Twitchmonkey
Gallant
Dragonzord Hooker
I like hookers
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jul 24, 2006 0:48:11 GMT -5
I'd quote my previous post but I can't seem to find it in all these pages "The bible says that God made Adam and Eve, gave them free will, and let history unravel from there, giving it a small push from time to time." the priests are a sick result of humanity not God Which is, by association, a result of god. If an engineer made a robot that was designed to kill people and it killed someone, is the engineer completely free of guilt?
|
|
|
Post by Raist on Jul 24, 2006 1:10:07 GMT -5
I just wanted to say from the start of the thread. God is the beginning, He's not apart of the beginning of everything but He is just that. Think of it like, God, then everything started. There was no before Him and he didn't just come to be, but He was always there. At least that's my theory. So instead of "In the Beginning there was God" think of it like.. "God created the beginning,etc" There was no before God, and He didn't just appear, He just always was. It's hard to explain what I'm trying to say
|
|
|
Post by tartilus on Jul 24, 2006 1:22:26 GMT -5
To state that there must be a god, simply because we cannot explain how the universe started, is a classic example of a theistic tactic we atheists call "The god of gaps." Basically it involves the religion in question attempting to explain and existing solely within those things science does not understand; the 'gaps.' As science advances and those gaps shrink, religion loses it's bulk. Once it was thought that lightning bolts were the creator unleashing his fury upon sinful churches. Lightning rods were originally condemned by the church as sinful, in that they prevented god's judgment from being fulfilled. That, of course, was a foolish position, and it has since been rectified. Thus does religion grow ever weaker as science expands. Which brings me to my next point - god is not the default. Just because we do not understand something at the current moment, such as the reasons behind the big-bang, does not mean that we should automatically assume that a conscious force must have directed it. Indeed, such a position is so abstract as to be almost comical. I refer you to my 'doorknob' faith, and ask you why it could not be the great doorknob who started the universe into motion? Is there any reason the doorknob would be even slightly less absurd than Jehovah? Science is growing, it has been growing for many years - often at an astounding rate. When its knowledge has been exhausted, then, and only then, could an argument be made for other, supernatural causes. Until such time, there is absolutely no reason to assume that there isn't a scientific explanation for even the most bizarre of occurrences. So what should we believe? Is there not some small possibility that I am incorrect – and that god does indeed exist? Of course. There is, we think, a small possibility that almost anything is possible. However, to put absolute faith in that small possibility – to confine yourself to morals which, as often as not, preach bigotry and ignorance alongside more decent and common morals, is absolute foolishness. I do not need a bible to tell me that killing is wrong. Indeed, I find it infinitely more noble to find and uphold my own morals than accept those of any book – holy or otherwise. I can only hope that if, against all reason, there is a god, he will not be the arrogant portrayed in most religious works. To tell the truth, I would not want to spend eternity with the Christian god – he is neither kind nor just, and he is no father of mine.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Jul 24, 2006 1:57:08 GMT -5
I'd quote my previous post but I can't seem to find it in all these pages "The bible says that God made Adam and Eve, gave them free will, and let history unravel from there, giving it a small push from time to time." the priests are a sick result of humanity not God Which is, by association, a result of god. If an engineer made a robot that was designed to kill people and it killed someone, is the engineer completely free of guilt? If he gave it the capability, but not direct orders, then yes, he is.
|
|
Twitchmonkey
Gallant
Dragonzord Hooker
I like hookers
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Jul 24, 2006 2:08:14 GMT -5
THe whole free will thing is the important issue. Basically it's like setting that robot to have a list of things it can do and just letting it loose and letting fate run its course. If that behavior comes up it's sort of the engineers fault for including it.
|
|
|
Post by tartilus on Jul 24, 2006 2:29:58 GMT -5
It isn't even that, as god is supposed to have an almost parental air towards us. Thus, it is more like he has set us lose, mere children, and let us wander along the edge of the highway with naught but a single warning. Even worse, there are all sorts of delicious candies sitting in the middle of said highway, tempting us incessantly.
God considers it all a 'test' and then he gets all surprised and angry when we wander into the road. It's stupidity of the highest order, and it carries a feeling best described as brattiness. God, obviously, is a little naive if he gave us free will, allowed us to be tempted by 'sin' and now acts shocked when we 'stray.' Here in America we call that parental negligence, and it’s a crime.
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Jul 24, 2006 3:36:18 GMT -5
Saying there must be a god because we can't explain the exact cause of why the universe exists, hence god exists;is like saying we can't explain the exact nature of dinosaurs, hence dragons exist.
Lack of understanding cannot possibly in any way lead to a conclusion, it's a logical fallacy; Intellectually reprehensible in every way.
