allah because the Quran is based off of the Bible. The Bible was written first and not changed.
Not a sect. God doesn't hate or like someone more than someone else regardless of what they did or what "sect" they're apart of. He loves all. He'll accept into anyone into Heaven as long as they accept the free gift of salvation and believe that Jesus is Lord. Simple as that. :P
And Ebola, sickness, pain, war, etc. is man's fault not God's.
And enough with the tv lol
This is really messed up and I'm sure you can't promote your own religion like that and not get into an argument. Here are some facts:
1) The Bible was not written first.
2) It has changed, one fact is based on how you're not reading it in Greek right now. I'm sure there was SOME editing in the past 1000 years (one example: some confusion about translating "tail" and "penis" up to the point where some people are confused which body part it's referring to).
3) Viruses/bacteria trying to survive and pass off their genes are not because of people. Pain and immune related stuff comes with the freakin' biology. War comes from people being greedy, intolerant and stupid (say, shouldn't that be an issue?)
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 06:21:29 PMIt's kind of a cultural instinct that humankind is governed patriarchally, which is an extension of God's male personification. And don't start throwing around feminist stuff at that because women are just as important as men; men are purposed to be the leaders of society, and women are purposed to be the protectors of society. And that's probably gonna start a whole other debate so I'd better back out now that I've said my piece.Um, could you be a bit more specific?qft even if we've still been a bit passive aggressive at points.
Sorry but there is no way you can actually back this up. Socially it doesn't make sense, many societies didn't end up treating women like cattle and even offered them some leadership in society (such as Native Americans). Men didn't always have the better bacon. Back in prehistoric times, only 1 man had a chance to reproduce for every 17 women. (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwip-L-U-p_HAhVLHD4KHZ76Cyw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psmag.com%2Fnature-and-technology%2F17-to-1-reproductive-success&ei=EVrJVemrCMu4-AGe9a_gAg&usg=AFQjCNFKBLsA2mUCuUOOf5YdmtvqgBIwKA&sig2=3r0AO1pRr-CIURKMdsFPNQ) The lucky ones (lol) had to work their asses off to show off for this but this really screwed up genetic diversity. As we speak, the Y chromosome is degrading with every generation, and the genes will degrade to almost nothing in 5 million years that no male offspring can be born (still a theory, 5 million years is based on scientists' measurement of gene degradation, not saying there's no hope for you all). The leftover women will have to deal with the society's problems by themselves.
Point: Men are not biologically favored as much as you think, the leadership stuff is a product of changing societies when humans started growing crops.
Good luck asking someone to protect you after that.
Technically since god has to be a perfect being, god has to have an infinite amount of sexes and genders, including no sex or no gender at all
I was trying to find a proper response .gif on my computer and found this. Now that I have been ninja'd, it feels even more appropriate.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fuvexg8o.gif&hash=cc279981c57a1e729b6628776a55b48cccfe0788)
edit: Ninja'd again
How can you abandon a thread you were never in?
Also waddle, I'm a proud NSM kiddo, I didn't understand a word of that >_>
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 07:07:48 PMThe definition of faith I prefer is "belief in what cannot be seen."
Except that is not a definition of faith. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith)
Faith has both a secular and a religious meaning, the religious meaning cannot apply to atheism in any way. The secular definition is the one (I'm assuming) Olimar and co. are trying to tag onto atheism.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on August 10, 2015, 07:25:14 PMTechnically since god has to be a perfect being, god has to have an infinite amount of sexes and genders, including no sex or no gender at all
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fen.futurama%2Fimages%2F2%2F22%2FGodentity.jpg%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20090524190124&hash=e25a59784230aaba5fdded4477b334f812ec29c0)
What I've thought of all along :P
Why would God need to have biological traits?
Because...like were human so like...God needs to be human too. Preferably a man with a beard with a fondness for white robes.
But I'll settle for a chunky dude with a elephant head.
sfk you make it sound like some guy sat in a room and made up religion
Seeing as there have been thousands of religions throughout history, and they also happen to be a very good way of controlling people and getting them to give you money, that very well could've been the case ::)
As for the whole "what gender is God" debate, think about this. Who wrote the bible? And who translated and interpreted it? For a long time, it was largely men. Hence why they would refer to God as a male; to keep the trend of suppressing women going.
I'm not a super crazy feminist, but this seemed pretty obvious to me.
Or the fact that it's said he made man in his own image, before woman. aaaaAAAND I'm back!
Lol jk just thought I'd chime in once more.
Again, what it says. Which very likely could've been tampered with to help the cause of the white man, but that's all speculation.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 07:21:27 PM1) The Bible was not written first.
I mean as the first book used for religions. Not as any book ever.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 07:21:27 PM2) It has changed, one fact is based on how you're not reading it in Greek right now. I'm sure there was SOME editing in the past 1000 years (one example: some confusion about translating "tail" and "penis" up to the point where some people are confused which body part it's referring to).
That's called a translation. The King James Version was translated from the Greek as accurately as possible. I'm not saying this version is perfect which it's not because Greek is a very different language than English
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 07:21:27 PM3) Viruses/bacteria trying to survive and pass off their genes are not because of people. Pain and immune related stuff comes with the freakin' biology. War comes from people being greedy, intolerant and stupid (say, shouldn't that be an issue?)
Originally, it was because of people. There was no disease etc. before the Fall.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 07:21:27 PMPoint: Men are not biologically favored as much as you think, the leadership stuff is a product of changing societies when humans started growing crops.
I said what I think, not what the World thinks.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 08:09:40 PMAgain, what it says. Which very likely could've been tampered with to help the cause of the white man, but that's all speculation.
So...you're saying the ancient documents on record written in Hebrew that say the exact thing have been tampered with to help the cause of white man. Fascinating.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 08:25:30 PMSo...you're saying the ancient documents on record written in Hebrew that say the exact thing have been tampered with to help the cause of white man. Fascinating.
Exactly what I was thinking.
It's not the first religious text either, lol. Far from it.
For one, Judaism's text, the Torah, faaar predates the Bible, and the Bible copys the Torah for basically the entire old testament.
There's a sh*t ton of texts that predate the Bible. Look up the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 08:25:30 PMSo...you're saying the ancient documents on record written in Hebrew that say the exact thing have been tampered with to help the cause of white man. Fascinating.
I was speculating, lol. Just a thought, seeing as it's happened with plenty of other important documents throughout history, as recent as the Constitution with the Civil War.
You do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.
And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though
In layman's terms, Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam. Don't make it like Christianity is anything special compared to other religions.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:33:56 PMYou do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.
And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though
The Torah came long before the Bible.
Except teachers didn't write it, it's historical documentation, lol.
Gee, I wonder why we're trying to get rid of a book like the Bible.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:33:56 PMYou do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.
And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though
How can you say the Old testament withstood the test of time if people now go by the new testament? Unless of course you condone stoning, slavery, rape, and all the other ridiculous stuff in the old testament.
MLF, the Bible is far from the first religious text. And it it the single most edited document in the history of mankind. You have never read anything close to the original document. Nobody has. It has been changed, translated, re-translated, interpreted, and misinterpreted countless times. Not to mention half the book is taken from other religions, Sumerian mythology and its derivatives and Zoroastrianism being the most prevalent.
Religion by itself isn't that bad, or maybe spirituality is the a better word. Jesus preached about the necessity to love others, be kind, and love God more than the need to follow traditions and customs, specifically those of the Pharisees. He had a lot of good ideas, I think. But he was incredibly anti-church/organized religion. Ironic, right? And people fucked it up by tacking on a resurrection myth and eventually creating the exact opposite of what Jesus was preaching about.
^The same could be said about some forms of Buddhism.
Actually part of the point of Jesus' ministry on the earth was setting up an organized church
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 06:44:32 PMIf you claim that denying something beyond the realm of proof is faith, well, guys I have a confession, I'm God. You can't disprove my claim since I can just respond to anything with "I'm omnipotent, I allowed that inconsistency to happen", thus anyone who doesn't believe me is doing so entirely out of faith. In fact, so much so to the point that it could be called it it's own religion. I'll name it "FireArrow is an idiot."
Pastafarianism is my favorite example for this. PROVE THAT A GIANT SPAGHETTI MONSTER DIDN'T MAKE EVERYTHING, I DARE YOU
Quote from: Dudeman on August 10, 2015, 07:07:48 PMThe definition of faith I prefer is "belief in what cannot be seen."
Technically this doesn't disprove FA's claim in the slightest. Can you actually observe FA's omnipotency? The fact that he (probably, idk I've never met him) has a physical existence on this earth doesn't change that fact. Faith in Jesus as the messiah follows a similar principle; he was definitely here at one point. There is enough empirical evidence to support that. But to believe the accounts on his identity as the son of God is what takes faith.
Here's my spiel, guys. I was raised protestant, and am still Christian to a certain extent (though honestly it's probably closer to agnosticism at this point). But I believe in a rational and just God more than I do in some unverified, widely variable scripture written by imperfect men on his account. The probability that certain parts were included just as a reflection of each writer's personal views, or of the views of the culture in which they were written (because who's going to follow a religion that doesn't make at least
some concessions to what you already believe?), is just too high for me to accept them as truth.
When it comes down to it, I don't really care whether somebody believes in God or not. And unless God is a narcissistic prick, he/she/they/it shouldn't care, either. Here's what I do care about:
1. People should not expect their faith to be forced onto others, or treated as fact by the rest of society. and
2. People should only follow their faith insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of, or cause considerable suffering to, others, just as they should only oppose practices against their faith if those practices do the same.This applies in multiple ways:
-If your beliefs contradict scientific findings, that's fine. Just don't expect your beliefs to be considered on the same level, or to limit advancement in that field.
-If a cultural practice such as gay marriage opposes your faith,
that's fine. And if you are a pastor with such beliefs, I believe that you should have the right to refuse to oversee such weddings, so long as they have another feasible option available. However, this does not mean that we should prevent the practice itself on a legal basis. It would incur no plausible detriments to society. It would not infringe upon anyone else's rights, nor would it incur any plausible detriments to anyone. As such, it is
purely based on faith, something that cannot be expected to be forced onto others at the cost of their rights.
-If someone believes differently than you, you have no reason to treat them differently, unless they are using that belief in opposition to rules 1 or 2, in which case it is
only acceptable if intended to rectify said behavior (and of course, without infringing upon rights or incurring considerable suffering, yourself). I want to stress,
this applies equally to both sides. Mistreatment of another human being is wrong, regardless of what they believe. (That's not to say there shouldn't be legal ramifications for anything, but in this case I interpret "cruel and unusual" to mean anything excessive to solving the problem.)
