Print

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Religion

It's an analogy. It basically says that God created things by what are effectively magical powers, not real, physical mechanisms.

Duh it was an analogy, but it was a such a condescending statement that it deserved a retort.

Actually, it hit the nail on the head. The bible ascribes God literal magical powers, which in any terms is pretty much the same as witchcraft.

And there's scientific evidence that the universe was and always will be. It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. God couldn't create something that, technically, can never be created nor destroyed.

First law of Thermodynamics: "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

Umn.. Yeah, not really. Again, you're using the faith part of your personal belief in science that you won't call a Religion.

Which explicitly leads onto the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed in form.

Add to this the knowledge that matter is simply energy in a different form tells us that the universe has always been there in some form.

But it's a circular argument; He's God because he created the Universe, He can do anything because He's God, therefore, He must have the ability to create the universe.

Not wanting to sound immature, but I'll say it anyway: you wish. God is God because he's God. There is no reason He is or conclusion stated by people. Again, if you can't understand the concept of what a god is, I can't argue with you because it's above your head.

That's a circular argument. All evidence suggests that God doesn't exist, or at least, there is no evidence to suggest He exists. You can believe what you like, but in any scientific, legal or historical sense, there's no way you can prove God.

We can observe the universe moving outwards from a single point.

So it wasn't always there then? I guess I don't need to argue with you if you find my arguments for me.

No, the universe expanding from a single point does not suggest it wasn't always there. It suggests it's expanding from a single point. Look up the big bang and big crunch theories: that the universe is in a constant cycle of eploding and then contracting. The very nature of gravity suggests that a big crunch is inevitable, and Red Shift indicates that the big bang happened.

But we have nothing that suggests God.

I've never seen such a biased and baseless remark ever in a debate. Congratulations.

Occam's Razor: The simplest explaination that assumes the least (that is unprovable in itself) is the most likely.

The God explaination for the universe assumes a lot that is unprovable: That God exists, that He is all-powerful, that he had the knowledge, ability and desire to create the universe when He did, that it is actually physically possible for that to happen.
The scientific explaination assumes very little: We know the universe is expanding, we know nucleosynthesis is possible, that there are definite, observable mechanisms that very dfinitely could've led to the current state of things (and due to the nature of probability and the very large size and old age of the universe, it is likely to happen somewhere, and just happened to happen here). In the same vein, the fact that it seems only to have happened here - habitable planet, carbon-based life, etc, actually seems to confirm the idea it happened by chance.

The simplest explaination for the God theory is that He's a fictional character used by early people with no grasp of science to explain the world around them. The very large number of very different gods and creation myths throughout human history suggests that this is not an uncommon phenomen.

All science suggests that a lot of things posited by the bible - an all-seeing, all-powerful being is physical impossible. Archaeology and science suggest that the bible has no historical credibility.

Suggest one thing that really, explicitly suggests God exists. Don't use the bible, because that's as credible as using the Harry Potter series as evidence for Voldemort really existing.

I completed the game, checked the credits; it's a very short credit list, as you'd expect.

If you couldn't understand the analogy, just say so.

Clearly you don't understand the analogy if you don't get what I'm on about.

[bertfallen]

bertfallen

Re: Religion

And there's scientific evidence that the universe was and always will be. It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. God couldn't create something that, technically, can never be created nor destroyed.

First law of Thermodynamics: "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

Umn.. Yeah, not really. Again, you're using the faith part of your personal belief in science that you won't call a Religion.

Which explicitly leads onto the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed in form.

Add to this the knowledge that matter is simply energy in a different form tells us that the universe has always been there in some form.

So in theory the Big Bang formed the universe we know today?

I'm sure I've heard something along them lines before. Gah >_<. I wish I could remember things more easily.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Religion

K-PAX? In the Film prot said (can't remember if it's in the book, which I have read) that the universe expands, then collapses, then expands again in a never-ending cycle, and you're actions are repeated again and again and again, you are born and die once in every cycle, live the same life you did in the last one and die again, so get your actions right this time, because this time is forever.

