I am not posting my views in-case I insult someone
What's "reliegous"?
Im an atheist. Not sure if im Gnostic or Agnostic
I think i am more gnostic... but i value other peoples views and do not insult/comment so not an extreme gnostic
WAIT I FORGOT SOMETHING
THE BEST RELIGION IS WORSHIPPING YOURSELF, BECAUSE IF BELIEF MAKES GODS, THEN YOU MAKE YOURSELF A GOD BY SHEER WILLPOWER ! **** YEAH !
made me laught.
BTW: even though I don`t belive in God I still take part at the christmas thing and stuff. On one side I love to get presents :> and on the other: It`s one day in the year on that many suckers finaly start liking each other.. for 24 hours.
WAIT I FORGOT SOMETHING
THE BEST RELIGION IS WORSHIPPING YOURSELF, BECAUSE IF BELIEF MAKES GODS, THEN YOU MAKE YOURSELF A GOD BY SHEER WILLPOWER ! **** YEAH !
Then space does not exist.
Then space does not exist.Space does have a physical form. It therefore exists. =P
Who am I?
Nary hates too much of it and some cant get enough, people can wish to fly about in it and some fear it. It is what you get between your ears if you are dumb and can be someones personally.
JE N'AIME PAS D'EMPTY SPACE. =D
Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.
Well, I can say that I am atheist, simply because there is no scientific evidence that god exists, thus he does not exist until proven otherwise.That, and the fact that there's no reason why we should worship him.
I'm Norse. I worship Thor the god of thunder and Odin his father. I hope someday to die in battle so I can go to Valhalla where I will battle all day and party all night until Ragnarok. **** yeah!And let me guess, when you die, you're going to be put on a burning ship with a sword in your hand so you can get to Valhalla, I take it?
I don't get this whole emerging faith with all that scientific mumbo jumbo.
Let's face it, most of us don't know enough science to judge the validity and reliability of a given scientific research. But we believe nevertheless.
Perhaps, but as far as the gods are concerned there is absolutely no evidence beyond their respective religious texts and or stories.Not believing in invisible pink unicorn does not translate to the atom is made up of up quark, down quark, and electrons.
blind faith in the science they picked up from a magazine. Sciences isn't one thing and each finding needed to be consider separately
Yes, we trust the conclusions made by people who know more than we do. That is absolutely unavoidable. Of course every scientific finding is looked at separately, but it is also looked at in the context of other theories to see what fits. Each finding is connected to other findings. So far science has gotten most things right (or at least quickly fixes things that are wrong), so I don't see the problem with trusting scientists.The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics. Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist. Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist.
The track record of science have always come with lots of pseudo sciences and bad practices, especially in emerging sciences like psychology, social science, and economics.
Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist.
Worst is when people vastly misinterpreted certain scientific findings and think they got science behind their back, like the Social Darwinist.
I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.
Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.
Problem being, distinguishing between the two is never easy. Most of us don't get science news directly from the researchers. We get them from journalist, friends, the media, etc. Even among established scientist themselves there are many disputes over the interpretation of a certain finding.Even in well established science like physics and biology, there are too many nonsense and misinterpretations by non scientist.Keyword there is non-scientists. We should just listen to what the scientists say, not use our own "perceptions" of it when we know very little.
I don't mean physically observing an object. I mean looking at the process of which the science is conducted.I don't believe in anything I haven't looked at myself.You have lost much of physics, you have lost microbiology, you have lost most of biology (you haven't seen all the living things science claims exist), you have lost astronomy. If you narrow what you believe to only what you have personally seen, then most of science does not exist for you.
Which is why people need to learn about the science they cared about, if only the basics. We can't claim to rationally believe otherwise.Knowing more is not a requirement to see the underline assumptions made in each conclusion, and to distinguish well practiced science from bullsh**.I suppose you are partially correct, but a person not well versed in the science can not always recognize the underlying assumption, and they do not always know whether it is false or not.
Religion is logical.
There's the whole arguement thatReligion is logical.
In what way?
There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.
That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.
There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.
What if a different god that you don't worship exists?
That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.
Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.