This isn't a perfect theory by any stretch of the imagination. For example, it still leaves "rights" as pretty ambiguous, as when is one right infringing upon another, instead of the other way around? For this, my interpretation is that "intrapersonal rights" (i.e. things that affect you and noone else) take priority over "interpersonal rights" (i.e. rights you have regarding your interactions with others). But that's in the realm of legal theorists, and is not the point of this spiel. My point is:
People should have the right to their own faith, and should respect the different faiths of others. But for this to happen, there has to be a middle ground for societal interaction when these faiths are in opposition. And the only rational solution to this is to have the middle ground be
that which is empirically observable. It is okay to believe differently than these observations, but the moment that you try to use your faith as grounds to disprove, or even worse, ignore, these things, you are
misusing your faith.
Is this holy scripture from the sect of George Foremanism
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 08:34:02 PMIn layman's terms, Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Christianity -> Islam. Don't make it like Christianity is anything special compared to other religions.
The only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God. I don't care what you call yourself as long as you are saved and have a relationship with God :p
There isn't really anything "special" about it.
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 08:36:14 PMHow can you say the Old testament withstood the test of time if people now go by the new testament? Unless of course you condone stoning, slavery, rape, and all the other ridiculous stuff in the old testament.
It says right in the Bible that when Jesus came back and died for our sins that he fulfilled the Old Testament Law. In other words, that the New Testament Church (anyone wanting to follow God after the crucifixion) did not have to follow the Old Testament Law. That's why there is a new law in the New Testament.
Quote from: SuperFireKirby on August 10, 2015, 08:38:50 PMBut he was incredibly anti-church/organized religion. Ironic, right? And people fucked it up by tacking on a resurrection myth and eventually creating the exact opposite of what Jesus was preaching about.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me.
Oh boy.....Fierce is here.
Quote from: FierceDeity on August 10, 2015, 08:41:08 PM-snip-
Honestly, this is the truth about religion and atheism right here, and he explained it perfectly. Not surprised in the slightest because it's fierce.
ggwp everyone go home
Nice explanation, Fierce.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:23:47 PMI mean as the first book used for religions. Not as any book ever.
That's called a translation. The King James Version was translated from the Greek as accurately as possible. I'm not saying this version is perfect which it's not because Greek is a very different language than English
Originally, it was because of people. There was no disease etc. before the Fall.
I said what I think, not what the World thinks.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:43:44 PMThe only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God. I don't care what you call yourself as long as you are saved and have a relationship with God :p
There isn't really anything "special" about it.
It says right in the Bible that when Jesus came back and died for our sins that he fulfilled the Old Testament Law. In other words, that the New Testament Church (anyone wanting to follow God after the crucifixion) did not have to follow the Old Testament Law. That's why there is a new law in the New Testament.
Honestly, this makes no sense to me.
Oh boy.....Fierce is here.
You really need to stop making it sound like everything revolves around Christianity. Or better yet, you should stop saying that everything revolves around
your literal interpretation of Christianity. Look up "circular reasoning."
The stuff I said is at least based on scientific and archaelogical research.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 08:55:01 PMYou really need to stop making it sound like everything revolves around Christianity. Or better yet, you should stop saying that everything revolves around your literal interpretation of Christianity.
I'm not :p
lol
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 08:55:01 PMI said is at least based on scientific and archaelogical research.
Of course.....
Dude, come on:
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:43:44 PMThe only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God.
So every religion is secretly Christianity, it's just that no one knows it?
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 09:01:43 PMDude, come on:
So every religion is secretly Christianity, it's just that no one knows it?
oh come on that's not even close to what he said. Please.
well it can be interpreted that way so...
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 09:04:49 PMoh come on that's not even close to what he said. Please.
He said Christianity is having a relationship with god, nothing more nothing less.
Every modern religion with a deity requires a relationship with god.
Transitive property of logic (if a = b and b = c, then a = c) would dictate:
Christianity = Every religion. To make this a fallacy, there would have to be more to Christianity than just having a relationship with god, making MLF's statement untrue.
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 09:08:42 PMHe said Christianity is having a relationship with god, nothing more nothing less.
Every modern religion with a deity requires a relationship with god.
Transitive property of logic (if a = b and b = c, then a = c) would dictate:
Christianity = Every religion. To make this a fallacy, there would have to be more to Christianity than just having a relationship with god, making MLF's statement untrue.
There really isn't much more to Christianity than having a relationship with God.....
Now for the stats:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
(Yes, using stats is very low XD I'm tired)
According to this^ Christianity rules in popularity. You may think that everything doesn't revolve around Christianity ( I don't either. It revolves around God) but it is the most popular religion in the world.
Anyway, I'm gonna end it here. I'm super tired and need sleep :p
I just wanna say thanks for respecting my/our opinions, guys :)
I remember a few years ago when we got into little discussions they always ended in hurt feelings, flame wars, and mod locking XD
Thanks :)
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 09:14:29 PMNow for the stats:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
(Yes, using stats is very low XD I'm tired)
According to this^ Christianity rules in popularity. You may think that everything doesn't revolve around Christianity ( I don't either. It revolves around God) but it is the most popular religion in the world.
what is the point of this
Xbox is popular but that doesn't make it the best
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 09:17:38 PMwhat is the point of this
Xbox is popular but that doesn't make it the best
*high fives*
Quote from: FireArrow on August 10, 2015, 09:08:42 PMHe said Christianity is having a relationship with god, nothing more nothing less.
Every modern religion with a deity requires a relationship with god.
Transitive property of logic (if a = b and b = c, then a = c) would dictate:
Christianity = Every religion. To make this a fallacy, there would have to be more to Christianity than just having a relationship with god, making MLF's statement untrue.
My observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 09:17:38 PMwhat is the point of this
Xbox is popular but that doesn't make it the best
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 09:14:29 PMstats is very low XD I'm tired
Wait.....XBOX ISNT THE BEST?
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 09:22:32 PMMy observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???
I've studied a lot of stuff in my day about religion and whatnot. I came to the conclusion about Christianity on my own.
And I can remember when you couldn't look past what you knew about a certain something too *cough*
guys wait we were doing so well
I prefer the philosophy that God is a fourth dimensional being of sorts who exists beyond our narrow concept of reality. As an extension of that I have no issue with the idea that he made the universe. That said, and if that is the case, then it's doubtful he has a vested interest in anything happening on this little rock we call Earth.
Think about it, the universe is over 13 billion years old, yet the average human won't even live a full hundred years. God, by necessity of most definitions of an omnipotent God, would have to exist beyond our concept of time and relate more to the time scale of the whole universe. Since we cannot readily percieve such a vast stretch of time, let's condense the entire history of the universe into a single year, the Cosmic Calendar. If the Big Bang is the first second of Jan 1st, then the first humans (as in the first ones to use tools) came into being Dec 22, 22:24. To put that into closer context, the US has barely been around for a second. The average human life lasts for 1/4 of a second. That's less than the time it takes to blink.
Secondly, we're all on a rock circling an average star, in a typical galaxy, adrift in a seemingly infinite sea of other galaxies we call the Observable Universe. On top of that we only exist for a fraction of a second, and we're not even the most populous life form on the planet. If God is out there watching, none of us are around long enough for him to notice. On top of that, if he is omnipotent, why would he even begin to care about what we do? The Universe may very well be infinite, yet he chooses some random rock to focus on?
He may have designed and created the universe, but why would you mess with a well designed machine when there's nothing wrong with it? There is a great order to the universe that we are slowly starting to understand, and if there us a God he will reveal himself in the math and science that governs our universe.
It's a nice comfort thinking there's something out there watching over us, and there may very be. But our existence is so brief and feeble that it begs the question why something like God would even care? So he can judge us and take us to Heaven? I mean life here could be paradise, but there are so many conflicting world views that it renders that very improbable when factoring in the nature of human reasoning and perception. So he's just there to offer a reward for being good people? If that's the case then what's the point of even making the universe? If the universe has an ultimate fate, that he would know since he's omnipotent, then it makes the whole idea of Heaven flawed as it's fundamentally preordained who goes to heaven. And if that's the case then it's not a reward, it's a pending payment for just existing.
And if that's the case it renders the need for a system of faith, especially ones where such a thing is not only promised but a core center if belief, not only meaningless in how they go about it, but utterly irrelevant in terms of which one is "correct". At the end of the day I do believe in the possibility of God as the grand Architect or Engineer of this universe, but thats about it.
This wraps up this edition of Maestro PhilosophyTM
Yay, a theory that builds a hypothesis from evidence rather than evidence made to support a preexisting conclusion.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 09:26:27 PMWait.....XBOX ISNT THE BEST?
I've studied a lot of stuff in my day about religion and whatnot. I came to the conclusion about Christianity on my own.
And I can remember when you couldn't look past what you knew about a certain something too *cough*
No, I'm saying that you refuse to consider any possibility you could be wrong, or there's more to what you've been told. There is no point in debating or discussion if you won't consider what other people say and respectfully defend yourself with facts or logic.
Oh look here, trying to escalate it with a personal attack, huh?
@Maestro
Sounds like a mix of Neil deGrasse Tyson and the priest that taught my philosophy/logic class with a bit of that crazier guy that taught my other philosophy class. Maybe with some of the founding myth of Hyrule too. I think of all creation myths that has to be one of my favorites, even if it's not the most creative :P
The one thing I'm mad about here is you guys twisting MLF's words.
QuoteHe said Christianity is having a relationship with god, nothing more nothing less.
Every modern religion with a deity requires a relationship with god.
Transitive property of logic (if a = b and b = c, then a = c) would dictate:
Christianity = Every religion. To make this a fallacy, there would have to be more to Christianity than just having a relationship with god, making MLF's statement untrue.
He said Christianity is having a relationship with god, nothing more nothing less.
Every modern religion with a deity requires a relationship with god.
this much is true. What you're making up is that Christianity is all religions. He never said that.
QuoteThe only thing Christianity is is a relationship with God.
All Christianity is a relationship with god. Not all relationships with god are Christianity.
so stop.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 09:47:54 PMAll Christianity is a relationship with god. Not all relationships with god are Christianity.
ok this is what he
should have said instead in order to not create confusion.
but he didn't, so wahhh
Let me sum up your post noc:
1/5 = 20%
20% = .2
this much is true. What you're making up is that 1/5 = .2. He never said that.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 10, 2015, 09:47:54 PMAll Christianity is a relationship with god. Not all relationships with god are Christianity.
So you mean to say that Christianity is a christian relationship with god that entails christian customs beyond just merely having a relationship with god?
No, he's saying like...
All men are people, but not all people are men
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 09:22:32 PMMy observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 09:26:27 PMI can remember when you couldn't look past what you knew about a certain something too *cough*
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 09:44:50 PMOh look here, trying to escalate it with a personal attack, huh?
Can't we just agree that everything in this exchange was unnecessarily inflammatory?
Tread lightly, people.
Quote from: Dude on August 10, 2015, 09:57:49 PMNo, he's saying like...
All men are people, but not all people are men
That's exactly the point. All religions are a relationship with god, the difference between religions is the means of acquiring said relationship. This is not what MLF meant in his post.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs18.postimg.org%2Fixzcv3sg9%2Fimage.jpg&hash=6ab9371c57a15e6b2c15e60d198e3758ee039980) (http://postimage.org/)
Is it time to start shitposting? Oh boy!