[thibledorf]

thibledorf

Re: Religion

It seems to me that there was a song about the universe expanding.... Now how did that go?.....Aha!

The universe around us keeps expanding and expanding. In every single direction it can whiz.

I think that's all of it. It was from some crappy little kids show.

"If God can do anything, can God make a burrito so hot that he himself cannot eat it?"

lol. I don't think He would if He could.

what do you not think he would do?
make it, or eat it?

$10 says you don't even know what you just said.

Actually Taka; I think on that note; in Christian theology; God himself made mankind a vast array of variables Free will and such... So the idea behind that is... If God is all knowing, and we truly have free will, then its impossible for both to be true... But in Christian theology; or at least, completely unretarded Christian theology says that God would block himself from looking into things that He Himself set rules against; so yes. God could create a burrito that He Himself couldn't eat; as He set that rule for Himself :p

Wow! There is an answer! But your logic doesn't quite fit. You are saying that god could stop himself from eating the burrito but the real question is if he can make a burrito so hot he doesn't have the ability to eat it.

Ya I'm a show off.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Religion

I think he's saying "Because God can do anything, God could eat a burrito so hot he could not eat it if he decided to make it so that he could not eat something so hot." which is the obvious solution to that riddle if you ask me

[Source]

Source

Re: Religion

Nondenominational Christian. Basically, I don't belong to any particular branch of Christianity. I believe in God, and that's that. Also, I don't let religion cloud my perspective of existence. My faith is a purely spiritual thing, and I don't use it to explain natural phenomenon. For that, I turn to science.

The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone thought to themselves "You know, I really want to set those people over there on fire." - George Carlin

(!@#$%)

Hear the haunting words (They'll find you alone)
lost children with no heart are crying (Turning their hearts into stone)
and you're the lost mother they're calling
Go now, run and hide (seek more than vengeance)
I hear them crying at night (your pain is their satisfaction)
outside when the planets are falling (for the rest of time)
They want to feel and know you hear them (Go now, run and hide)

• 

[NeoGeo-x]

NeoGeo-x

Re: Religion

completely unretarded Christian theology

I'm going to be an ass here and say that that's an oxymoron

My name is Pitt

[Mamoruanime]

Mamoruanime

Re: Religion

completely unretarded Christian theology

I'm going to be an ass here and say that that's an oxymoron

well, the christian theology that seems to be mainstream these days is nowhere near what Christianity really is :p thats my point with that

[Dracon]

Dracon

Re: Religion

I'd say that it's not the question of making the burrito hot, but the question of eating it. There's just nothing he can't not do.

And now after years of mocking him the pretending he played a massive part in our lives when really we couldn't care less just to ease our consciounse over said mocking healing can begin <_<

It's Steve Irwin all over again.

[redding]

redding

Re: Religion

completely unretarded Christian theology

I'm going to be an ass here and say that that's an oxymoron

well, the christian theology that seems to be mainstream these days is nowhere near what Christianity really is :p thats my point with that

What is then?

I defo agree that there are many churches in the western world that don't care about what Christianity really is anymore and focus on the social aspect, but in the words of hillary clinton in regards to the methodist church "I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith." http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117043.aspx

Or places like Lakewood church, they don't really care about the the atoning death of Jesus, they just care about making your life comfortable now, about making you the best you can be and focusing on YOU. Which is completely opposite to what Jesus taught.

[Mamoruanime]

Mamoruanime

Re: Religion

completely unretarded Christian theology

I'm going to be an ass here and say that that's an oxymoron

well, the christian theology that seems to be mainstream these days is nowhere near what Christianity really is :p thats my point with that

What is then?

I defo agree that there are many churches in the western world that don't care about what Christianity really is anymore and focus on the social aspect, but in the words of hillary clinton in regards to the methodist church "I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith." http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117043.aspx

Or places like Lakewood church, they don't really care about the the atoning death of Jesus, they just care about making your life comfortable now, about making you the best you can be and focusing on YOU. Which is completely opposite to what Jesus taught.