You know how many gods there are? The statistical advantage gained would be incredibly insignificant. To call it logical is questionable.
From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%
I was just about to say that urjak.From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%
Why not follow a religion without all that effort?Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
Why not follow a religion without all that effort?Like?
Basic Christianity. Just be goodWhy not follow a religion without all that effort?Like?
Basic Christianity. Just be goodSecular Humanism states the same thing, yet it is not Christianity. So then what makes a "Basic Christian" different from a Secular Humanist?
EDIT: WTF with this post?Basic Christianity. Just be goodBelief in God.
Secular Humanism states the same thing, yet it is not Christianity. So then what makes a "Basic Christian" different from a Secular Humanist?
Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
The way I see it, it is more likely none of the gods exist and everyone just made it up then one religion exists and everyone besides that one group made theirs up.Or maybe, they're all real! :bigO:
Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.
Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.
So the fact that Christ teaches things like giving to the poor, and loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charity organizations?Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.
Them helping world hunger has nothing to do with their Christianity.
I can't speak for Islam, but I know enough about Christianity to tell you that those who kill in the name of Christianity are not Christians at all.
And killed a lot more infidels. Actually, same goes for Islam.
So the fact that Christ teaches things like giving to the poor, and loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charity organizations?
Don't be a self-pretentious faggot who thinks that it's thanks to their religion that these virtues exist. You don't have to have an imaginary friend to be a good person, sorry.So the fact that Christ teaches things like giving to the poor, and loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charity organizations?Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.
Them helping world hunger has nothing to do with their Christianity.
I can't speak for Islam, but I know enough about Christianity to tell you that those who kill in the name of Christianity are not Christians at all.
And killed a lot more infidels. Actually, same goes for Islam.
So the fact that Christ teaches things like giving to the poor, and loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charity organizations?
Don't be a self-pretentious faggot who thinks that it's thanks to their religion that these virtues exist. You don't have to have an imaginary friend to be a good person, sorry.So the fact that Christ teaches things like giving to the poor, and loving your neighbor has nothing to do with the fact that there are hundreds of Christian charity organizations?Christians have done a lot more to end world hunger than Atheists ever have.
Them helping world hunger has nothing to do with their Christianity.
I can't speak for Islam, but I know enough about Christianity to tell you that those who kill in the name of Christianity are not Christians at all.
And killed a lot more infidels. Actually, same goes for Islam.
"Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#First_Crusade_1095.E2.80.931099 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#First_Crusade_1095.E2.80.931099) - sources present)
I never said there weren't good people who aren't Christians, but the fact reamins that Christians are responsible for the vast majority of charitiy organizations that exist. Hater's gonna hate.
What I find odd is how other beliefs systems can go blabbing out in public about how bad we are yet if a Christian goes and does the same thing about other belief systems were told were being narrow minded and selfish. Heck You do that to Muslims and your life could be in danger.Quoted for truth. It's a problem in real life that just bothers me, just how if a woman murders a man, her story is always given a justified reason for it, and the tabloids make you believe you should be sympathetic to her.
yet if a Christian goes and does the same thing about other belief systems were told were being narrow minded and selfish.
All right If a Christan speaks out against homosexuality its horrible but if a Muslim does that who cares.No, it is horrible if either of them do it.
If the another belief system want a class for its belief system they'll do it Eg natives belief system is taught but a Christan once it in schools its a very big hassle.
All right If a Christan speaks out against homosexuality its horrible but if a Muslim does that who cares.No, it is horrible if either of them do it.
Theres a lot less fussing about it.If the another belief system want a class for its belief system they'll do it Eg natives belief system is taught but a Christan once it in schools its a very big hassle.
Do you honestly believe that classes on the history and interpretation of Christianity are not found in schools? This is blatantly false.
All right If a Christan speaks out against homosexuality its horrible but if a Muslim does that who cares.No, it is horrible if either of them do it.
Theres a lot less fussing about it.If the another belief system want a class for its belief system they'll do it Eg natives belief system is taught but a Christan once it in schools its a very big hassle.
Do you honestly believe that classes on the history and interpretation of Christianity are not found in schools? This is blatantly false.