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F0d407ca851fcb622d24e1aafa7a09dc6%2Ftumblr_nrpqbuqeXb1qe9g4mo1_1280.jpg&hash=38569ad5e804ed2b372448fcbb36276f35632e10)
I think what olimar is trying to say is:
LET US END THIS CEASELESS DEBATE, LEST IT FURTHER TEAR US APART AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE ONE TRUE GOD
LET US PRAY (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=1969.msg272928#msg272928)
FOREMAN, WHO ART IN TEXAS
HALLOWED BE THY GRILL
THY T-BONES COME, NOT QUITE WELL-DONE,
ON EARTH AS THEY ARE IN HEAVEN
GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY STEAK,
AND FORGIVE US OUR BURNT MEALS, AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO BURN MEALS AGAINST US
AND LEAD US NOT INTO FROZEN MEALS, BUT DELIVER US FROM BLANDNESS
FOR YOURS IS THE COOKOUT, AND THE SWAPPABLE GRILL PLATES, AND THE FAT-REDUCING MODEL FOREVER
AMEN
Minion miku > George Foreman
Is there anything Miku hasn't been turned into? I like the sakura one nendoroid but I doubt I'll ever get it at a good price because of fanboys.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 10, 2015, 08:33:56 PMYou do know the Torah is the Old Testament right? And the stuff that predates the Bible is probably crap that false teachers wrote back in the day. Haven't you noticed that ever since the beginning people have always been trying to cover up the Bible and get rid of it? The Bible has stood the test of time and isn't going anywhere.
And for the record, there is a 5th gospel that never made it to the Bible (one written by Judas Iscariot) that tells lies about Jesus and says a lot of crap.
I heard this somewhere I don't think it's a reliable source though
Quote from: FierceDeity on August 10, 2015, 09:58:50 PMCan't we just agree that everything in this exchange was unnecessarily inflammatory?
Point.
That and a lot of previous ones, so don't make it sound like I'm the one feeding the flames. I think it starts when dirt from some previous topic that has nothing to do with this one is brought in just to start a fuss.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 10, 2015, 09:28:46 PMI prefer the philosophy that God is a fourth dimensional being of sorts who exists beyond our narrow concept of reality. As an extension of that I have no issue with the idea that he made the universe. That said, and if that is the case, then it's doubtful he has a vested interest in anything happening on this little rock we call Earth.
Think about it, the universe is over 13 billion years old, yet the average human won't even live a full hundred years. God, by necessity of most definitions of an omnipotent God, would have to exist beyond our concept of time and relate more to the time scale of the whole universe. Since we cannot readily percieve such a vast stretch of time, let's condense the entire history of the universe into a single year, the Cosmic Calendar. If the Big Bang is the first second of Jan 1st, then the first humans (as in the first ones to use tools) came into being Dec 22, 22:24. To put that into closer context, the US has barely been around for a second. The average human life lasts for 1/4 of a second. That's less than the time it takes to blink.
Secondly, we're all on a rock circling an average star, in a typical galaxy, adrift in a seemingly infinite sea of other galaxies we call the Observable Universe. On top of that we only exist for a fraction of a second, and we're not even the most populous life form on the planet. If God is out there watching, none of us are around long enough for him to notice. On top of that, if he is omnipotent, why would he even begin to care about what we do? The Universe may very well be infinite, yet he chooses some random rock to focus on?
He may have designed and created the universe, but why would you mess with a well designed machine when there's nothing wrong with it? There is a great order to the universe that we are slowly starting to understand, and if there us a God he will reveal himself in the math and science that governs our universe.
It's a nice comfort thinking there's something out there watching over us, and there may very be. But our existence is so brief and feeble that it begs the question why something like God would even care? So he can judge us and take us to Heaven? I mean life here could be paradise, but there are so many conflicting world views that it renders that very improbable when factoring in the nature of human reasoning and perception. So he's just there to offer a reward for being good people? If that's the case then what's the point of even making the universe? If the universe has an ultimate fate, that he would know since he's omnipotent, then it makes the whole idea of Heaven flawed as it's fundamentally preordained who goes to heaven. And if that's the case then it's not a reward, it's a pending payment for just existing.
And if that's the case it renders the need for a system of faith, especially ones where such a thing is not only promised but a core center if belief, not only meaningless in how they go about it, but utterly irrelevant in terms of which one is "correct". At the end of the day I do believe in the possibility of God as the grand Architect or Engineer of this universe, but thats about it.
This wraps up this edition of Maestro PhilosophyTM
I like this thought, but it begs the question- why the God of Catholicism? Why not Allah, or Brahmin, or any God of any religion throughout history?
I'd be interested to hear your take.
The entire idea is that it's irrelevent. Said God has no bearing on a faith system, or rather the system of religion is fundamentally irrelevant to said existence of a God.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 10:25:42 PMThat and a lot of previous ones, so don't make it sound like I'm the one feeding the flames. I think it starts when dirt from some previous topic that has nothing to do with this one is brought in just to start a fuss.
You're missing the point. If one's to claim the moral high ground, a personal attack of any kind is unacceptable. It's not constructive to the argument in any way, shape, or form, so I can't imagine any morally sound reason to do so, regardless of how much better or worse his response may have been.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 10, 2015, 10:46:50 PMThe entire idea is that it's irrelevent. Said God has no bearing on a faith system, or rather the system of religion is fundamentally irrelevant to said existence of a God.
So wouldn't you fit more under the label of a Deist than a Roman Catholic?
In a sense, but I haven't considered myself Catholic for years. Besides, nothing in my above philosophy indicated or was based on a single religion's view of God.
Actually, I'd call myself more Unconcerned than Deist. God's existence has no bearing on mine.
FIERCEDEITY HAS EARNED HIS SALVATION. LET THIS WRATH COME MERCELESSLY UPON THE REST OF YOU:
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs16.postimg.org%2F96u1d4nlx%2Fimage.jpg&hash=5659cf664063da669b51a6a0462287ecd15f897b) (http://postimage.org/)
Quote from: MaestroUGC on August 10, 2015, 10:46:50 PMThe entire idea is that it's irrelevent. Said God has no bearing on a faith system, or rather the system of religion is fundamentally irrelevant to said existence of a God.
God is pretty challenging to talk about in a room full of college students, even...The epistemology professor/priest just sums it up with "that which has no first cause" which is what you're saying as well? That would be the logic approach to the question. Notice the lack of gender pronouns in that description...
Futurama again, yahh. ("Who built you?" "I have always been.")
@FD
I'm not claiming a moral high ground. I'm pointing out how there are actually ways you can debate and discuss, than to insult a bunch of religions and claim a single answer (how is it debating if you walk into a room and think you're right?)
And these productive ways of which you speak do not include openly implying that your opponent is obstinate and brainwashed.
Quote from: Ruto on August 10, 2015, 09:22:32 PMMy observation is that he can't look past what he's been told about Christianity and he doesn't realize it. What is that called again???
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs4.postimg.org%2Fwwjfreful%2Fimage.jpg&hash=a3f6f968b50a25d87cbe5b955b044eb30c7846e1) (http://postimage.org/)
You guys were doing so well.
I'd like to go to sleep and not come back to a flaming wasteland. Let's see how this goes.
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs23.postimg.org%2Ffxwkgz6a3%2Fimage.jpg&hash=7cbc0cb00c07f762a45ca6642f174a6c25f7b614) (http://postimage.org/)
I'm a Mormon, and I've always enjoyed a mix of science and religion (not that every Mormon feels that way). If something seems supernatural (Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, or Moses parting the Red Sea), I believe that it's either A) science that we have not discovered yet, or B) God working in a higher law that goes beyond our level of observable science.
My reasoning: if God is omnipotent, then He has all power. If He has all power, he can break any law that we observe. However, being a God of order, he binds Himself to laws so that He may be a perfect Judge over us. His breaking of our observable laws are within bounds that He set before we came into existence. This is my explanation concerning disease, war, and everything "wrong" in the world. God has the power to stop all of these things, but He won't because it wouldn't be fair to those that came before us. Our free will is our greatest gift. It is also our greatest curse. Most of these things are the direct result of human stupidity. Others, such as disease, are the result of life just being life. Bacteria wants to grow and thrive just as much as we do. Darwin says that the strongest will win (not in those exact words, but whatever). Lions eat zebra. We eat pigs and cows. Bacteria grows because that's what bacteria does. And viruses. And whatever else.
Is God happy that these things happen? I don't believe so. But he allows it for His own reasons. I believe that he wants us to learn from these experiences. I believe that he wants us to gain knowledge and wisdom from our struggles. But that's just me. :)
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fwm2v8i6n3%2Fimage.jpg&hash=6c07aa3fd32727ab9ca247208c208975f0208b04) (http://postimage.org/)
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 11:43:33 PM(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fwm2v8i6n3%2Fimage.jpg&hash=6c07aa3fd32727ab9ca247208c208975f0208b04) (http://postimage.org/)
Making this my computer wallpaper ;D
"Science says ---" who is science
"the bible says " what is a bible
"picture quote even though the picture is right above it" yeah this picture is so great that we probably actually need it three times in a row.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 10, 2015, 11:43:33 PM(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs17.postimg.org%2Fwm2v8i6n3%2Fimage.jpg&hash=6c07aa3fd32727ab9ca247208c208975f0208b04) (http://postimage.org/)
Took me a good hour to read through all this garbage. You guys are all ridiculous.
It was a nice discussion (for the most part) to which fierce ended elegantly (I don't see anyone disagreeing with him.) I have absolutely no idea why you guys are shaming this, are you somehow on a superior level of maturity where critical thinking about touchy subjects is wrong? Can you not handle someone disagreeing with you without going "dun insult muh sacred untouchable religon/science." Go make fun of YouTube comments or something.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on August 10, 2015, 11:21:18 PMI'm a Mormon, and I've always enjoyed a mix of science and religion (not that every Mormon feels that way). If something seems supernatural (Jesus walking on water, feeding 5000, or Moses parting the Red Sea), I believe that it's either A) science that we have not discovered yet, or B) God working in a higher law that goes beyond our level of observable science.
My reasoning: if God is omnipotent, then He has all power. If He has all power, he can break any law that we observe. However, being a God of order, he binds Himself to laws so that He may be a perfect Judge over us. His breaking of our observable laws are within bounds that He set before we came into existence. This is my explanation concerning disease, war, and everything "wrong" in the world. God has the power to stop all of these things, but He won't because it wouldn't be fair to those that came before us. Our free will is our greatest gift. It is also our greatest curse. Most of these things are the direct result of human stupidity. Others, such as disease, are the result of life just being life. Bacteria wants to grow and thrive just as much as we do. Darwin says that the strongest will win (not in those exact words, but whatever). Lions eat zebra. We eat pigs and cows. Bacteria grows because that's what bacteria does. And viruses. And whatever else.
