Question about religion and proselytizing

[fredtam]

I have nothing to contribute to this thread other than to say it is truly sad when a movie is so fvcking boring you become delusional and start thinking way too much about obvious sh!t.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Doboji

It does indeed contradict the christian & catholic religions, where are you getting this stuff?

Maybe you and I are reading two completely different threads... perhaps we are even from different planets... but when did Catholic/Christian = all religions?

C/C = 1/3 of the world's population, and is the world's most dominant religion. If you mean religion except for that enormous segment of it, you have to say so.

And furthermore, last I checked evolution is still a theory(one I believe in) and not a fact.

:roll:

Wow, a specific example. Your argument is bulletproof. I was in a bad car accident a few years back and didn't get a scratch on me. Are all bad car accidents safe? When all you have are anecdotes, it's often better to say nothing.

Whoa dude... back up... you're the one making blanket statements about religion contradicting science. My one specific example is sufficient to prove at LEAST an exception, thereby debunking your blanket logic.

Blanket statements? No. I speak about trends. Again, not sure where you're getting this; perhaps you realize you don't have much of an argument unless you ignore what I post and put words in my mouth?

To say that the church hasn't battled science and advancement is mind-boggling. It's a bit off-topic though, as the issue at hand isn't organized religion (which I think we'd both agree has its fair share of problems) but the need or lack thereof to prove the nonexistence of a deity or deities.

Reread the thread my silly friend... this discussion is about percieving one's own religion as the only correct one, and seeing everyone else as wrong. I made the argument that Atheists are just as guilty of this.

Nope kiddo, you made the argument that nonexistence of a deity isn't a fact until proven. That actually is a lot more credible than the bs you're now spewing.

For someone brought up religious, apparently "God" is in everything they see and do, and his nonexistence is the whacky theory which must be proven. Since it won't get anywhere, I'll agree to disagree. My stance remains that nonexistence needs no proof, as it's what we observe in everyday life, while existence, to attain a degree of legitimacy, must be proven.

Interesting that you use your own broken logic to declare my beliefs "illegitimate". While neither I, nor anyone else in this thread called yours "illegitimate". This is typical of fanatics... the unwillingness to allow for others to have their own opinions without ridicule.

The problem here is your blatant denial of reality. You have continuously called my beliefs illegitimate, due to the fact that I haven't logically proven nonexistence of a deity. (nor do I need to)

Lastly, only children and people with low IQs namecall. Not reading before responding is quite a good indicator as well.

Well if I am either a child, or a person with a low IQ, and yet still managed to hand your ass to you in this argument.... then what does that make you?

You handed my ass to me by calling me names, putting words in my mouth, and pissing all over the idea of logic? The only one you've "pwnt", as I'm sure you think of it, is yourself kiddo.

 

[Sideswipe001]

A quote, who's author elludes me right now:

"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

Science proves a lot. But it also leaves wide open arguments against thing like life spontaneously happening. Have you met a clockmaker? But you do believe in them because you've seen the clock that he made, as well as have the testimony of others that he exists.

To me, it's illogical to believe there ISN'T a God. That doesn't mean you attribute everything you don't understand to God, or that there isn't a scientific reason for something to happen. Life is not random, neither is the world or anything else about it. Chaos does not spontaneously turn to order. If I put a puzzle into a bag, shake it up, and dump it out, it will not land with all the pieces put together in the exact right order. Anyone who claims that life and the world came together randomly are claiming that is what happened - except the odds are astronomically WORSE than the puzzle example.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001
A quote, who's author elludes me right now:

"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

Science proves a lot. But it also leaves wide open arguments against thing like life spontaneously happening. Have you met a clockmaker? But you do believe in them because you've seen the clock that he made, as well as have the testimony of others that he exists.

To me, it's illogical to believe there ISN'T a God. That doesn't mean you attribute everything you don't understand to God, or that there isn't a scientific reason for something to happen. Life is not random, neither is the world or anything else about it. Chaos does not spontaneously turn to order. If I put a puzzle into a bag, shake it up, and dump it out, it will not land with all the pieces put together in the exact right order. Anyone who claims that life and the world came together randomly are claiming that is what happened - except the odds are astronomically WORSE than the puzzle example.

I don't see why the world as it exists is proof of a god. What's your reasoning? As far as life, experiments have shown how it could have, and most likely did, happen - and it has nothing to do with a deity, just good old chemical reactions. Basically, the environment of early earth was reproduced in a lab and simulated lightning strikes indeed yielded strings of DNA. Yet you say you don't use religion to explain what you don't understand.... Chaos does not spontaneously turn to order, you're correct - evolution over the course of time is responsible for it. Not knocking your beliefs, as some would claim, just stating facts. If said beliefs are hurt by said facts, that's factual information attacking the beliefs, not me.