Over here I have yet to even hear of a public school with a class teaching about Christianity. SS and history teach it in a negative way and or a way to have others think that its something of the past or you don't want to do it.
Hinduism is the third :PGood point, my mistake.
/nitpicking
Criticism of religion is something that should always be encouraged anyway, assuming it's actual criticism and not just trolling abuse.Hahahahhahahahahahaha, yeah right
Personally I don't see why any of it should be taught in schools, if people want to know about a certain or certain aspects of religion, the knowledge is out there and easy to find on their own accord.Well, religion has probably had a bigger impact on world history than anything else. Not to mention, it's an incredibly important part of a people's culture. The study of religion goes far beyond the teachhings and aspects of a particular religion.
Religion should be each individuals opinions, not some major groups opinion.The only worth while religion nowadays is something along the lines of budhism, people can't needlessly kill themselves and others over that can they?You might be surprised.
If you say bad things about Christianity, well...nothing really happens.
Indeed. Anyway, the Catholic church isn't Christian by any means, it just likes to think it is. But, I've already said that, so I'll shut up now.
I had already said something almost exactly the same in a previous post, so I decided it was just redundant, but since you've already replied...Indeed. Anyway, the Catholic church isn't Christian by any means, it just likes to think it is. But, I've already said that, so I'll shut up now.
Thats a load of cow poop (put politely). The very fact that the Catholic Church bases it's teachings on Jesus makes it by definition a Christian church.
EDIT: Any reason you deleted it?
it's really no better than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH!!!!!!
Quote from: Meganerdbombit's really no better than Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses.WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH!!!!!!
Someone gotta mention it.
There is no evidence of a higher being, so why should we believe in it ?
There is no evidence of a higher being, so why should we believe in it ?
Probably because the idea already existed back then. When people didn't understand the science behind day and night, water cycles, and thunderstorms, they just assumed that these were the actions of a higher being. An idea that's planted in the minds of a whole colony is pretty tough to eradicate. It's kinda like saying 'I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT BUTTER!', even if it was clear that margarine was used. Some people are just too ignorant to acknowledge new scientific breakthroughs.
from what I remember, in the Bible, God said that we have FREE WILL. AKA We can choose to worship him or not. So you will not go to hell if you don't worship him.But if you believe that he gave you free will, then you believe in him :P
But if you believe that he gave you free will, then you believe in him :P
No one said you HAD to it's just he would like us to.So it it better to.
No one said you HAD to it's just he would like us to.So it it better to.
Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Self report surveys conducted by religious groups....... Sorta like how Pepsi generated it's 85% people choose Pepsi over Coke. When you go up to someone asking "would you like to take a survey conducted by Pepsi" guess who's going to respond?Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Please show me them, or at least the source of this info.
Fully believing in a religion eliminates the unknowns of life, and because the unknown is one of the greatest factors in fear of death, "knowing" what happens when you die removes that worry and allows one to travel through life without that worry nagging at their minds.The opiate of the masses.
Atheists need to stop being so anal about religion.Well, we're in a debate thread. I know it's all very wrong to oppose your views and we will be damned forever and we will burn in hell and whatever, but please don't use that line.
how did they populate the rest of the earth without spawning a metric fuckton of genetically-impaired trisomic kids
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392866 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392866)Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Please show me them, or at least the source of this info.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392866 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11392866)Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them
Please show me them, or at least the source of this info.
Maybe back then their genome had no flaws ? :p
Atheists need to stop being so anal about religion. It's really a fascinating subject. Besides, scientific studies show that people with religious beliefs are happier on average than those without them, but it doesn't really matter what religion you believe. Just go find one that suits your tastes, and be happy.I find this rather shallow and pedantic.
Find one that suits our tastes? OK...Atheism!Sweet, I just you to admit that Athiesm is a religion! My work here is done. :coolface
Find one that suits our tastes? OK...Atheism!Sweet, I just you to admit that Athiesm is a religion! My work here is done. :coolface
Not really, since Athiesm is a religion, the most that will happen is the takeover of a new religion, just like Christianity in Europe during the first and second century A.D. Also, this is now just an argument about who's religion is better, which is one of the things you Athiests seem to dislike about religion. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Therefore, my work is done.