The only conclusion we can get out of the fact we aren't sure where the universe came from is the fact we don't know where it came from.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Jul 24, 2006 5:13:20 GMT -5
It isn't even that, as god is supposed to have an almost parental air towards us. Thus, it is more like he has set us lose, mere children, and let us wander along the edge of the highway with naught but a single warning. Even worse, there are all sorts of delicious candies sitting in the middle of said highway, tempting us incessantly. God considers it all a 'test' and then he gets all surprised and angry when we wander into the road. It's stupidity of the highest order, and it carries a feeling best described as brattiness. God, obviously, is a little naive if he gave us free will, allowed us to be tempted by 'sin' and now acts shocked when we 'stray.' Here in America we call that parental negligence, and it’s a crime. Well, lucky her Nena doesn't listen to Human laws. She never acts surprised, she just helps to teachs us to be better people when our ticket comes up. I prefer to call it 'experimenting', which sounds more sensual than spiritual, but that's probably because I'm screwed up in the head.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Jul 24, 2006 10:47:55 GMT -5
Science is growing, it has been growing for many years - often at an astounding rate. When its knowledge has been exhausted, then, and only then, could an argument be made for other, supernatural causes. Until such time, there is absolutely no reason to assume that there isn't a scientific explanation for even the most bizarre of occurrences. I totally agree with the gist of this assertion. However, if there is a God who created the universe, it would make sense to me that he also created science. So why do science and God have to be mutually exclusive? Science really is growning incredibly fast, which leads me to believe it won't be long before science can prove God. You already know where I stand on this, but I'll say it again. The belief in God, and love for a creator isn't what spawns the bigotry and ignorance of which you speak--it's the dogmatic practices of the secular religions that cause this. You're very intelligent. I suggest, if you're interested, researching the religions, and looking over the native spiritual practices of people all around the world. You'll see some very interesting things, especially if you're well-versed in physics in general, and quantum mechanics in particular. And you'll find, amongst the core parallels you'll see in all of them, that there really is no bigotry or ignorance. Those, as I stated, are tied to the secular beliefs of certain denominations within particular religions. The typical view of the Christian God is very Abrahamic--a huge behemoth sitting upon a throne, casting sinners to hell and waging righteous war upon the unholy. <--Totally wrong. I agree with you that such a God is neither kind nor just. Fortunately, this too is tied to dogma within the church. You're gay? You go to hell. You had sex before marriage? You're going to hell. You don't accept Christ as your lord and savior? You're going to hell. <--Totally wrong. I AM a christian, to an extent. But I certainly don't follow the church, and I interpret the bible differently, and the life and teachings of Jesus. According to Christians, I'm going to hell. Hipocritical, isn't it? This is why I don't fully subscribe to the church's spin on things. Everything is between me and God, and there's no man-made instituation/conglomeration/business that's going to stand in the middle. And in the end, that's what any organized religion is. So I agree to an extent with what you say. But maybe, just maybe, if you did your own research, you'll find yourself beginning to look at things a little differently. Try not to let yourself be jaded by the narrow-minded views of some people in a religion that has an over-inflated ego to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Jul 24, 2006 11:27:43 GMT -5
There are a handful of things theists say which I have no problem with individually. The idea that god created science is fine to me, ignoring the fact the fact it implies god exists for the sake of argument. The most logical theists are the non-religious theists - they can argue safely from outside the restrictions of religion. It's easy to argue that religion is flawed, it very much is, but you cannot say that god does not, for certain, exist. You can believe god is illogical, and believe he doesn't exist, but you can't say for certain. You cannot prove anything does not exist.
But you can say that it is illogical.
Which is where my second analogy comes into play - the herring swarm, which I'm sure you've already heard and so I won't bore both of us by repeating it. The simple argument here is that god does not make sense. He is not logical. He is random. We don't know why the universe exists - so some big amazing guy must have made it! God is a placeholder for a real explanation and people are refusing to get rid of him.
Science will never prove god exists. I know you you've had experiences which you think are proof for his existence, and while I don't know what they are, you shouldn't trust them. Everything has a reasonable explanation, and not just "we don't understand it so god did it."