By the way, why is it generaly accepted and considered nonoffensive to make a post like the one I've quoted here, which for all intents and purposes says that there is definitely a god, yet it's not ok for me to make a statement saying there definitely isn't one? The statements are polar opposites, yet nobody will complain about a post saying there is definitely a god. That's what's called a "rhetorical" question, kiddies. I already know the answer; it's because religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand. Hypocrisy is necessary for belief in such an obvious fairy tale and necessary as well to put down people making a similar but opposite claim

 

[Trevelyan]

Listen people, it's really quite simple. A lot of people complain about how Christians go to other countries and "force" their religion on other cultures, and I hear all the time that Christians are bigots because they don't accept other people's beliefs, and just accept the way other people are.

But, you guys really need to understand this: Christians aren't going to get along with the world ever. Christ himself said: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." It's pretty obvious that Christianity didn't unite the world, it divided it in many cases. A lot of people get tripped up by that, but if you really believe in Christianity, you understand that it's better to create division and save as many as possible, than to let everyone be united in their sin and utlimately be lost.

 

[flipperspit]

"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

I like that quote, but I dont thing it is logical to believe there is a creator. If there is a creator than what created the creator?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: flipperspit
"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

I like that quote, but I dont thing it is logical to believe there is a creator. If there is a creator than what created the creator?

Uh oh. If you aren't careful you'll have people stacking turtles.

And the original quote is pointless drivel. There are many explainations how the world and life formed. Most of them require no "creator" at all.

And Flipper is correct. If you have to assume a creator for this world, than you have to assume a creator for the creator, ad infinitum... i.e., you'll be stacking turtles to infinity.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flipperspit
"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

I like that quote, but I dont thing it is logical to believe there is a creator. If there is a creator than what created the creator?

Uh oh. If you aren't careful you'll have people stacking turtles.

And the original quote is pointless drivel. There are many explainations how the world and life formed. Most of them require no "creator" at all.

And Flipper is correct. If you have to assume a creator for this world, than you have to assume a creator for the creator, ad infinitum... i.e., you'll be stacking turtles to infinity.

The same logic applies to the big bang theory. If the world was created by some sort of elements coming to together at a precise moment, then what created those elements?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flipperspit
"If a clock is proof of a clockmaker, then the world as it exists is proof of a divine creator"

I like that quote, but I dont thing it is logical to believe there is a creator. If there is a creator than what created the creator?

Uh oh. If you aren't careful you'll have people stacking turtles.

And the original quote is pointless drivel. There are many explainations how the world and life formed. Most of them require no "creator" at all.

And Flipper is correct. If you have to assume a creator for this world, than you have to assume a creator for the creator, ad infinitum... i.e., you'll be stacking turtles to infinity.

The same logic applies to the big bang theory. If the world was created by some sort of elements coming to together at a precise moment, then what created those elements?

No, actually it doesn't. The Big Bang isn't about matter or energy coming together. The Big Bang is the creation and ongoing expansion of spacetime. I don't know what causality means without the notion of time.

 

[Gurck]

The big bang theory took a big credibility hit recently... Text

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Gurck
The big bang theory took a big credibility hit recently... Text

The article doesn't mention the Big Bang. It's actually focused on challenging the current theory of galaxy evolution, which is rather immature. While you could argue that our theories of galactic evolution are right and instead that the universe is older than allowed by the Big Bang, the Big Bang Theory has repeatedly stood up to such challlenges and has a much stronger observational basis than current theories of galactic evolution.

 

[flipperspit]

Originally posted by: Sideswipe001To me, it's illogical to believe there ISN'T a God. Life is not random, neither is the world or anything else about it.

If there is a God then what created him? If you say that God is enternal then you just as well could say that the universe is eternal, if you are speaking from a logical point of view.

Really it is more logical to say the universe is eternal than to say the universe is finite, but was created by some third party who we have no evidence of but who was not created but is eternal. Seems like an uneeded extra step that adds no value, if you look at it from a logical point of view. If said being created the universe there is no evidence that he is doing anything now anyway.

You mention that it is hard to believe that the universe, so not-random and wonderful and orderly, was not created by an intelligent being, but what about that intelligent being? How does something as wonderful as God just happen randomly without a creator? Just a happy accident??

Some religions state that the universe is eternal and cyclical. Those religions also dont have the silly storys of Arks and floods and Adam and Eve. I think it makes more sense than Abrahams simplistic stern father figure god concept.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: flipperspit
To me, it's illogical to believe there ISN'T a God. Life is not random, neither is the world or anything else about it.

Okay, life isn't random, but how do you get from that to monotheism?

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: flipperspit
To me, it's illogical to believe there ISN'T a God. Life is not random, neither is the world or anything else about it.

Okay, life isn't random, but how do you get from that to monotheism?

I'd ask flip to go into his comment more in-depth. What about life and the world are not random? In regards to living creatures, you're right - evolution has shaped us. In regards to celestial bodies, you're also right; they follow the laws of physics, which dictate their movement. None of this requires a deity.