Me: 1
Athiests: 0
Alright, I'll admit I was using troll logic, but you gotta admit, incredirobotwars was asking for it with a post like that.
Still other than the lack of a god, Atheism is still very much like a religion, albeit a loosely organized one. You still have your own beliefs that you hold to with great faith. Sure, you claim to follow only reason and logic, but really, a lot what you believe makes no more sense than anything any other religion believes.
And really your reason for not believing in God boils down to wanting to claim independence. You don't like the idea of being beholden to something greater than you, so you deny its existence. You'll deny anything that conflicts with your view and you in fact, want religion, as you said "wiped off the face of the earth". So, who sounds extremist now?
You still have your own beliefs that you hold to with great faith.
New studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith.Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things.
The opiate of the masses.
Intelligent beings, like me, don't need such nonsense to be happy (http://i.imgur.com/5F8a5.gif).
No. We follow common sense.THIS IS HYPOCRISY!!!!!!! What is this common sense non sense you are talking about?
What I meant, is from my point of view, I can either:That only rules out a few religions. You still got a whole bunch of religions to discredit.
a) Try to convince myself that there is a superior being (even though there is no proof of it), then make my life miserable by following an old book written by crazy people, live in fear, blame everything on an arch enemy, learn to accept things because an old man dressed funny tells me to, yell at people because they don't think my superior being is the best, interfere in others' life and morality, saying that if they don't accept my higher being then they are the followers of my arch enemy, see everything in two colors, with no intermediaries, like a child, know that there are superior people here on earth, and they require special rights (especially when they want to rape little boys in the mouth), and refrain from doing anything that might piss my higher being off because I don't want to burn for eternity.
b) Live as I lived before, have my own system of values, think by myself, learn from scientific research and lead a happy life without fearing anything, since I know I'll die some day anyway. Be able to have my own opinion on important matters, do not be dependent of what others say. Think critically and rationally. Live like a normal human not bound by the membership in an organization that to me looks like something out of a horror flick.Surely you are not only left with option B just because you rule out A.
I'm agostic but you're post is comeplete bullsh**
Not ALL people who are religious live by the Torah/Bible/Koran/Whatever.
And people only live in fear if they are Jewish or Baptist.
You are an idiot. The study had the people rate their overall "happiness" than asked them some basic questions such as their financial situation and how important religion was to them etc. This was a scientific study that was published in a psychological journal, not some bullsh** survey conducted by a religious institution.This could simply mean, as Noodle said, that ignorance is bliss, but the information is valid.QuoteNew studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith.Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things.
Plus a survey that ask both a person's religion and happiness is totally rigged. Asking an Atheist "What 'religion' are you" is like asking the Tea Party "which democrat candidate do you support", or a black person "which white supremacist would you support". To add insult to injury, "None" is probably placed as the last choice. No wonder Atheist answer more negatively in the rest of the survey.
I choose option C, indifferent to other people's imaginary friends. I recognize that I cannot refute every version of tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorn that people made up. An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God just happens to be the more ridiculous of them. To be consistent with believing any of those nonsense, I would need to check under my bed every morning to see if a million dollars magically spawn when I was asleep. After all, in the world of magic where the inability to disprove == grounds to believe, money spawning under my bed is a very believable concept.
You are an idiot. The study had the people rate their overall "happiness" than asked them some basic questions such as their financial situation and how important religion was to them etc. This was a scientific study that was published in a psychological journal, not some bullsh** survey conducted by a religious institution.This could simply mean, as Noodle said, that ignorance is bliss, but the information is valid.
...it retains a Christian atmosphere...
Hope's motto is taken from Psalm 42:5: "Spera in Deo" ("Hope in God").
Let no one be smug. Cruelty and compassion, mischief and morality, are exhibited by people of all faiths and none. Many are good without God and many believers go to sleep each night behind bars. Yet the accumulating evidence indicates that faith often tethers self-interest and nurtures character. Godliness and goodliness are more than typographically linked.
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow." The Unmoved Mover argument applies here.
