Religion

[Lean L]

Let's take a moment and conduct a brainstorm. No previous bias, if you weren't introduced to religion at a young age, and it was not so popular, would you believe in it?

Btw, think high influenceability when considering option 3

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Oh what a marvelous idea for a thread :roll:

Incredibly stupid and uncreative OP below
|
|
|
v

 

[guyver01]

how many religion threads do we need?

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Oh what a marvelous idea for a thread :roll:

Incredibly stupid and uncreative OP below
|
|
|
v

well, that explains

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: guyver01
how many religion threads do we need?

42

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: guyver01
how many religion threads do we need?

42

I never read the books but I know what the whole 42 thing is about. Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42? in which job says "no plan of yours can be thwarted" meaning the bible said the world would be ended. If you read the chapter right before that, it describes a fire breathing dragon which reappears in revelations eatting a fetus.

Now, the author of that book says earth was destroyed by (correct me if I'm wring, I didn't read this book) obscure means. So is the 42 thing just a way of making fun of the idea of the end of the world via dragon power?

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
Now, the author of that book says earth was destroyed by (correct me if I'm wring, I didn't read this book) obscure means. So is the 42 thing just a way of making fun of the idea of the end of the world via dragon power?

If you mean "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" as "the book" ...

Earth was destroyed by an intergalactic demolitions crew to make room for a hyperpace bypass.

Just goes to show that religious nutcases will turn anything into religious tones.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

I never read the books but I know what the whole 42 thing is about. Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42?

Nope..

Not Even Close.

Douglas Adams was asked many times during his career why he chose the number 42. Many theories were proposed, but he rejected them all. On November 3, 1993, he gave an answer on alt.fan.douglas-adams:

? The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do.' I typed it out. End of story. ?

Adams described his choice as "A completely ordinary number, a number not just divisible by two but also six and seven. In fact it's the sort of number that you could, without any fear, introduce to your parents."

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
Now, the author of that book says earth was destroyed by (correct me if I'm wring, I didn't read this book) obscure means. So is the 42 thing just a way of making fun of the idea of the end of the world via dragon power?

If you mean "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" as "the book" ...

Earth was destroyed by an intergalactic demolitions crew to make room for a hyperpace bypass.

Just goes to show that religious nutcases will turn anything into religious tones.

explain

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
explain

ok.

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42? in which job says "no plan of yours can be thwarted" meaning the bible said the world would be ended.

Noone but a religious nutcase would mention a bible verse when dealing with anything.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: guyver01
how many religion threads do we need?

42

I never read the books but I know what the whole 42 thing is about. Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42? in which job says "no plan of yours can be thwarted" meaning the bible said the world would be ended. If you read the chapter right before that, it describes a fire breathing dragon which reappears in revelations eatting a fetus.

Now, the author of that book says earth was destroyed by (correct me if I'm wring, I didn't read this book) obscure means. So is the 42 thing just a way of making fun of the idea of the end of the world via dragon power?

Last I checked Douglas Adams was a radical atheist. Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...Adams#Personal_beliefs

Atheism and view on religion
Adams described himself as a "radical atheist", though he used the term for emphasis so that he would not be asked if he meant agnostic. He stated in an interview with American Atheists[27] that this made things easier, but most importantly it conveyed the fact that he really meant it, had thought about it, and that it was an opinion he held seriously. He stated that his views had nothing to do with belief, and stated that "I am convinced there is no God", and devoted himself to secular causes such as environmentalism. Despite this, he did state in the same interview that he was "fascinated by religion." [...] "I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I?ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing." His fascination he ascribed to the fact that so many "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take [the existence of God] seriously".
The evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion uses Adams' influence throughout to exemplify arguments for non-belief; Dawkins jokingly states that Adams is "possibly [my] only convert" to atheism. In the same paragraph Dawkins expresses missing his close friend.[28] The book is dedicated to Adams' memory, quoting him, "Isn?t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?".

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: guyver01
how many religion threads do we need?

42

I never read the books but I know what the whole 42 thing is about. Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42? in which job says "no plan of yours can be thwarted" meaning the bible said the world would be ended. If you read the chapter right before that, it describes a fire breathing dragon which reappears in revelations eatting a fetus.

Now, the author of that book says earth was destroyed by (correct me if I'm wring, I didn't read this book) obscure means. So is the 42 thing just a way of making fun of the idea of the end of the world via dragon power?

Last I checked Douglas Adams was a radical atheist. Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...Adams#Personal_beliefs

Atheism and view on religion
Adams described himself as a "radical atheist", though he used the term for emphasis so that he would not be asked if he meant agnostic. He stated in an interview with American Atheists[27] that this made things easier, but most importantly it conveyed the fact that he really meant it, had thought about it, and that it was an opinion he held seriously. He stated that his views had nothing to do with belief, and stated that "I am convinced there is no God", and devoted himself to secular causes such as environmentalism. Despite this, he did state in the same interview that he was "fascinated by religion." [...] "I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I?ve thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing." His fascination he ascribed to the fact that so many "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take [the existence of God] seriously".
The evolutionary biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion uses Adams' influence throughout to exemplify arguments for non-belief; Dawkins jokingly states that Adams is "possibly [my] only convert" to atheism. In the same paragraph Dawkins expresses missing his close friend.[28] The book is dedicated to Adams' memory, quoting him, "Isn?t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?".