If you happen to be right, we'll rendezvous in heaven and I'll stand corrected. If I'm right, when you die just...um...cease to exist, and I'll take that as a sign of acceptance.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Jul 24, 2006 13:54:22 GMT -5
There are a handful of things theists say which I have no problem with individually. The idea that god created science is fine to me, ignoring the fact the fact it implies god exists for the sake of argument. The most logical theists are the non-religious theists - they can argue safely from outside the restrictions of religion. It's easy to argue that religion is flawed, it very much is, but you cannot say that god does not, for certain, exist. You can believe god is illogical, and believe he doesn't exist, but you can't say for certain. You cannot prove anything does not exist. But you can say that is illogical. Which is where my second analogy comes into play - the herring swarm, which I'm sure you've already heard and so I won't bore both of us by repeating it. The simple argument here is that god does not make sense. He is not logical. He is random. We don't know why the universe exists - so some big amazing guy must have made it! God is a placeholder for a real explanation and people are refusing to get rid of him. Science will never prove god exists. I know you you've had experiences which you think are proof for his existence, and while I don't know what they are, you shouldn't trust them. Everything has a reasonable explanation, and not just "we don't understand it so god did it." If you happen to be right, we'll rendezvous in heaven and I'll stand corrected. If I'm right, when you die just...um...cease to exist, and I'll take that as a sign of acceptance. Fair enough. By know, you know my agenda is far from trying to convince people that God is real. You can see, over on the other forum, that I simply try to get people to think things on a different level than a lot of people are used to. I will never seriously try to prove God, spirit, or anything else to people. That's all very personal, and it has to be made real on an internal basis. And I'll bet that, even if science DOES prove God, there will be many who will still dissent--such is the nature of God. You think if he wanted us to stop arguing, he wouldn't just prove to everyone he's here? So there's two explanations, in my book, why he doesn't. The first is the most obvious: he doesn't because he doesn't exist. If there is no God, that would certainly account for his seeming absense in the affairs of men. Or, the position I take, is that he leaves it up to us to decide whether or not to accept him. What good is free will otherwise, eh? And yes, I have had experiences which leave no doubt in my mind as to his existence, the the truth of an afterlife/prelife/eternal existence. But like I said, it's all very individualized and customized. I couldn't relate my experiences without sounding like a total schizophrenic, anyway. So whether people believe or don't believe in this life, the truth is shown when you die. I've got no problem with that. And in reality, there is no hell for not believing. So if you ever were worried about that, you don't need to be.
|
|
|
Post by Scalp Wax on Jul 29, 2006 14:57:06 GMT -5
I am a Baptist Christian and have a strong faith in God. Now I'm here to bring up a point that could be a good debate topic: As most athiests believe that the Big Bang was how the universe started. Now, how could this happen without a higher power guiding it? You see, religion is based on faith not fact which is why a lot of people see athiesm as a better belief. They want facts and not faith. You see, athiests "usually" don't have any experience with God in their lives which is why they have no faith. And when they try to acquire faith they sometimes substitute logic for faith, which makes them turn to athiesm. Now, the Big Bang did not just happen, there HAS to be a power there doing it. Whether it be the Christian God I believe in or Muhammed(sorry if sp mean no offense) or whatever. To say that there is no God what so eve is juust being stubborn. There has to be one it doesn't just go "Bang, UNIVERSE" for no reason. If I remember right in science energy cannot be destroyed nor created, but in this case it somehow is, now how is this possible without a divine aid? Some of you may say "Well what created God then?" well TBH anyone who has faith in him does not know,all He states is that He is the beginning and end. The Alpha and the Omega. I don't know how to explain that though, no one who has faith like me, do either. Now my point is there HAS to be a God, whether it be my beliefs or not. I am open to the fact that my religion may not be right, but I have such a strong belief in it, I try not to....... I have always been an atheist, as far back as I can remember. As for the logic to back it up? The Big Bang was a theory created, purely out of cold hard logic, by very very intelligent rational people. I mean no offense saying this, but to be blunt I believe that faith can make, ones mind and views foggy.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 29, 2006 18:56:21 GMT -5
I don't have 100% faith in the Big Bang myself, but there's a lot more evidence to back it up than there ever was for G[censored].
I've stated before my fondness for scientific laws, especially the Law of Conservation of Matter. Since Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, there can be no creator. Our brains try to assume there was a beginning to the Universe, just because as physical beings, our lives begin and our lives end. We try to apply this truth of humanity to a wider Universe. This was the beginning of religion. Man's arrogance and his willingness to place himself at the center of the Universe. "If I began", thinks man, "Then I was created, and so was everything else, as surely as I stand. G*beep* must have created me in his own image."
And so did man create G@$ in his own image... a deity which in turn created man's ideal version of himself in its image. All because of man's small mind, incapable of understanding that for all things, there is not a beginning, nor an end. If there was a Big Bang, it was one in a series of Big Bangs. If this Universe is expanding now, it will pull itself back together, and repeat again and again, just as it always has.
Even my mind, my brain of flesh and blood, is screaming out to me "But Pilaf, you mean since the beginning!". But I forgive my brain..it's only a very crude little thing. It was designed to steer my clumsy primate body to gather food and shelter. It's not equipped to explore the greater truths of the Universe. And so I pity myself and my flesh shell. Only as a lifeless nonentity could I fully understand the lack of beginning or ending, but then I wouldn't care and would lack a mind of any kind to know.