Is God happy that these things happen? I don't believe so. But he allows it for His own reasons. I believe that he wants us to learn from these experiences. I believe that he wants us to gain knowledge and wisdom from our struggles. But that's just me. :)
What do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.
Other than that I don't really have an qualms with what you said, most of it makes sense and doesn't try to directly defy the empirical evidence fierce was talking about.
I thought this friendly discussion was over last night
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 09:34:56 AMWhat do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.
Under the assumption that experience only exists in this life, your argument that "infant mortality is unfair" would be correct. However, I believe that we existed before this life, and that we will exist after this life. In both cases, we gain experiences that prepare us for eternity. In my belief, gaining a
body is an essential step in our eternal progression, but gaining
experiences in that body is not. It's more like a bonus, in a sense. So not having those experiences, while not ideal, is not the end of the world, per se. Every opportunity that a child (that dies prematurely) loses will be given to them at a later time.
I should also mention that I'm completely against the idea of unbaptized children going to Hell. There may be people here that believe that, and I'm fine with that, but I'm against the idea entirely. Just throwing that out there. :P
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 09:34:56 AMIt was a nice discussion (for the most part) to which fierce ended elegantly (I don't see anyone disagreeing with him.) I have absolutely no idea why you guys are shaming this, are you somehow on a superior level of maturity where critical thinking about touchy subjects is wrong? Can you not handle someone disagreeing with you without going "dun insult muh sacred untouchable religon/science." Go make fun of YouTube comments or something.
I actually do disagree with some stuff he said, mostly for his use of logical fallacies (not just him). It's just long and I have better things to do than to go through each point, but I might if I finish this thing I'm working on faster than expected. Some of you are better at critical thinking than others, I'll say that.
I don't think science is sacred, but it's harder to dispute things like genetics. I don't see how you can use in an argument something that's incorrect to begin with, whether you use logic (you'd draw a wrong conclusion) or it simply never happened.
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 09:34:56 AMWhat do you think of infant mortality? You can't exactly gain knowledge and wisdom from passing at 2 days old. I suppose you could say the reason that baby existed was as death fodder to help the parents grow as people, but that sounds really unfair for the baby.
I find that this is a problem with more than just babies/fetuses. People think that knowledge is all in one place, and it isn't. Can I complain that you're using the same religious source to support a religious idea? Sure, it's called circular reasoning and it's a fallacy and not a sound defense. Keep doing it, and throwing some intolerance and plain ignorance out there and it gets really annoying.
An interesting thing I read in the Japanese culture and history exhibit at the AMNH was that the Japanese (probably before its modernization) believed that during the first month of a newborn's life, it doesn't exactly have a soul. During that time, there is a struggle in which a soul is actually trying to latch onto the baby. Also, in the Middle Ages, it wasn't a crime to abort a baby before it starts kicking. No one called it an abortion. The herbs were just to make you have your period back.
@Brawler, in that context I can't disagree with you. Thanks for the explanation.
Quote from: Ruto on August 11, 2015, 02:45:02 PMI actually do disagree with some stuff he said, mostly for his use of logical fallacies (not just him). It's just long and I have better things to do than to go through each point, but I might if I finish this thing I'm working on faster than expected. Some of you are better at critical thinking than others, I'll say that.
I'd be curious to see what you see wrong with what he said, though I think either way his conclusion is sound.
QuoteI don't think science is sacred, but it's harder to dispute things like genetics. I don't see how you can use in an argument something that's incorrect to begin with, whether you use logic (you'd draw a wrong conclusion) or it simply never happened.
This wasn't directed at you, I was including both religion in science to make my statement neutral. There are some idiotic atheists who do treat science like an extremist treats religion, but luckily no one like that is in this conversation.
QuoteI find that this is a problem with more than just babies/fetuses. People think that knowledge is all in one place, and it isn't. Can I complain that you're using the same religious source to support a religious idea? Sure, it's called circular reasoning and it's a fallacy and not a sound defense. Keep doing it, and throwing some intolerance and plain ignorance out there and it gets really annoying.
An interesting thing I read in the Japanese culture and history exhibit at the AMNH was that the Japanese (probably before its modernization) believed that during the first month of a newborn's life, it doesn't exactly have a soul. During that time, there is a struggle in which a soul is actually trying to latch onto the baby. Also, in the Middle Ages, it wasn't a crime to abort a baby before it starts kicking. No one called it an abortion. The herbs were just to make you have your period back.
I agree with this, but what can you do? How can you get someone in that loop to consider things outside of it when the belief itself prevents that?
The wrath of George Foreman echoes in the distance...
Can you not
^k moving foreman to tpytotmt2
wat
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 05:12:52 PMThis wasn't directed at you, I was including both religion in science to make my statement neutral. There are some idiotic atheists who do treat science like an extremist treats religion, but luckily no one like that is in this conversation.
You can't equate the two. Worshiping science is ridiculous (there were societies that worshiped math, and the some practices and ideas had nothing at all to do with math)
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 05:12:52 PMI agree with this, but what can you do? How can you get someone in that loop to consider things outside of it when the belief itself prevents that?
They'd have to get over themselves and actually learn.
Using incorrect opinions/deductions and just lies won't get any correct answers. Which is exactly why it's pointless to have a discussion with some of you. I don't think I'm wrong to point this out, because there's no other way to say it. Besides, the bandwagon fallacy/ad hominem/begging the question/black and white/burden of proof with some tu quoque...etc
I'd point out that one huge mistake everyone did make was to treat the Bible as a historical or sound document. If I said any more, I think THAT would actually be inflammatory even if I cite my sources because of people's sensitivities. I don't take Hesiod word for word, or Homer, so why should one work describing supernatural events be accepted as proof?
Not to mention, one person is better at (probably unwittingly) making blanket, insulting remarks about other religions, pre-Christian work than others. Having studied it in undergrad, I can say, this person never understood any of it.
vary religus pls reed is relevant kthanks
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7383.0
Quote from: Ruto on August 11, 2015, 06:00:28 PMYou can't equate the two. Worshiping science is ridiculous (there were societies that worshiped math, and the some practices and ideas had nothing at all to do with math)
I mean it more along the lines of:
Bob: Evolution is a lie.
Bob2: That's insulting!!!! I'll respect your beliefs if you respect mine.
As I'm sure you know, the inability to take criticism and skepticism would render the purpose of science null and void.
QuoteThey'd have to get over themselves and actually learn. Using incorrect opinions/deductions and just lies won't get any correct answers. Which is exactly why it's pointless to have a discussion with some of you.
I don't think I'm wrong to point this out, because there's no other way to say it. Besides, the bandwagon fallacy/ad hominem/begging the question/black and white/burden of proof with some tu quoque...etc
I'd point out that one huge mistake everyone did make was to treat the Bible as a historical or sound document. If I said any more, I think THAT would actually be inflammatory even if I cite my sources because of people's sensitivities. I don't take Hesiod word for word, or Homer, so why should one work describing supernatural events be accepted as proof?
Not to mention, one person is better at (probably unwittingly) making blanket, insulting remarks about other religions, pre-Christian work than others. Having studied it in undergrad, I can say, this person never understood any of it.
This entire debate was started by me saying the bible isn't an accurate historical document. That was really the entire point I was trying to get across. You can continue to believe in your Bible all you want and I won't judge you, but please accept that it has no credibility and trying to use it to defy scientific discoveries and/or insult people who don't agree with you is just ludicrous.
And yes, I find that normally intelligent people can become... not as intelligent when discussing religion and politics. It's like a defense mechanism to prevent themselves from ever being wrong, though in the end all it does is prevent you from learning anything.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on August 11, 2015, 06:12:21 PMvary religus pls reed is relevant kthanks
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7383.0
wow i feel enlightened, everything makes sense now
very well fiting in the religin topic glad i cood help
Dropping this here and moving on.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/599550_449113835128286_349303244_n.jpg?oh=a12e3be2ae82c21bc6d1412d900cfdaa&oe=563A640D)
As a Christian, I disagree with C.S. Lewis' statement. It is a chemical process that gives us thought. It is a physical process that allows us to control our bodies. Even if they weren't guided by a Divine Hand, the fact that we can think and that we can take in information is proof that science alone is enough for this to happen. Because we can prove it. Because we can observe it. In a universe greater in size than we can possibly imagine, the circumstances by which life can be produced and maintained had to happen at least once. The argument as to why this happens is up to interpretation, and is, as far as I see, not "proof" of the existence of God.
For my part, I believe that God uses natural causes to create seemingly supernatural phenomena. I believe that God guided the universe for the creation of Earth so that we could live. That includes giving us thought and other natural processes, but I personally disagree with the idea that this is "proof" of the existence of God.
So the fact that an intelligent being had to "guide" the creation of the universe is proof that one doesn't exist? Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like you're contradicting yourself.
sexist comments and illogical arguments wow
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 12, 2015, 11:51:37 AMillogical arguments
I'm sorry, does the presence of a guiding force disprove the presence of a guiding force?
Thinly-veiled creationist literature -.-
I'm sure you can talk about religion without using bad arguments, but that's a stretch. Anyone watch the Godfellas episode in Futurama?
There may also be a quantum basis for free will, and whether or not it can be considered free will at all. (Think about how thoughts are formed, scientifically)
Wow guys, excellent rebuttal. Bravo!
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 11:15:47 AMDropping this here and moving on.
(https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash2/v/t1.0-9/599550_449113835128286_349303244_n.jpg?oh=a12e3be2ae82c21bc6d1412d900cfdaa&oe=563A640D)
"Nobody designed my brain for thinking"
Actually, natural selection did. Those who are able to think things through rationally tend to survive the longest.
"How can I trust my own judgement to be true?" Because if it weren't our entire species would've been dead a long time ago.
"It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping the way it splashes will give you the way to London"
Not really, actually. If you wanted to use the milk jug analogy, it would be more like "you drop one drop of milk, and if it doesn't work you scrap the paper, and you keep adding on to what you already have that works until you get London". Trying to make a false analogy like that work isn't entirely possible but that's about as close as you can get.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 12:07:48 PMI'm sorry, does the presence of a guiding force disprove the presence of a guiding force?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Brawler, but I think what Brawler was saying is that the belief of God guiding the universe for us to live is a personal one, and not particularly relevant to C.S. Lewis' statement.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 12, 2015, 12:46:04 PM"Nobody designed my brain for thinking"
Actually, natural selection did. Those who are able to think things through rationally tend to survive the longest.
"How can I trust my own judgement to be true?" Because if it weren't our entire species would've been dead a long time ago.
Doesn't that imply that there was a point where nothing thought things through rationally? And it must have been a very long period, as humans are the only creatures capable of thinking cognitively. You've never seen a dog question its existence, have you? So then why didn't everything die out long, long ago before anything could think rationally?
Now, if you replace "rational thought" with survival instincts, that's a different story.
Survival instincts are surely rational thought, aren't they?