You have me pegged on the wrong side. I knew he was atheist. I think 41 is rediculous.

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
explain

ok.

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Is it possible that the author was trying to get us to read Job 42? in which job says "no plan of yours can be thwarted" meaning the bible said the world would be ended.

Noone but a religious nutcase would mention a bible verse when dealing with anything.

If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point. See post above

btw, it's wise to know about not only about what you believe in but also what you what you don't believe in, that way you avoid potential shell shocks.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point.

anyone who tries to 'quote bible verses' when arguing with me instantly is invalidated, because they need to rely on a book to tell them what to do.

cant really argue when using someone elses thoughts.

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point.

anyone who tries to 'quote bible verses' when arguing with me instantly is invalidated, because they need to rely on a book to tell them what to do.

cant really argue when using someone elses thoughts.

this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. There's something called evidence. It's extra powerful when you use their evidence.

I take it that you have never written a paper with backed up sources then? We are to take your words for the absolute fact?

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point.

anyone who tries to 'quote bible verses' when arguing with me instantly is invalidated, because they need to rely on a book to tell them what to do.

cant really argue when using someone elses thoughts.

this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. There's something called evidence. It's extra powerful when you use their evidence.

I take it that you have never written a paper with backed up sources then? We are to take your words for the absolute fact?

LOL.. you're gonna use the 'bible' as an "official source in research papers" lol.. good luck with that.

and... who exactly is the "author" of the bible? hmm?

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point.

anyone who tries to 'quote bible verses' when arguing with me instantly is invalidated, because they need to rely on a book to tell them what to do.

cant really argue when using someone elses thoughts.

this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. There's something called evidence. It's extra powerful when you use their evidence.

I take it that you have never written a paper with backed up sources then? We are to take your words for the absolute fact?

LOL.. you're gonna use the 'bible' as an "official source in research papers" lol.. good luck with that.

and... who exactly is the "author" of the bible? hmm?

You should really stop and cut your loses. You quote the bible to disprove beliefs because it is the fucking bible, what zealot will say the bible isn't right?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
You should really stop and cut your loses. You quote the bible to disprove beliefs because it is the fucking bible, what zealot will say the bible isn't right?

I really, really want to punch you in the stomach.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

iamanidiot

your name says it all.

i dont need to say any more.

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
You should really stop and cut your loses. You quote the bible to disprove beliefs because it is the fucking bible, what zealot will say the bible isn't right?

I really, really want to punch you in the stomach.

Oh yeah, you know how I like it... you should prolly get checked out after I'm donw with you though.

 

[Lean L]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

iamanidiot

your name says it all.

i dont need to say any more.

Here's some advice for you. occasionally, just once in a while, use your left hand when brushing your teeth or something, it'll help out.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: guyver01
how many religion threads do we need?

42

So much angst over a number. There's been lots of fun and frivolity and, unfortunately, some defensive chest beating. I read hitchhiker when it was first published. The one thing I remember is the introduction of an answer in search of an question. I thought I might have stumbled onto this question. Probably not.

A second thing I learned from this book is the most useful item to have while traveling. A towel. It has a "1001" uses.

 

[Sea Moose]

wasnt the bible written 500 years after jeebus died?

How much do you and i know what happened 500 years ago?.....

How can the bible therefore be accurate?

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: iamanidiot
If you have family that can be considered zealots, knowing bible verses can be very useful in arguing your point.

anyone who tries to 'quote bible verses' when arguing with me instantly is invalidated, because they need to rely on a book to tell them what to do.

cant really argue when using someone elses thoughts.

this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. There's something called evidence. It's extra powerful when you use their evidence.

I take it that you have never written a paper with backed up sources then? We are to take your words for the absolute fact?

LOL.. you're gonna use the 'bible' as an "official source in research papers" lol.. good luck with that.

and... who exactly is the "author" of the bible? hmm?

You should really stop and cut your loses. You quote the bible to disprove beliefs because it is the fucking bible, what zealot will say the bible isn't right?

Wow. There is so much fail here that I don't know where to start. You cannot argue against something that you know nothing about, otherwise you come off as a complete fool. I've had many conversations with supposed atheists about my faith, and by far the ones that raise the best points by far are ones that actually know wtf the bible says. Not only that, anyone worth his salt arguing religion would have studied its history, including origins of the gospels, prominent Roman theologians (esp. the schools of Antioch and Alexandria), heresies, councils, etc. etc. etc.

If you don't have at least a cursory knowledge of these, you may as well be trying to disprove all of algebra having only a sixth grade education. I bet guyver01 probably has never heard of basic literary redactionary criticism of the Bible, and why it generally postulates a more basic source for the 'authors' of certain gospels, or the answer to simple questions why certain books are 'missing' from protestant cannon, but included in Roman Catholicism and other Eastern churches. Bah! Ignorance exists on both sides of the theist/atheist aisle.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Sea Moose
wasnt the bible written 500 years after jeebus died?

How much do you and i know what happened 500 years ago?.....

How can the bible therefore be accurate?

FAIL. No one person or group sat down and simply wrote the bible. They were written individually by many different Christian communities, at varying times after Jesus died. Many of these never even made it into what we now know as 'the Bible', but were nonetheless candidates for inclusion into Christian cannon. This part is pretty well backed up by historical evidence, including the very same councils that were called to do just that. As per historical accuracy, that part can be debated, but we do still know quite a lot from other sources, namely the official Roman/Hebrew records...