Eh, theres really not many out there these days; thats why I don't do church ... Theres been only 1 church I've found so far that actually studies the bible the way I prefer to (Shepherds Chapel, google it or something). They're expository, meaning they read chapter by chapter throughout the bible and break it down into the original languages it kinda opens the doors a bit. It's also almost a 180 from mainstream christianity, which again, isnt really all that *Christian* anymore

bah I'm bored

[CelestialEsper]

CelestialEsper

Re: Religion

My church is so unbelievably noice.

[ZFGC Veteran since 2004]

ZFGC Veteran since 2004

[redding]

redding

Re: Religion

completely unretarded Christian theology

I'm going to be an ass here and say that that's an oxymoron

well, the christian theology that seems to be mainstream these days is nowhere near what Christianity really is :p thats my point with that

What is then?

I defo agree that there are many churches in the western world that don't care about what Christianity really is anymore and focus on the social aspect, but in the words of hillary clinton in regards to the methodist church "I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith." http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/117043.aspx

Or places like Lakewood church, they don't really care about the the atoning death of Jesus, they just care about making your life comfortable now, about making you the best you can be and focusing on YOU. Which is completely opposite to what Jesus taught.

Eh, theres really not many out there these days; thats why I don't do church ... Theres been only 1 church I've found so far that actually studies the bible the way I prefer to (Shepherds Chapel, google it or something). They're expository, meaning they read chapter by chapter throughout the bible and break it down into the original languages it kinda opens the doors a bit. It's also almost a 180 from mainstream christianity, which again, isnt really all that *Christian* anymore

bah I'm bored

There are plenty of churches that teach from the Bible. My church, and others in the group of sydney anglican churches, all affirm that the Bible is the Word of God, 100% truthful and 100% trustworthy. We go through the Bible book by book, chapter by chapter, and study what it has to say.

The shepherd chapel I would be cautious about because they deny the Trinity, denial of the trinity has been condemned since the earliest Church, because denial of it is taking away something essential to Christianity. The fact that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all 1, yet at the same time 3. Each fully God, yet apart fully God aswell.
The Bible may not explicitly state that, however it is strongly implied, and Jesus' full deity, the Holy Spirit's fully deity, and God the father's, cannot be denied. Yet at the same time, it cannot be denied that there is one God.
The Shepherds chapel says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are just different forms of God, but this directly contradicts the scriptures.

They also teach that our souls had an existence prior to creation. But that is no where taught in the Bible. As these verses state, the Spiritual body is something after the resurection and has never existed prior.
"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven" (1 Cor. 15:44-47).

There are a few other false teachings in there which derive from human thought and philosophy interpreting the Bible, rather than reading the Bible as is, and letting it interpret itself.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Religion

I don't personally (aka. not over the internet) know one religious person who takes the Bible as true. They think the earth is millions of years old, dinosaurs existed. In fact, all but one of them support evolution, and that one says "I think Evolution happened, but it was not random but God deciding how and when it happened.".
Then again, the only 'openly religious (so-to-speak) people I know are two girls and one guy

Myself, I find a person who can believe in "Innocent until proven guilty" and God to be rather hypocritical. After all, "Innocent until prove guilty" is basically "False until proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true"...see where I'm going? Then again, that's just me.

[redding]

redding

Re: Religion

I don't believe in evolution. Why? Because its a theory, an ideology, which has religious routes to it. Although you might not call it religious, instead atheistic. Basically it came from a rejection of the history according to the Bible, which then had them describing how the earth came to being through small changes. These small changes seemed like they could possibly happen if you gave it enough time. Then a study of the earth was done, ie the fossil record, which was subsequently interpreted as supporting their philosophy.
But I believe you can study the earth scientifically, and fit those fact according to the Bible. And yes it does require supernatural events, but nothing more amazing than Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water, telling a storm to stop by just speaking to it, etc.