Depends on how you define rational thought. I was thinking more along the lines of a=b, b=c, therefore a=c, rather than "how did everything get here?".
It may well have started purely with survival instincts and progressed more from there, hence why humans with our bigger brains have figured out so much about the world.
So why did humans become the only animals to reach that point? What about animals with brains far bigger than ours? Why aren't they capable of sentience, as we define the term?
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 01:01:18 PMWhat about animals with brains far bigger than ours?
What animals? I actually don't know off the top of my head.
The Great Blue Whale has an enormous brain iirc.
Whales and elephants have brains far more massive than humans. Unless you meant in terms of ratio to body size. In which case, the pygmy shrew's brain is as proportional in size to its body as a human's, or very nearly.
My guess is that because humans are majorly social animals, and their intelligence directly plays into getting a mate, whereas with an elephant or whale it probably isn't as important.
Um, elephants are actually incredibly social animals.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 12, 2015, 12:46:04 PM"How can I trust my own judgement to be true?"
I guess this isn't inextricably tied to religion, but you can't. Many people base most of their judgments on experiences and memories, both of which are a lot more flimsy than people realize. So when something weird happens in reality, and their experience or memory can't explain it - they call it supernatural, or some kind of glitch in the matrix.
on an unrelated note, it's really easy to personify natural selection, but apparently there's some sort of fallacy in doing it that I'm not informed enough about to explain.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 01:01:18 PMSo why did humans become the only animals to reach that point? What about animals with brains far bigger than ours? Why aren't they capable of sentience, as we define the term?
How do you define sentience?
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. The key term here is "subjective," having independent feelings and opinions. Animals are driven by instinct, not feelings. They don't question the morals of going after their next meal. They just do it.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 01:17:52 PMThey don't question the morals of going after their next meal. They just do it.
most humans don't either, haha.
There is the human conscience to consider. Some people are just very good at suppressing it.
Are you saying I should feel bad about eating a cheeseburger? Because I don't lol.
examples of animal morality or subjectivity, having independent feelings and emotions.
Spoiler
Elephants have some of the most elaborate group rituals of any animals. When a beloved member of an elephant troop dies, those left behind will mourn the lost individual by "burying" the body with leaves and grass, and keeping vigil over the body for a week. And just as humans visit the gravesites of their lost loved ones, elephants visit the bones of dead elephants for years to come.
Dolphins routinely show love for species not their own. Several dolphins have practiced random acts of kindness by rescuing swimmers from hammerhead sharks. A few generous dolphins have even guided stranded whales back to sea. But the cetaceans save most of their goodwill for others in their pod — just like humans, they have a you-scratch-my-nose, I'll-scratch-yours ethic that demands routine kindness and generosity.
[jub note: dolphins also rape a lot but humans do too]
edit: but wait, there's more
"And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help."
I feel like a lot of people here operate under the "humans are inherently good and have to be corrupted to be bad" notion. Tbh I think it's the opposite. IMO we don't have to suppress our conscience, we have to make an effort to be aware of it and not let our instincts take over. We act like this big pretentious important creature with a sense of justice and a moral compass to so what's right but we're not above anything else tbh.
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 01:27:05 PMAre you saying I should feel bad about eating a cheeseburger? Because I don't lol.
lol I missed what you were joking at. Yes, I always question if my cheeseburger's imminent demise violates its rights. OCCUPY MCDONALD'S!
Quote from: Jub3r7 on August 12, 2015, 01:27:49 PMexamples of animal morality or subjectivity, having independent feelings and emotions.
Okay, maybe using feelings was the wrong way to go about it. Generally, animals do those acts for (ultimately) their own good. The dolphins will probably receive some reward (emotional or physical) for rescuing the human or the whale. As you pointed out, the crustaceans limit their good deeds to others in their pod. And dolpin rape shows that they are just as capable of good as bad. My point was that they can't start to wonder if those actions are
inherently good or
inherently bad. That requires metacognition, which animals are incapable of.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on August 12, 2015, 01:30:15 PMI feel like a lot of people here operate under the "humans are inherently good and have to be corrupted to be bad" notion. Tbh I think it's the opposite. IMO we don't have to suppress our conscience, we have to make an effort to be aware of it and not let our instincts take over. We act like this big pretentious important creature with a sense of justice and a moral compass to so what's right but we're not above anything else tbh.
This I actually agree with; i.e., humans are inherently bad. I was referring to how the conscience is still there, even if a human's first instinct is to do the wrong thing.
aaaaaaand now I have to go to work and won't be back for 9 hours. I hope everyone stays relatively calm and understanding.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 01:37:36 PMlol I missed what you were joking at. Yes, I always question if my cheeseburger's imminent demise violates its rights. OCCUPY MCDONALD'S!
._. What are cheeseburgers made of?
Wood chips ;)
Sir, we are having a serious discussion about cheeseburgers. I think we'd all appreciate if you either joined or left. Your choice.
I don't see the point of debating so I won't join :P
I never said it was a debate about cheeseburgers though, just a discussion.
I wouldn't say a humans first instinct is to do the wrong thing, but the most satisfying thing
Aka the id
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on August 12, 2015, 02:49:11 PMI wouldn't say a humans first instinct is to do the wrong thing, but the most satisfying thing
Aka the id
This true. Or most pleasurable thing
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 12, 2015, 02:50:39 PMThis true. Or most pleasurable thing
Satisfaction and pleasure are the same thing.
Quote from: Dudeman on August 12, 2015, 11:45:28 AMSo the fact that an intelligent being had to "guide" the creation of the universe is proof that one doesn't exist? Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems like you're contradicting yourself.
I believe that an intelligent being guided the universe. But that is
my belief. I have no way to prove that. So, in terms of a debate, it's my word against the other side's.
Me: An intelligent being created the universe.
Them: No it didn't.
Me: Whatever.
Quote from: FireArrow on August 11, 2015, 06:15:22 PMAs I'm sure you know, the inability to take criticism and skepticism would render the purpose of science null and void.
This entire debate was started by me saying the bible isn't an accurate historical document. That was really the entire point I was trying to get across. You can continue to believe in your Bible all you want and I won't judge you, but please accept that it has no credibility and trying to use it to defy scientific discoveries and/or insult people who don't agree with you is just ludicrous.
I think you should read what I've actually posted. Don't think science has a purpose other than to describe natural phenomena (laws of physics describe motion of planetary objects which acts anyway without any real purpose), maybe you think "pursuing science/knowledge."
[other topic]
Hmm I should have said "creationionist and intelligent design" since they're not necessarily the same. It would be nice if people could regenerate limbs like some lizards.
Anyway, to be a bit of a devil's advocate here, if anyone uses animal examples, make sure that you're not assigning human traits to animals for an argument or observation. Animal researchers have to be careful about that. What I'd like to bring up are children raised without any sort of social interaction. How do they do?
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 03:19:37 PMSatisfaction and pleasure are the same thing.
Not necessarily but whatever
noun: pleasure
1.
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.
"she smiled with pleasure at being praised"
synonyms: happiness, delight, joy, gladness, glee, satisfaction, gratification, contentment, enjoyment, amusement
"she smiled with pleasure"
:O
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fc3cXlfo.jpg&hash=86ab736942b55c38ec939a35939de9ce74ab4765)
Beautiful. ;_;
Oh my god that's it that's my fav post
I really wanna make that my sig. Not even because I like it a ton, just because I wanna annoy people lol
Too late
Also, you're annoying enough already.
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 04:43:49 PMBeautiful. ;_;
Possibly my most favorite moment of creation as well.
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 05:16:57 PMAlso, you're annoying enough already.
I have a whole list somewhere. Sick of this white knighting and other sh*t in this thread. Egotism too. >_>
Tempted to make that pic my computer background
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 04:29:23 PMnoun: pleasure
1.
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.
"she smiled with pleasure at being praised"
synonyms: happiness, delight, joy, gladness, glee, satisfaction, gratification, contentment, enjoyment, amusement
"she smiled with pleasure"
:O
.....ok
I was thinking more enjoyment than satisfaction but ok.
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 05:16:57 PMAlso, you're annoying enough already.
lol
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 12, 2015, 07:31:40 PM.....ok
I was thinking more enjoyment than satisfaction but ok.
did you just pick a synonym from that list to annoy me because omfg
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 09:10:02 PMdid you just pick a synonym from that list to annoy me because omfg
Um no
Quote from: Dude on August 12, 2015, 04:29:23 PMnoun: pleasure
1.
a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment.
Quote from: mariolegofan on August 12, 2015, 07:31:40 PMI was thinking more enjoyment than satisfaction but ok.
best trolling i've seen in a while lol
https://youtu.be/C2c2zVfxLo4
proof
I completely disagree with the message in this video; it's beyond ridiculous. I don't care if I open a jar of peanut butter and find peanut butter or an entirely new species of life, I bought that jar of peanut butter and gosh darn it I'm going to eat from it, no matter what's in it!
The problem is that not all evolutionists are atheists and not all atheists are evolutionists. :P
Quote from: blueflower999 on September 09, 2015, 04:15:56 PMThe problem is that not all evolutionists are atheists and not all atheists are evolutionists. :P
Eh, while it true that supporting evolutionary theory isn't included in the definition of atheism, if you don't belong to a faith there's a 99% chance you're an evolutionist. It's by far one of the most agreed upon and foundational theories of biology.
Though yeah, assuming someone is an atheist because they support evolution is wrong. I just did it for comical effect.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 03:15:51 PMyou silly atheist
Don't think it's that simple that matter+light+heat=new life. If that was the case then we would find new life everywhere. One thing that video doesn't mention is that for new life to happen there needs to be a specific environment suitable for the organism. But sometimes that might happen just like in the video, if you have certain groceries outside the fridge some might start to mold, which is life.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 09, 2015, 04:31:24 PMDon't think it's that simple that matter+light+heat=new life. If that was the case then we would find new life everywhere. One thing that video doesn't mention is that for new life to happen there needs to be a specific environment suitable for the organism. But sometimes that might happen just like in the video, if you have certain groceries outside the fridge some might start to mold, which is life.
"matter + heat + energy = new life" has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
EDIT: After googling biogenisis a bit (what I'm assuming the video is mistakenly confusing with evolution?) one of the more solid theories is that electrical activity (lightning strikes) along with specific chemicals can result in amino acids and sugars (this is proven, as to whether or not it happened and life came from it is what's debated.)
Yes, that is one of the more popular theories on life's origin. But there's a bunch of them and none are much more than pure speculation.
So can someone explain to me the religious connection to denying climate change?
It has nothing to do with religious; a better question would be "Can someone explain to me the political connection to denying climate change." Religious people are just much more likely to be "anti-science" (why is that even considered a thing?) along with often conforming to conservative views.
It's a difference of what they see as the role of humans.
If you're Pope Francis:
1) Humans are supposed to take care of creation.
If you're Ken Ham:
2) Everything in the world is given to humans to use so use it all and nothing can go wrong because Bible.