So it's pseudo science, big deal. Self report automatically means it's survey, and to get both someone's religion and "happiness" they need to ask both. And those are the natural limitation with any survey, that early question affects future outcomes.You are an idiot. The study had the people rate their overall "happiness" than asked them some basic questions such as their financial situation and how important religion was to them etc. This was a scientific study that was published in a psychological journal, not some bullsh** survey conducted by a religious institution.This could simply mean, as Noodle said, that ignorance is bliss, but the information is valid.QuoteNew studies are revealing predictors of subjective well-being, often assessed as self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. Worldwide, most people report being at least moderately happy, regardless of age and gender. As part of their scientific pursuit of happiness, researchers have examined possible associations between happiness and (a) economic growth and personal income, (b) close relationships, and (c) religious faith.Surprise surprise. A "self reported" scale of happiness with obviously rigged in favorite of certain "religion" that tells their believer to be contempt with the little that they have, or be burn in eternal hell. Being happy and reporting moderately happy are two different things.
Plus a survey that ask both a person's religion and happiness is totally rigged. Asking an Atheist "What 'religion' are you" is like asking the Tea Party "which democrat candidate do you support", or a black person "which white supremacist would you support". To add insult to injury, "None" is probably placed as the last choice. No wonder Atheist answer more negatively in the rest of the survey.
I choose option C, indifferent to other people's imaginary friends. I recognize that I cannot refute every version of tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorn that people made up. An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God just happens to be the more ridiculous of them. To be consistent with believing any of those nonsense, I would need to check under my bed every morning to see if a million dollars magically spawn when I was asleep. After all, in the world of magic where the inability to disprove == grounds to believe, money spawning under my bed is a very believable concept.
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow." Now, I respect your free choice to believe differently, but if I don't expect to see puddles of mud spring to life. The Unmoved Mover argument applies here.
Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
To quote some troll-Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
Explain.
"GOD MAED US ALL, THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU HAVE IS THE STUPID BIG BANG. AND GOD IS GOING TO HELP ME DESTROY 4CHAN AND MAEK THAT HORRIBLE RACIST NAZZY SITE ABHOR"
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow." The Unmoved Mover argument applies here.
A few posts ago you made an ignorant statement that more or less said "atheists are atheists because they can't deal with the fact that there is a god."But then you can apply that statement to almost anything.
With similar logic regarding this statement, I can say that believers are believers simply because they cannot deal with not knowing.
A few posts ago you made an ignorant statement that more or less said "atheists are atheists because they can't deal with the fact that there is a god."But then you can apply that statement to almost anything.
With similar logic regarding this statement, I can say that believers are believers simply because they cannot deal with not knowing.
The reason I'm more or less Aetheist is because there has been no conclusive and absolute proof of the existence of a god. And before people jump on me saying "Try and prove that there ISN'T a god", it is not possible to prove the absence of something. For instance, videogame testers try and find as many bugs in the game as they can, and the games are made as clean and airtight as they can. But one or two glitches always make their way through. In my view, the only reason religious people use the argument "Prove that there is not a god" is because they know that they can't logically prove that there is.
Also my statement wasn't that atheists can't deal with the fact that there is a god, but that the very concept is just so horrifying to them, that they refuse to even consider that there might be a god.
Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:
- There exists movement in the world.
- Things that move were set into motion by something else.
- If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
- Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
- From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
- From 4, there must be an unmoved mover
That's all for now.
@123savethewhales & NFX. You are being extremely limited in your thinking because you are trying to constrain God to the confines of this physical world. By Omnipresence, I do not mean that God exists everywhere in this dimension, but that God exists in infinitely many dimensions. God is not confined within the physical limitations of time and space, and is not made up of anything that we can measure. By Omniscience, I do not mean simply that God knows everything that's going to happen, but everything that can happen. God can see the infinite possibilities in every choice we make, and that He makes. He knows every possible implication of every possible action ad infinitum. Finally by Omnipotent there is NOTHING that is impossible to Him. The things that to you seem like logical impossibilities are nothing to a being who has infinite possibility. The fact that your mind is too small to grasp infinity does not make it impossible.Your definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent. Because he "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility" as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent. Your definition then, creates a God that knows nothing.