I just saw your Richy dawkins quote, personally theres nothing that guy says that moves Christianity even a millimeter. In fact, sections of his book have been read at the church I go to quite a few times. I get a good laugh out of the stuff he says, but theres nothing lethal in there, nothing that honestly attacks Christianity, its just ramblings of an angry guy who doesn't wanna bother looking at the facts properly and instead tries to irrationally attack Christianity through his own ideology.


Anyway, heres my modification of that quote above:
Richard Dawkins
Many of us saw human ideologies as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? The holocaust and Stalins killing of up to 30 million people in the name of evolution changed all that. Revealed evolutionary ideology is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own race's superiority. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill people who they see as inferior/ unevolved human beings, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of skin colour and facial features. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects evolutionary ideology from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so respectful!

[Swoftu]

Swoftu

Re: Religion

I don't believe in evolution. Why? Because its a theory, an ideology, which has religious routes to it.

Science is not a religion.

Although you might not call it religious, instead atheistic.

Naturalistic, actually. Get your damn terms right. Not like you'd really care to know that.

Basically it came from a rejection of the history according to the Bible, which then had them describing how the earth came to being through small changes.

Evolution has nothing to do with the earth's origins. And the bible doesn't represent history anyway.

These small changes seemed like they could possibly happen if you gave it enough time. Then a study of the earth was done, ie the fossil record, which was subsequently interpreted as supporting their philosophy.

Of course fossils support evolution.

But I believe you can study the earth scientifically, and fit those fact according to the Bible. And yes it does require supernatural events, but nothing more amazing than Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water, telling a storm to stop by just speaking to it, etc.

Your analogies suck. You can acutally prove that mutations and such are happening in evolution. Yet there is no proof for miracles that were written in the bible.

I just saw your Richy dawkins quote, personally theres nothing that guy says that moves Christianity even a millimeter. In fact, sections of his book have been read at the church I go to quite a few times. I get a good laugh out of the stuff he says, but theres nothing lethal in there, nothing that honestly attacks Christianity, its just ramblings of an angry guy who doesn't wanna bother looking at the facts properly and instead tries to irrationally attack Christianity through his own ideology.

I love the irony here. You criticising him for not looking at the facts when he's one of the big names in the field of evolutionary biology.

Anyway, heres my modification of that quote above:
Richard Dawkins
Many of us saw human ideologies as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? The holocaust and Stalins killing of up to 30 million people in the name of evolution changed all that. Revealed evolutionary ideology is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own race's superiority. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill people who they see as inferior/ unevolved human beings, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of skin colour and facial features. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects evolutionary ideology from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so respectful!

Stalin and Hitler didn't kill in the name of evolution you clod. Way to fail history class (no, sunday school doesn't count.)

[Kyubi]

Kyubi

Re: Religion

I don't believe in evolution. Why? Because its a theory, an ideology, which has religious routes to it.

Science is not a religion.

Although you might not call it religious, instead atheistic.

Naturalistic, actually. Get your damn terms right. Not like you'd really care to know that.

Basically it came from a rejection of the history according to the Bible, which then had them describing how the earth came to being through small changes.

Evolution has nothing to do with the earth's origins. And the bible doesn't represent history anyway.

These small changes seemed like they could possibly happen if you gave it enough time. Then a study of the earth was done, ie the fossil record, which was subsequently interpreted as supporting their philosophy.

Of course fossils support evolution.

But I believe you can study the earth scientifically, and fit those fact according to the Bible. And yes it does require supernatural events, but nothing more amazing than Jesus rising from the dead, walking on water, telling a storm to stop by just speaking to it, etc.

Your analogies suck. You can acutally prove that mutations and such are happening in evolution. Yet there is no proof for miracles that were written in the bible.

I just saw your Richy dawkins quote, personally theres nothing that guy says that moves Christianity even a millimeter. In fact, sections of his book have been read at the church I go to quite a few times. I get a good laugh out of the stuff he says, but theres nothing lethal in there, nothing that honestly attacks Christianity, its just ramblings of an angry guy who doesn't wanna bother looking at the facts properly and instead tries to irrationally attack Christianity through his own ideology.