If you're Ken Ham, read about how people mine for metals/oil and you'll see why he's stupid as hell. Inorganic chemistry I and personal responsibility fall on deaf ears to this guy.
Did anyone notice wariopiano deleted his account or got banned? Is it the shame or what?
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 09, 2015, 04:31:24 PMif you have certain groceries outside the fridge some might start to mold, which is life.
Careful, Pasteur disproved that a long time ago.
You should believe that your experiences and memories aren't as reliable as we make them out to be.
^I think scientists have proven false memories not only exist, but are pretty common. Kinda freaks me out.
"Should believe" is a phrase i'm not comfortable with because there is nothing someone should believe in
"You should believe that murder is bad."
You should believe in yourself! I do!
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 12, 2015, 03:20:38 PM"Should believe" is a phrase i'm not comfortable with because there is nothing someone should believe in
...Should I believe in your philosophy on believing?
No in contrary, you should question me, like all beliefs. Beliefs are questionable. I'm not here to make you to think like me, I'm just trying to encourage you to think critically.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 12, 2015, 03:28:35 PM"You should believe that murder is bad."
No, you should
know inherently that murder is bad because you wouldn't want it done to yourself or to anyone you love.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 12, 2015, 03:28:35 PM"You should believe that murder is bad."
you're looking at it from the modern society's perspective, but try to view it universally. murder can still be ethically justified, even though it's clearly not accepted in any society. besides, there are forms of society that would be completely okay with murdering.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 12, 2015, 06:37:50 PMNo, you should know inherently that murder is bad because you wouldn't want it done to yourself or to anyone you love.
Nothing is inherently good or bad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) and if you're trying to apply the golden rule, you should note that a murderer can value death as an intrinsic value. a murderer for example could want to altruistically "set you free" from your mortal body and would be okay if someone else "set him free" as well, so it wouldn't be irrational.
I should've been clearer: murder=/= assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
IE the victim doesn't want to die. And I think that's the kind of murder FireArrow was talking about, as well.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 12, 2015, 07:19:30 PMNothing is inherently good or bad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) and if you're trying to apply the golden rule, you should note that a murderer can value death as an intrinsic value. a murderer for example could want to altruistically "set you free" from your mortal body and would be okay if someone else "set him free" as well, so it wouldn't be irrational.
I was taught the golden rule as a kid.
The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 12, 2015, 07:19:30 PMyou're looking at it from the modern society's perspective, but try to view it universally. murder can still be ethically justified, even though it's clearly not accepted in any society. besides, there are forms of society that would be completely okay with murdering.
There are some morals integral to the way human beings and society work that we should not question on a practical level. It is fun to think about things the way your presenting them on a philosophical level however.
Anyways, your original post was not relevant to the point yellow makes, only to his incorrect use of the word believe (which was for satirical purposes given this thread is about religion.)
Quote from: Yellow on November 12, 2015, 02:59:59 PMYou should believe that your experiences and memories aren't as reliable as we make them out to be.
This is a statement about the way humans view their own anecdotal evidence. It's not a subjective/unprovable conjecture, which would be what your use of the word belief would imply.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 12, 2015, 05:00:58 PMNo in contrary, you should question me, like all beliefs. Beliefs are questionable. I'm not here to make you to think like me, I'm just trying to encourage you to think critically.
This. Your beliefs mean nothing if you don't have a reason for having them.
I believe I can fly.
I believe I can touch the sky.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 12, 2015, 08:42:01 PMThere are some morals integral to the way human beings and society work that we should not question on a practical level. It is fun to think about things the way your presenting them on a philosophical level however.
Anyways, your original post was not relevant to the point yellow makes, only to his incorrect use of the word believe (which was for satirical purposes given this thread is about religion.)
yeah I got what yellow meant, but I just wanted to point out how there can't be any authority telling you how to think, because the individual is the one who gives meaning to everything, not anyone else.
also ya i'm bit of a meta-level freak. though imo practical level morals should always be questioned as well, just in case the "practical level" the society thinks is the practical level happens to be irrational. like holocaust, people didn't question it and went along with it.
man i love talking about this as i get to learn more about stuff :] it's fun and interesting imo. my worst fear in life is that i'm gonna look back and realize that i wasted it by being irrational. atm I have a pretty good idea of what i want to dedicate it for and i want to strive towards it. that's also why i bother posting these long posts.
so, the modern society's morals are based on the idea that the society should last as steadily and as long as possible, if not forever. but that idea is also questionable and based on uncertainity of the future, because why should we even bother keep living, what's the meaning of doing that? people created the idea of god as an attempt to bring an external meaning to life. (before I get any attacks from y'all conservatives telling me how "god was always there before anyone else", let me explain, this is not an anti-god post. i'm not an atheist, i acknowledge both the possibility of a god existing or not. also worth noting how an agnostic rejects the possibility of ever knowing does a higher substance exist or not.)
The monitor/screen you're literally looking at right now is literally just pixels. To you these pixels create words?
Not exactly. You give those pixels meaning and without you observing and giving meaning to those pixels of your screen, they wouldn't matter at all.
A god is not an external idea that comes outside of our mind. If you had never heard the term "god" or what it stands for, you wouldn't know what it means. Of course, there originally had to be someone who came up with the concept of "god", but it was created from the inspiration received through observable information(either from observing god itself or observing the universe around us and being inspired by it, see karl popper's three worlds). With intellegence. In both cases, it is the individual who gave god the meaning(created the idea of what god is), in the individual's head.
God is dead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead).
@god-fandom, it doesn't mean god couldn't exist outside our minds. Berkeley for example said that a higher substance is necessary to guarantee that what we observe is the reality. Who created the laws of physics etc. That's just an example of how the possibility of a higher substance is still present, but it's still questionable like everything(outside your own existence).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 14, 2015, 08:35:52 AMlike holocaust, people didn't question it and went along with it.
Quick interjection about this.
While it is true that most of the German people during Nazi rule were ok with the idea of separating Jews and other "undesirables" from the German population, for the most part none of the people and most of the military, and other government officials outside of the ones directly participating in the atrocities, had no idea what the extent of what Hitler was really doing. It wasn't until after the war that people saw what was really going on.
Yes, people did allow Hitler to come to power in the first place, but you also have to understand that most of his rise was through force, and then further maintained through misinformation and fear. He also slowly ramped up his hatred towards the Jews as time went on; he didn't just say "I think all the Jews should die", then was made Chancellor the next day. So please don't imply that over a million people were ok with mass murder, when the reality was that literally none of them knew.
You may continue with your existential ramblings.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on November 14, 2015, 08:50:41 AMQuick interjection about this.
While it is true that most of the German people during Nazi rule were ok with the idea of separating Jews and other "undesirables" from the German population, for the most part none of the people and most of the military, and other government officials outside of the ones directly participating in the atrocities, had no idea what the extent of what Hitler was really doing. It wasn't until after the war that people saw what was really going on.
Yes, people did allow Hitler to come to power in the first place, but you also have to understand that most of his rise was through force, and then further maintained through misinformation and fear. He also slowly ramped up his hatred towards the Jews as time went on; he didn't just say "I think all the Jews should die", then was made Chancellor the next day.
Yeah you're absolutely correct but that doesn't change my point!! The Nazis who still were aware of what was going on and didn't question it and went along with it. I wasn't trying to generalize the entire population as antisemitistic, just tried to show how all morals are questionable.
thanks for the clarification though!!
Quote from: Dude on November 14, 2015, 08:47:44 AMvid
fuck you man, my post wasn't anti-god or disrespecting towards beliefs, or at least that wasn't my intention at all. i even tried my best to point that out. :( it was to point out how we give meaning to everything, even to our beliefs.
Sorry, it just reminded me of that video
Honestly, I've only been skimming posts, lol.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 14, 2015, 09:00:13 AMYeah you're absolutely correct but that doesn't change my point!! The Nazis who still were aware of what was going on and didn't question it and went along with it. I wasn't trying to generalize the entire population as antisemitistic, just tried to show how all morals are questionable.
thanks for the clarification though!!
You'd be surprised how much of a motivator fear can be, a lot of those soldiers could've been shot for not following orders. Besides, following orders is a big deal in the military; not exactly a great place for fostering freedom of expression as it defeats the purpose of a chain of command.
@Dude
If you're not going to actively participate in the discussion, please refrain from posting at all as you're just stirring up conflict.
True religious freedom at work
http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2015-11-massachusetts-pastafarian-wins-right-to-wear-a-colan
Waddle I'm laughing did you just collectively refer to Christianity as the "god fandom"
Just because I'm skimming posts doesn't mean I don't want to participate, Einstein
Quote from: MaestroUGC on November 14, 2015, 09:15:54 AMYou'd be surprised how much of a motivator fear can be, a lot of those soldiers could've been shot for not following orders. Besides, following orders is a big deal in the military; not exactly a great place for fostering freedom of expression as it defeats the purpose of a chain of command.
Yeah the dark sides of communitarianism were really extreme. But atm I'm wondering can a person be capable of acting against
their own morals, at least now that I've been talking about existentialism and Nietzsche.
In a Nazi solider's case, it is clear that they then valued their own life over sparing the Jewish people. If a person really thinks what they do is wrong, they shouldn't have a motive to do that, but they still do the thing nevertheless. Wouldn't it be still justified to go with an attitude like "kill or be killed", or is it wrong, what can define what you do is wrong? Morality is subjective and it can't come from irrationality. So can you deep down lie and act against your own self? What other measure would define the rightfulness of an action but you? Though unlike with nihilism, with this mindset values exist, but values and morals are defined by the individual themselves.
But everything I just talked about is based on the idea of values are subjective, and not objective or tied to a time, place and situation.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on November 14, 2015, 10:11:10 AMWaddle I'm laughing did you just collectively refer to Christianity as the "god fandom"
not exactly because there are other monotheistic religions with a god, but i didn't know how else to say it so that I wouldn't be ignoring the other religions
meant every religious people thoo. but deep down what separates a religious order from a fandom
Waddle we have the same opinion on religion and I love it :D
Me personally, I am very conscious of what effect my actions may have on others. I know before I do something if it's going to make me a bad person (through the eyes of others, the most common outlook anyway). I know lots of people struggle with wanting meaning or dictation to what they should be doing with their life, so I know religion is far from unnecessary. People need guidance.
So if a God exists, they'd be fine with me not directly "worshipping" them because I'm too busy enjoying life and making the most of it for me and other people. If they aren't forgiving or loving enough to respect that, then I wouldn't want to be worshipping them anyway.
Quote from: Waddle Bro on November 14, 2015, 12:46:29 PMBut atm I'm wondering can a person be capable of acting against their own morals, at least now that I've been talking about existentialism and Nietzsche.
You've heard of this experiment before, haven't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Quote from: Bubbles on November 14, 2015, 03:53:27 PMSo if a God exists, they'd be fine with me not directly "worshipping" them because I'm too busy enjoying life and making the most of it for me and other people. If they aren't forgiving or loving enough to respect that, then I wouldn't want to be worshipping them anyway.