Finally I refer once again to the Unmoved Mover argument:
- There exists movement in the world.
- Things that move were set into motion by something else.
- If everything that moves were caused to move by something else, there would be an infinite chain of causes. This can't happen.
- Thus, there must have been something that caused the first movement.
- From 3, this first cause cannot itself have been moved.
- From 4, there must be an unmoved mover
That's all for now.
For your second question, because God exists outside of the universe, and by the Ontological Argument, existence is a necessary property of God.
I knew this one would rear it's head eventually.
The main problem with this argument is in point 3. We don't have any definitive evidence that rules out the idea of infinite chain of causes. You can't just say "that can't happen" unless you have facts to back it up.
Even if you're right, what about your god? Your god is supposed to have existed since forever and continue to do so forever. Why would it be that your god could have always existed but the universe could not?
Your definition of omniscient then still breaks his omnipotent. Because he "can" do everything, there's no such thing as "knowing all possibility" as that too will be infinite due to his Omnipotent. Your definition then, creates a God that knows nothing.You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard.
Just because your mind is too small to understand infinite does not mean it will solve the omniscient/omnipotent contradiction.
Your definition of omniscient also breaks his omnipresent. Again, he is everywhere, he is part of everything of all time, there is no "can" as he is everything. The only way those two are compatible is by replacing "can" with "is". In such case you end up with a passive body without a will, which can be labeled as natural force.
Your definition of omnipotent also contradicts with his omnipresent. Because nothing is impossible to him, except that he already covered everything that is and are everywhere. Anything else God do will require him to repeat himself. So then he's actually powerless as all is already covered and there's nothing God can do except repeat himself an infinite amount of time. Even then the amount of diversity has not increase.
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow."
I simply believe an Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent God makes a lot more sense than, "a ball of matter existed for eternity before it randomly exploded and made the universe then life started somehow."
Not "somehow". Life is just a series of chaotic chemical reactions. Given enough entropy from the environment, shit will happen sooner or later.
Also, a big explosion makes way more sense than a dude making life just for the kicks, and then demanding an evolved form of it worship him.
You've actually been making a lot of sense up until now, but this time, you were trying too hard.I will try to rephrase them.
Your first argument: Because God must have infinite knowledge he therefore knows nothing? Your argument is nonsense.
Your second: God being everywhere is not the same as being in everything, that's pantheism, not omnipresence. Your argument is invalid.
The third: Once again, your thinking of pantheism, not omnipresence. Also, I think your grammar is off, because that last sentence makes zero sense.
Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory. It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further". So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
Explain.
For your second question, because God exists outside of the universe, and by the Ontological Argument, existence is a necessary property of God.
For the first, allow me to try and convince you with an analogy. Imagine, if you will, a train. At the end of this train is a caboose. You ask, "What makes the caboose move?", and I answer, "It's being pulled along by the boxcar in front of it." So, of course you ask what makes the boxcar move, and I answer that it's the boxcar in front of it, ad infinitum. Now, in this imaginary train with an infinite number of boxcars, we have an explanation for why any one car in the train moves. However, we do not have an explanation for why the train as a whole moves. You should, in fact, be able to see that this train cannot move at all. In order for the train to move, it would need an engine. In order for the universe to move, it would need an unmoved mover.
Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory. It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further". So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".
Then, there's no conventional "bang" either. The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1. The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2. The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html)
Inflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory...
Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
Here's the reason.Time breaks down as we get closer and closer using relativity theory. It's not "something out of nothing", but "we cannot use the theory to predict any further". So the furthest we can see is still "from something to something".
Then, there's no conventional "bang" either. The two main modern observations contradict the bang are
1. The cosmological microwave background is extremely uniformed
2. The discovery that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate
Currently the popular theory among the scientific community is the inflation theory.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html)Quote from: Nasa.govInflation is now considered an extension of the Big Bang theory...
That's certainly not what you implied when you said...Big bang is not even consistent with modern science anyway.
On a side note: I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.I have a hard time understanding most of what I wrote on that post. I am guessing that was what I meant.