I love the irony here. You criticising him for not looking at the facts when he's one of the big names in the field of evolutionary biology.

Anyway, heres my modification of that quote above:
Richard Dawkins
Many of us saw human ideologies as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? The holocaust and Stalins killing of up to 30 million people in the name of evolution changed all that. Revealed evolutionary ideology is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own race's superiority. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill people who they see as inferior/ unevolved human beings, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of skin colour and facial features. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects evolutionary ideology from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so respectful!

Stalin and Hitler didn't kill in the name of evolution you clod. Way to fail history class (no, sunday school doesn't count.)

I want your babies Swiftu. I WANT THEM ALL!

As for evolution being made  "from a rejection of the history according to the Bible", you obviously don't have a !@#$% clue about how the theory came about. Charles Darwin went to study animals on en expedition to the Galapogos Islands, or somewhere like that, and on each of the different islands some animals that were also to be found on another would vary. He found that this was caused by adaptation to the environment. There was another theory that we all came from worms, and evolved differently as we went along our seperate ways, which was never religious either, and denounced as !@#$%.

Gannon-banned brother.

[TheDarkJay]

TheDarkJay

Re: Religion

Hitler killed in the name of God, and in his book "Mein Kampf" said he believed Non-Believers (Atheists) and Jews are enemies to national freedom and must all be killed in the name of God. I'll dig up the exact quotes.

I have never heard of evolution being used to advocate racism beyond the slavery of many many moons ago, which ironically also used the Bible to justify it as well. In fact, I've also heard of the bible being used to advocate Racism, Sexism, Homophobia and more. Of you take the world of Bible as absolute fact: You cannot possibly argue against Sexism in many ways. It states in there something along the lines of that women are to be owned and controlled by their husbands. It's when of them letters written by the ex-terrorist guy. The Homophobia should be obvious, (does it ever explicitly mention 2 women, or are Lesbians supported by God out of curiosity?), and I don't even know how it was used to defend Racism...but if it's as open to interpretation as it seems, it has to be possible.

If memory serves, Modern evolution says the only real difference between 'white and black' is really blacks evolved to have more the darker skin to survive in the hotter climate, while whites evolved to have paler skin to take in as much sunlight as possible to get the most Vitamin D.

[EDGE]

EDGE

Re: Religion

Religion is Fun and Dangerous.
Seeing how people react to certain stuff it's fun, seeing them react in a bad way it's Dangerous...After all, they all try to make you believe what they read on a "Book".

This is an english website, please speak it.

l0l wut? o_0

[CelestialEsper]

CelestialEsper

Re: Religion

Science is not a religion.

Nope. Thanks for going off topic. He said Evolution is, and I'd say it can very justly be called so.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe..." -- Dictionary.com

Because various aspects in Evolution cannot be proven, but they are believed nonetheless, you can safely call it a Religion.

Naturalistic, actually. Get your damn terms right. Not like you'd really care to know that.

Wow, that was a nice way to correct one wrong word. You didn't need to slip in that last pointless comment.

You can acutally prove that mutations and such are happening in evolution.

The only proven Evolution is Microevolution, the small changes within a species that cause it to adapt to its environment and change, but remain the same species.

Stalin and Hitler didn't kill in the name of evolution you clod.

I don't remember if it was Hitler, but I think he was in on it, too. Anyways, around the time of Hitler various horrendous methods were starting up to exterminate the "less evolved" people: forced sterilization among many others. There are was most definitely a whole lot of crap going on in an attempt to eliminate the not so evolved and further man along the route to "super human." I'm going to go do some research and get back to y'all..

I love the irony here. You criticising him for not looking at the facts when he's one of the big names in the field of evolutionary biology.

So you're saying popular supporters of Evolution don't look at the facts? How unfortunate.

[ZFGC Veteran since 2004]

ZFGC Veteran since 2004