^This why I don't really think about or adhere to any religion in day to day life.
Quote from: Bubbles on November 14, 2015, 03:53:27 PMSo if a God exists, they'd be fine with me not directly "worshipping" them because I'm too busy enjoying life and making the most of it for me and other people. If they aren't forgiving or loving enough to respect that, then I wouldn't want to be worshipping them anyway.
in that case I'd say you're missing the point
how
Quote from: SlowPokemon on November 26, 2015, 05:25:47 PMhow
No but I'd like to know this too. I'm pretty comfortable with my belief right now but I'm open to other options if they're reasonable enough
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on November 26, 2015, 12:31:48 PMin that case I'd say you're missing the point
Knock knock Noc-y Noc!! I wanna know what you meant please
Quote from: Bubbles on November 29, 2015, 09:38:55 PMKnock knock Noc-y Noc!! I wanna know what you meant please
At the risk of my non-existent reputation I'll try and take a stab at it.
I think what he means is that you're putting worshipping the god and enjoying life with the people around you in two separate categories, as if you can't worship a god and enjoy life at the same time. In fact, religion would say that you can't effectively enjoy life unless you spend part of it worshipping the god. Now, if you think worship and enjoyment are two separate things, you might want to rethink your definition of worship.
It's not that I think worship and enjoyment of life are separate, but that, at the simplest level, worship is meant to lead to enjoyment. If you're truly comfortable enough living without worship and you're really confident in your happiness, I don't see why you should pick a religion to believe in and to practice if you've already reached the goal. If you're only worshipping to have something to worship it does get annoying, speaking from personal experience of 12 years and counting of religious schooling
The problem is I'm really bad at explaining, but I'll try my best. Let's pretend you made a happy little robot. You're a genius who finally developed artificial intelligence. You treat this robot like your kid, and whenever they do something great, you feel proud. Whenever they turn to you and say, "I'm glad you're taking care of me", you feel the robot's love that you put into it. Then, that robot turns 18. It runs off and does whatever they feel like. They never come home to hug you and love you anymore. And you're still proud of the great things they're doing, but more than anything you feel sad that they never talk to you now. You just want them to be happy, but you still can't help but feel like they should visit you more often. It's true that you're glad they're off doing their own thing, but would it really be too much to ask for their gratitude in return?
I'll counter your robot story with another robot story!!
You yourself are a little happy robot. You grew up alone though, and you don't really have any idea who your parents are. Because you're a robot, you're not even sure if you have parents at all! Despite that you're still really happy and you decide to just let it go instead of worrying about finding them or finding out if they even exist. Some of your robot friends are looking and seem to have found their parents, but they're just as happy as you so it doesn't bother you that they might have more than you. You're just happy to be there and that's what counts.
In your case, it makes sense to feel sad that your robot never talks to you again, but you can't force them to come back to you when they're finding happiness in other places. They might not even remember you exist because, you know, robot memories are really short or something. Any robot who is extremely happy is also extremely grateful, so you shouldn't worry that they don't talk to you.
We just told the same story from different perspectives, Bubbles
I know lol
The point you're missing is that the robot doesn't know if has a creator or not. Atheists and agnostics visit their parents just as much as religious people do, so it's not like we refuse to give gratitude towards people who deserve it. If a creator revealed himself to us, we would respect him/her just as much as you would, we just choose not spend a lot of time and money worshiping something who we don't know exists. Even then, we would have to choose which creator we wanted to worship, given that many people claim there to be a different one.
It's kind of a bad analogy in the first place, because a caring robotics champion doesn't throw his ungrateful robots into a pit of eternal damnation. I, and I'm assuming bubbles too, believe that if there was a loving creator, s/he wants us to to try to be a good person and live life to the fullest above anything else. If s/he sends us to hell anyways just because we didn't worship him/her, then quite frankly s/he's a narcissistic dickbutt that isn't worth worshiping.
The idea of a god frequently stems from the unknown. Anything can be a god. Fire for the neanderthals, the sun for later civilizations, and science for us today.
I've been reading a lot about science (Especially Astrophysics, Gen. Physics, and Theoretical Physics.)
On a subatomic level, there is a point where nothing is truly touching anything. The only thing filling the void between particles is energy, which ties things together.
As I was raised to be a devout catholic, I know that a belief shared by different versions of Christianity is that a god would be in everything and everyone, yet also existing outside our known universe. Additionally, god is called "the light" multiple times in the bible. Light is an interesting thing. It is a form of visible energy, while also having non-visible wavelengths. This seems related to energy existing between everything, and still being outside something we can truly observe.
...sadly, I don't know where I was going with this, but it's still interesting.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 12:46:54 AMthen quite frankly s/he's a narcissistic dickbutt that isn't worth worshiping.
I
think what Nocturne was trying to say is that this bit of reasoning is incredibly self-centered (though I could be misunderstanding him as well)?
The first key to being able to see why worship of a god would make sense is to see said god as the center of perspective around whom history and the universe is primarily based. If one's self is the aforementioned focus, it is illogical to believe in a god much less to worship one.
Yes I agree, if God exists in the way you claim we should definitly show our gratitude. We don't know if a creator exists or not, so we can't assume his position on things and know for certain that we've made the right choice. Bleh I'm having trouble putting this into words... imagine if a gift appeared on your front door step with no card, you have absolutely no idea witch god you got this from or possibly even gift-genisis. Should it be expected of you to write a thank you card? Can the gift giver, forgetful or pusposefully ambiguous, really hold it against you for not writing one? Is it reasonable for him to lock you in a Saharan prison with no air conditioning for the rest of your life for not doing so?
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 08:32:24 AMYes I agree, if God exists in the way you claim we should definitly show our gratitude. We don't know if a creator exists or not,
This is where, faith. Definition of Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Whether you argue the existence of a god or not, both are steps of faith. The only way to not involve faith is to say that you just aren't sure and back that up with an open mind.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 08:32:24 AMBleh I'm having trouble putting this into words... imagine if a gift appeared on your front door step with no card, you have absolutely no idea witch god you got this from or possibly even gift-genisis.
Religions would say that there is a card and that that card is their holy writings. Be it from said god or from a prophet.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 08:32:24 AMCan the gift giver, forgetful or pusposefully ambiguous, really hold it against you for not writing one? Is it reasonable for him to lock you in a Saharan prison with no air conditioning for the rest of your life for not doing so?
This depends on the religion. Some believe in hell for those who don't believe in the god, some believe in hell for those who do much wrong, etc. Either way I am of the opinion that regardless of who the gift is from, it is a moral duty of gratitude to use the gift and treasure it; namely in contrast to throwing it away or using it for a purpose it clearly wasn't intended for.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on November 30, 2015, 01:02:29 PMThis is where, faith. Definition of Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Whether you argue the existence of a god or not, both are steps of faith. The only way to not involve faith is to say that you just aren't sure and back that up with an open mind.
Not really; you can also have a lack of belief (which is the definition of atheism, by the way (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition%20of%20atheism)), and that specifically is saying "I have a lack of faith in _____."
Most of us all have a lack of faith in the Greek pantheon, the Norse gods, and I doubt there are any Hindus here (they worship Shiva, Krishna, and Lakshmi IIRC, but correct me if I'm wrong on that).
Quote from: JDMEK5 on November 30, 2015, 01:02:29 PMThis is where, faith. Definition of Faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Whether you argue the existence of a god or not, both are steps of faith. The only way to not involve faith is to say that you just aren't sure and back that up with an open mind.
I feel like your incorrectly applying that the 3rd sentence is illogical or unlikely. Saying "there is absolutely no god" and "there absolutely is a god" are both artifacts of faith. Anyone truly open to the possibility of being wrong would fall under your 3rd sentence.
Keep in mind, choosing not believing in a specific religion requires no faith since it's possible to evaluate the legitimacy of some of the more terrestrial claims.
QuoteReligions would say that there is a card and that that card is their holy writings. Be it from said god or from a prophet.
You're right. Imagine the next day you received multiple contradictory cards with it being possible that they're all lying, the same logic still applies.
QuoteThis depends on the religion. Some believe in hell for those who don't believe in the god, some believe in hell for those who do much wrong, etc. Either way I am of the opinion that regardless of who the gift is from, it is a moral duty of gratitude to use the gift and treasure it; namely in contrast to throwing it away or using it for a purpose it clearly wasn't intended for.
I completely agree. Make the most of your life, whether it be a gift from god or metaphorical mother nature. This brings us back to the original point, if the real god is from one of those religions that condemns people who don't worship, then I have no respect for that god and would not worship him anyways. If the real god was from a religion that just wants us to be good, happy people, then he's won't send me to hell for making my decision to the best of my abilities. If there is no god then I didn't waste my life preparing for a nonexistent afterlife.
Going into pure opinion now:
If you choose to believe in a vengeful god, you're a coward looking for empty self glory at the expense of others.
If you choose to believe in a loving god, I respect your faith and I think such a belief will bring mostly good things to you and other people.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 02:56:54 PMI feel like your incorrectly applying that the 3rd sentence is illogical or unlikely. Saying "there is absolutely no god" and "there absolutely is a god" are both artifacts of faith. Anyone truly open to the possibility of being wrong would fall under your 3rd sentence.
That's what I meant.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 02:56:54 PMKeep in mind, choosing not believing in a specific religion requires no faith since it's possible to evaluate the legitimacy of some of the more terrestrial claims.
Aye.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 02:56:54 PMYou're right. Imagine the next day you received multiple contradictory cards with it being possible that they're all lying, the same logic still applies.
Yes. Then it would be like religion-shopping.
Quote from: FireArrow on November 30, 2015, 02:56:54 PMI completely agree. Make the most of your life, whether it be a gift from god or metaphorical mother nature. This brings us back to the original point, if the real god is from one of those religions that condemns people who don't worship, then I have no respect for that god and would not worship him anyways. If the real god was from a religion that just wants us to be good, happy people, then he's won't send me to hell for making my decision to the best of my abilities. If there is no god then I didn't waste my life preparing for a nonexistent afterlife.
Indeed.
On a side note: Look at us being all civilized and having a deep discussion without calling each other bigots and stuff. lol
I made a transcription of Aaliyah Rose's "Mary Did You Know" as a gift for my mom this Christmas. Hopefully it's easier to pick-up & play than my usual fare.
Notation: [MIDI] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gpihjfdt511wvg/Mary%20Did%20You%20Know.mid) [MUS] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/l361dos0rnrmns8/Mary%20Did%20You%20Know.mus) [PDF] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/81zm2o72dgfr6p6/Mary%20Did%20You%20Know.pdf)
Audio Demo: [MP3] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wzokyc67r5u7dy/Mary%20Did%20You%20Know%20%28mix%29.mp3)
got an error on the pdf :/
So apparently Sweden is supposed to be the most Atheistic country. With like 90% of population being Atheists.