Here's the reason.On a side note: I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray while I was writing that last post.I have a hard time understanding most of what I wrote on that post. I am guessing that was what I meant.
Also, is it just me, or has this thread gone from religious debate to quantum physics?
On a side note: I drank half a bottle of Tanqueray
-Big Bang - A singularity in multiple dimensions, which contains the entire weight of the universe, suddenly expands in terms of our '4 dimensions'. That single point is the 'center of the universe', and must be a gravitational center to the universe, as otherwise the expansion of the universe wouldn't be slowing down. I wouldn't exactly call this a radical theory.
-Life started somehow' - There are plenty of theories based around plenty of evidence.
Oh, and on that note that MNB made about a giant explosion happening randomly and 'life start[ing] somehow'...WTF?!?!:In other words, a random explosion and life started somehow.
-Big Bang - A singularity in multiple dimensions, which contains the entire weight of the universe, suddenly expands in terms of our '4 dimensions'. That single point is the 'center of the universe', and must be a gravitational center to the universe, as otherwise the expansion of the universe wouldn't be slowing down. I wouldn't exactly call this a radical theory.
-'Life started somehow' - There are plenty of theories based around plenty of evidence. I don't see that this is a problem. It could have been due to a reaction of chemicals in the depths of the ocean (perhaps around geothermal 'hotpoints' where we can now see that see life thrives), which caused the chemical bases for dna to form, and thus for life to occur.
I only believe in the Chaos Theory.You sure you understand that thing? Maybe you can tell us what the heck happens at the accumulation point.
In other words ... life started somehow.
We? Are you a biologist?In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
We? Are you a biologist?
I don't see you holding any scientific degrees. If what you're saying refutes his statement, then by nature everything you've said over the course of this entire thread in regards to science can't be taken seriously either.We? Are you a biologist?In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
Did I say I was refuting his statement? I was simply venting on one of my pet peeves of English usage.I don't see you holding any scientific degrees. If what you're saying refutes his statement, then by nature everything you've said over the course of this entire thread in regards to science can't be taken seriously either.We? Are you a biologist?In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
Did I say I was refuting his statement? I was simply venting on one of my pet peeves of English usage.I don't see you holding any scientific degrees. If what you're saying refutes his statement, then by nature everything you've said over the course of this entire thread in regards to science can't be taken seriously either.We? Are you a biologist?In other words ... life started somehow.
Not just somehow. We have narrowed down the likely conditions of the start of life.
His statement does not require refuting.
It seems likely that life was created by random chance to be honest. It makes more sense than having a God/Deity.
Back when the asteroid hit infant Earth, it seems by random chance that life forms were made, maybe during the collision the moisture and the various debris were colliding.
Early life came about from a chemical mixture. A lot of the elements and such in this chemical mixture were brought to Earth by an asteroid/asteroids.
It wasn't an automatic assembly, really. The oceans of the young earth were rich in amino acids that were floating about and bumping into each other, and by pure chance a combination of amino acids was made that was capable of reproducing itself. Some other combinations capable of reproduction were made, and this would have brought on natural selection, favouring those combinations that were more efficient at reproduction.
There was also a group of organisms, I can't remember what they're called, which are now seen off the coast of Australia somewhere, IIRC, which use carbon dioxide as their energy source, and they produce oxygen, which is widely believed to be what fuelled the sudden explosion of life that began on Earth.
I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
Perhaps, but it's not like it happened instantly did it?I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
Which is why completely new forms of life don't spring up too often.I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
And even if they did, they'd probably be killed off by superior predators. Like Naryar, for instance. =PWhich is why completely new forms of life don't spring up too often.I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
rawr ?And even if they did, they'd probably be killed off by superior predators. Like Naryar, for instance. =PWhich is why completely new forms of life don't spring up too often.I haven't studied the original original of life for some time, so I don't remember all the details so well.More like, life didn't start because a bunch of random chemicals sprang to life of their own accord. Do you know the mathematical odds of a chain of amino acids randomly combining to form DNA? Well, I'll tell you. They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
The point still stands - life didn't come about because some deity came about and said "ORGANISMS GET!"
Guys, in terms of this thread, Quantum theory, and the words of Supertramp:
'We have no reason to fight,
'cos we both know that we're right.'