And that's as close to the truth as I'll get without burning out my frontal lobes.
edit: See what I just typed. "It was designed." Even as I use my brain to attempt to debunk creation, it desperately seeks to defend its inflated ego of self importance. Such an amusing Freudian slip.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Jul 29, 2006 20:01:02 GMT -5
I agree with you completely Pilaf. I've stated before my fondness for scientific laws, especially the Law of Conservation of Matter. Since Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, there can be no creator If there was a Big Bang, it was one in a series of Big Bangs. If this Universe is expanding now, it will pull itself back together, and repeat again and again, just as it always has. Religious people often misunderstand this part of the whole theory. They say "If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how could the Big Bang have created the universe?" What they fail to realise is that the word universe has two meanings. The first being all the gas and rocks that spun out from the most recent big bang to happen near us. The second being everything. Everything, including everything and excluding nothing. Outside of all this - these galaxies upon galaxies created by that big bang - there is empty space which stretches on for unimaginable distances. Like the empty space between the Earth and the Moon, for instance - just an vacuum, with no gas, solid, liquid or anything else. Empty space which the big-bang created universe is spreading into. That universe has, in my opinion, existed forever. It may very well be infinite in size too. There may be other big bangs happening at this moment at other places in the universe. Who knows? Not I. But I do know this. Because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, and because the universe has no beginning, it can logically be assumed that all matter/energy in existance has also existed forever. And it is with that matter and energy that the Big Bang took place and everything we see through our telescopes came to be. No God required.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jul 29, 2006 20:51:12 GMT -5
Just curious; we know man can't create matter, but wahts to say a God couldn't?
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Jul 29, 2006 22:55:07 GMT -5
Wow, that's kind of....odd. Seeing as though you said "if" you must not believe but "if" he did, you'd deny him and burn in hell for an eternity in pain and agony? Let's see pain+agony or eternal peace. I think I'll take the second one... I would like to reply to this, even if it is old. Submitted to a corrupt god for one's own comfort is submitting to corruption yourself, I would rather stay true to my own will and be a martyr for humanity. To quote Thoreau, under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the only place for a just man is also a prison. If God is going to throw those that don't deserve it into hell, I would gladly share their fate. It is not a matter of individual gain, it's about the very principle of justice, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Anon on Jul 30, 2006 6:32:41 GMT -5
Just curious; we know man can't create matter, but wahts to say a God couldn't? Why should he be able to? The Big Bang could have happened through purely logical and scientific means, why do people have to drag a god in, when there is no evidence for him at all?
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jul 30, 2006 10:36:17 GMT -5
I would like to reply to this, even if it is old. Submitted to a corrupt god for one's own comfort is submitting to corruption yourself, I would rather stay true to my own will and be a martyr for humanity. To quote Thoreau, under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the only place for a just man is also a prison. If God is going to throw those that don't deserve it into hell, I would gladly share their fate. It is not a matter of individual gain, it's about the very principle of justice, pure and simple. I agree with you there. Why should he be able to? The Big Bang could have happened through purely logical and scientific means, why do people have to drag a god in, when there is no evidence for him at all? Well, I don't have any evidence that a god exists at all, its just when I see there is an argument that can be argued against using God, I use it. Like this matter argument, matter cannot be created by us. As for my views on existence? Well, we're here, and I don't know how the hell we got here
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 30, 2006 19:59:23 GMT -5
Just curious; we know man can't create matter, but wahts to say a God couldn't? Because a God would be matter. Albeit in a form we wouldn't recognize.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Jul 30, 2006 20:02:09 GMT -5
Just curious; we know man can't create matter, but wahts to say a God couldn't? Because a God would be matter. Albeit in a form we wouldn't recognize. Ok, yes, I can concede that point.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 30, 2006 20:10:37 GMT -5
Yes..and I could go farther and say, if God creates matter, but God is matter, then what creates God, since a creator is supposedly necessary. It could be argued that another God created God, and so forth, but this line of thought only supports my initial theory of infinate, neverbeginning, neverending energies.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Jul 30, 2006 20:16:14 GMT -5
Will Wright created God, and he downloaded all His creatures from the internets.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 30, 2006 20:18:56 GMT -5
God is not a big truck. It's a series of tubes!
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Jul 31, 2006 1:51:46 GMT -5
Hahahahahahahahahahaahahhahahahaahahahahhahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!(x infinity)
God sent a miracle to himself from his office a week ago, and it just arrived today!
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Jul 31, 2006 10:31:40 GMT -5
I fight for God neutrality!
(Okay..I think we've derailed this topic enough)
|
|