.... and then you realize that if you just split the word atheist into 2 words ... you get "a theist".
Illuminati confirmed ...
I'm utterly moved.
In which direction?
that has nothing to do with the origin of the word "atheist" but ok
I think it is in the direction of the Triforce of Courage! :D
Technically .... one could be an atheist but also a theist
Specifically if your name was Theist for some reason
But also ... if you alternated so rapidly that you were both at the same time :D :D :D
see tobbeh I replied for you, you can thank me later
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on February 19, 2017, 12:08:36 PMI think it is in the direction of the Triforce of Courage! :D
And what direction would that be? Left? Right? Up? Diagonal? Circularly-inverted-with-a-semi-angular-launch-pattern?
Quote from: blueflower999 on February 19, 2017, 12:25:48 PMBut also ... if you alternated so rapidly that you were both at the same time :D :D :D
schrodinger's religion
it's spelled Schrödinger get learned kid
Why not both?
There is only 1 family named Schrödinger!!!!! OMG OMG OMG
Quote from: blueflower999 on February 19, 2017, 12:45:16 PMit's spelled Schrödinger get learned kid
i know im just lazy
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on February 19, 2017, 12:28:48 PMAnd what direction would that be? Left? Right? Up? Diagonal? Circularly-inverted-with-a-semi-angular-launch-pattern?
obviously it's the konami code
it's schroedinger if you can't umlaut
I've for long been a really strong atheist, thinking that religion is purely wrong and false and that everything should be better if everyone was atheist. But now when I've listened to some about Christianity, the beliefs and the moral values. I really think that there something to it. And I completely agrees on it when it comes to morality, what's good/right and what's wrong/bad. It really has changed some of my previous thoughts on religion.
My religion is not worrying about religion and just being a decent human being.
As a Christian, I must say that I don't appreciate it when some Christians take it too far and try to force religion on others. I also don't like it when they "look down" on non-Christians or try to harm them for what they believe. My job as a Christian is to love my neighbor, or to treat everyone on Earth with kindness regardless of their gender, race, religion, nationality, what they've done in their lives, etc. Christian terrorists give us a bad name.
A++
you ain't bad
I think Jesus was a chill hippie dude who loved like, everyone, man.
They just lose me w/ the supernatural stuff. Much (though not all) of the teachings in the New Testament are lovely stories to go by.
Agreeing with Levi here. Also going off o' that, all terrorists give any group a bad rep because they take things too far (hence why they're called extremists)
I used to be that overly-aggressive Christian who made people swallow the Bible & such, but that's wrong, annoying, & turns people away HECKA fast! JEEZ my middle school-freshman years were not good... X'D
But I've turned from those philosophies(?) (thank goodness!) and become more of what Levi is
Quote from: LeviR.star on October 05, 2017, 04:24:28 PMAs a Christian, I must say that I don't appreciate it when some Christians take it too far and try to force religion on others. I also don't like it when they "look down" on non-Christians or try to harm them for what they believe. My job as a Christian is to love my neighbor, or to treat everyone on Earth with kindness regardless of their gender, race, religion, nationality, what they've done in their lives, etc. Christian terrorists give us a bad name.
Bingo. What you say about Christian terrorists is correct. Unfortunately, most of the Christians in the "lime-light" are the buttholes and totally shame the name of Christianity, which is not kind to Christians like us who are legit, not "political" Christians.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 05, 2017, 04:33:02 PMI think Jesus was a chill hippie dude who loved like, everyone, man.
They just lose me w/ the supernatural stuff. Much (though not all) of the teachings in the New Testament are lovely stories to go by.
I don't like when people say that Jesus was a "hippie dude". I mean I don't think that he'd approve of like smoking weed and other stuff. I kind of more see him as the "perfect combination" of "just" and "nice". Also kind of like the supernatural stuff as I see it either as metaphors of something or as philosophical stuff.
Quote from: Sebastian on October 05, 2017, 07:56:38 PMBingo. What you say about Christian terrorists is correct. Unfortunately, most of the Christians in the "lime-light" are the buttholes and totally shame the name of Christianity, which is not kind to Christians like us who are legit, not "political" Christians.
Just heard about how Martin Luther protested against the corruption in the church at his time. How the pope build the Peter's church with the money of (poor) people who had bought letter of indulgence, and not paying himself (being really rich). And I despise corrupt opinions in any matter, be it politics or religion. Trying to force people into religion (regardless of how good you think it is) can be seen as giving people pains and trouble, which is why I think it's bad.
Honestly I don't think Jesus would mind having some of that sticky icky 8)
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 06, 2017, 03:38:03 PMHonestly I don't think Jesus would mind having some of that sticky icky 8)
I think he'd forgive you if you did smoke, but I don't think he'd approve of it. The bible clearly is against being drunk, so I don't think that getting high by smoking weed is ok. But I'm not an expert, only basing it of how christian people have reasoned.
The Bible may be against being intoxicated (I don't know off hand).. but the most drunk people I've ever seen were my friend's evangelical parents who got absolutely shitfaced when I was over once. 7 shots of Jack.
Don't use actions of specific Christians as an argument. Hypocrisy affects all groups of people and shouldn't speak for the whole.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 08, 2017, 10:23:22 PMDon't use actions of specific Christians as an argument. Hypocrisy affects all groups of people and shouldn't speak for the whole.
I do agree with you. This happens not only with religion, but also in other fields like politics, economics and social groups as well. That people take 1 individual as the example for an entire group. Sometime that individual is one with high status and sometimes not but I do think that's a very narrow way of viewing things. Like taking some greedy dude who claims to be a "capitalist" and therefore concluding that capitalism is bad and greedy.
Also I really started value and have respect for the christian moral values even more after watching a documentary about Friedrich Nietzsche. Maybe the documentary framed him as more or less a bad person but I almost completely disagree with him. He started with being against god (saying that god didn't exist, or that he/the people at his time killed him), but after that it just spiraled down. He started arguing against the christian moral values claiming that they are fake/false and enslaves people. And the dilemma he faced was that he had to make up a moral system himself to argue against the christian moral values and he did that with his "uberman theory" which puts a lot of focus on the individual and his strive to overcome limits and become the ultimate self. And the conclusion I got, with all of Nietzsche's ideas of breaking the christian norms/values and stepping on the border with good and evil (with his obsession of "the dark side" with the Greek god Dionysus), was that he (and other people at his time) was playing with fire and pretty much wrote the manuscript for Hitlers ideas with Nazism. Like, there are a lot of similarities when it comes to ideas between Nietzsche and Hitler. So it really got me thinking that Nietzsche in the first place messed up, but even more wrong was how he really pushed it even further down rather than trying and argue that maybe there is some good in that Christian values and the moral. So I've gotten some respect for the Christian moral values when you see how other people have challenged it and have ended up with just chaos and pure evil.
Also thought a bit on the biblical creation story. God said that Adam and Eve could ate from every tree in the Garden of Eden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And I wondered why god placed that tree there in the first place. To me, placing the tree there seems to be asking for trouble (like it was just a matter of time before they ate of it), kind of seems like placing a glass near the edge of the table; and the being angry when someone shove it down. You're better placing it in the middle of the table or not placing it there at all. Kind of tricky question I find. I googled and find one "answer"/theory that god placed it there as way to see if the humans were obedient and showed love to god. Because if he didn't place the tree there the humans would just walk around doing everything mechanically and then there was no way of clearly knowing if the humans obeyed god and loved god. It isn't the most satisfying answer, I got to say, but it does kind of makes some sense to me, at least.
Just poking my head in here, am a christian :>
Am a baptist in Virginia but our church refuses to join the Southern Baptist Convention due to them not believing in women preachers and due to their super traditional views. Not sure what we're really apart of.
Quote from: blueflower999 on October 08, 2017, 10:23:22 PMDon't use actions of specific Christians as an argument. Hypocrisy affects all groups of people and shouldn't speak for the whole.
it was a
how do you say it
hyperbolic JOKE
Also Tobbeh I'm sorry but you definitely misinterpreted what Nietzsche was talking about. The Ubermensch theory set the stage for nazism? No, sorry.
Quote from: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 09, 2017, 07:37:27 AMAlso Tobbeh I'm sorry but you definitely misinterpreted what Nietzsche was talking about. The Ubermensch theory set the stage for nazism? No, sorry.
Em no. I get what he's trying to say. He's saying that we shouldn't have strikt moral values. And also thinks that people live more freely, experiences more freedom when they aren't bound to some absolute moral values. I wouldn't blame Nietzsche for nazism, but I do think that in the late 19 century there were a lot of ideas about breaking norms of all sort and about moral relativism and also about rebelling against the old, or straight away rejecting it as bad or lost (which is clearly seen in arts) and also a lot nationalism. And I don't think it's a coincidence about the theories in the late 19 century and the nazism during the 30s. If you look at history you can often see a link between the ideas in society and the society and also sometimes where it's heading. But I do agree that it's an exaggeration to say that it the theories in the late 19 century was the biggest cause to that. But I do think that they play a part in it.
Is Tobbeh Kinshiro Morooka now?
... ... ... ...nope.
For some reason I've been more into religion and Christianity at the moment. And mostly because I think that moral values are just perfect and very "natural/human", pretty much. And I think a lot of people have heard a lot about "what not to do" (at least me) all the sins and etc. But I took some time looking at the other side aka. "what to do" aka. virtues. And I find it interesting that there are first 7 heavenly virtues (as there are 7 deadly sins), which I've never heard about. And secondly how they feel more abstract in a way, when talking about wisdom, faith, holiness, courage, peace and etc. As I said, I've gotten the impression that religion (Christianity) is a lot about "rules" and "don't do this and that", but studying it more I find it to be more deep that I've thought and more "philosophical", which I like. I also found it funny how I find some similarities in the christian thought of good and evil and Star Wars the concept of the light and dark side of the force, they're not the same, but still a bit (I've been kind of soaked into Star Wars theories and stuff, which I why I find it interesting).
It's amazing how people can form connections. For you, it's Star Wars and Christianity. For me, it's US Government theory and biology
Quote from: E. Gadd Industries on November 28, 2017, 02:49:39 PMFor me, it's US Government theory and biology
That one seems like a cool one. Hard to understand how (the 3 government distribution?? and biology dk.). But sounds cool, keep it up! :)
I also think connection are good. Making connections where a requirement in school for getting the highest grade in history. So, y, guess it's useful and good to practice.
Nah, it's like genetic drift and small vs. large Republics (a specific example, but one nonetheless). According to the arguments of federalists, larger republics are better because with smaller ones, you have less people, and so you're less likely to find people fit and able to be good Congresspeoplez. (Paraphrasing Federalist Paper 10 with that statement) With genetic drift, specifically the Founder Effect, if you have a very small population, its genome has a larger probability of being unstable and riddled with bad genes when taken from a larger population (to put it into metaphorical terms, the colonists coming from Europe). I think that what I just typed made -5 sense, but that's okay, I'm tired and drained atm.