Alright, but 1/500,000,000,000 are much better odds than1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000They're 1 over 10 to the 67th, or practically zero.
Well no crap the odds were against it, but it happened anyway. It's a pretty rare occurrence, we're (and by that I mean the human race) the only documented case. Just because the odds were against it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It's kinda like this story I head about a woman who's parked car got hit by a meteor about the size of a baseball. Now the surface of the earth is roughly 510,072,000km2, and lets say the car was about 2 meters wide and 5 meters long (an area of 10m2). That means that there was about a one in five hundred billion chance that the meteor could have hit anywhere on that car, and there's a much lower chance for hitting the particular area that it did. Despite the 1/500,000,000,000 chance of it happening, the car got hit by the meteor anyway.
Oh, but it is. According to the uncertainty principal, unless a physical measurement is done, we don't know - and all probabilities therefore exist. We can both determine that we're right, as the probabilities that there is and isn't both exist. It's much like if two horses finish neck-and-neck...until someone checks the finish photograph, both have won, because either may have.Guys, in terms of this thread, Quantum theory, and the words of Supertramp:
'We have no reason to fight,
'cos we both know that we're right.'
If only it was that simple.
Alright, but 1/500,000,000,000 are much better odds than1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Which is greater than the age of the universe.
I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine.
Abiogenesis is really just a variation of spontaneous generation, which was disproved by Lois Pasteur. The only real difference is abiogenesis uses the convenient explanation that anything can happen if you wait long enough, ****ing miracles.
I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine.I agree. People draw way too much conclusions out of the obvious lack of information.
I won't even say that this means abiogenesis couldn't have happened, I'll just say that you can't say that your beliefs make any more sense than mine.I agree. People draw way too much conclusions out of the obvious lack of information.
Arguing for "Random chance" is really no better than "God". They are both philosophically unfalsifiable and indistinguishable.
And how is abiogenesis right ? It's just a wacky theory.
When I learned about it last year I was already thinking "WTF is this ? even creationism is more believable !"
This coming up from an empirical agnostic.
Well for all you guys know an all-powerful deity could be on this earth right now.
Maybe even on this forum *brushes hair out of eyes in dramatic fashion*
Fair enough, although Nar, I hope you do realise that RA2 =/= the universe;PWell for all you guys know an all-powerful deity could be on this earth right now.
Maybe even on this forum *brushes hair out of eyes in dramatic fashion*
CLICKBEETLE
THE GOD OF RA2
What?!?
Who is this jeff fellow?
It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Like that i'm in a simulator and everybody else are just AI who think they are alive but aren't and i've already programmed in the future to fit my fancies?It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Have you guy ever consider that both of them can be wrong? That in 20 years we probably move to another popular theory?
Fair enough, although Nar, I hope you do realise that RA2 =/= the universe;PWell for all you guys know an all-powerful deity could be on this earth right now.
Maybe even on this forum *brushes hair out of eyes in dramatic fashion*
CLICKBEETLE
THE GOD OF RA2
Personally I don't believe in both abiogenesis and intelligent design.It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Have you guy ever consider that both of them can be wrong? That in 20 years we probably move to another popular theory?
Like that i'm in a simulator and everybody else are just AI who think they are alive but aren't and i've already programmed in the future to fit my fancies?At least solipsism is consistent with all possible observations.
It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Have you guy ever consider that both of them can be wrong? That in 20 years we probably move to another popular theory?
It's monkeys and typewriters, basically. Eventually they'll write Shakespeare through random chance. And eventually abiogenesis will bring about a replicating combination of amino acids through random chance. There's more chance of abiogenesis than some kind of all-powerful deity, in my view.It is just like the philosophical random generator that spits out nothing but 3. No matter how many 3 it spits out you can never disprove that it's not a random generator.
Have you guy ever consider that both of them can be wrong? That in 20 years we probably move to another popular theory?
lol people taking ED seriously
That was the largest pile of made-up, fact-bent, irrelevant sh** I have ever read.Lawl new fag.
wat
I'm simply pointing out the truth, everyone should know not to take ED seriously.