Anubis
No Lifer
yea i only feel guilty for about 10 min after whatever it is i shoudl feel guilty about. then i just let it go and get on with my life
yea i only feel guilty for about 10 min after whatever it is i shoudl feel guilty about. then i just let it go and get on with my life
Anubis
No Lifer
proability in action
10^10^118 meters away according to probability there is an exact copy of our parralel universe not because of an intervening god but because of proability. This is of course if the universe extends infinetly in all directions and based on the uniformity of our visible universe there is a chance it does.
This doesn't seem fair all these people arguing with one
*****100th post ******
10^10^118 meters away according to probability there is an exact copy of our parralel universe not because of an intervening god but because of proability. This is of course if the universe extends infinetly in all directions and based on the uniformity of our visible universe there is a chance it does.
This doesn't seem fair all these people arguing with one
*****100th post ******
no im just basing what i personally know about christianity from the bible and from my church, and i never said that i fully supported my original statement..."it was just something i thought about"
Never seen a literary shared universe, have you? Read a little Conan, Cthulhu Mythos, Dragonlance, even some Sherlock Holmes. That might put a different spin on things.
Anyway, lottsa nice flamebait here
-- Jack
To you I'm an athiest. To God, I'm the loyal opposition.
Which is an interesting statement. What is the context of the hatred of the followers of god around here? That those ppl believe he exists, or that they worship him?
That's sort of the opposite of Pascal's wager. Pascal argued that if God may exist, then shouldn't we "hedge out bets" by believing in him?
:beer: Cheers to both of you for the excellent answers. Another cheers ( :beer: ) to everyone for keeping this a somewhat civilized debate.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,064
- 2,699
- 126
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Because it is well known that it is not...but speaking of the Bible is like speaking of a make of cars....there are over 10 types of the Bible in existance, each may or may not have the same problems. One is the flat geocentric earth belief, the floodgates in the sky are another. However all 'good' christians cover this up saying 'oh that was just figuratively', this is a good excuse.
Keep in mind Gallileo was only recently pardoned for believeing in things that were proved true, but totally against what the Bible taught.....if such a famous person was imprisioned you can see that no scientist will ever be right about the inaccuracies in the Bible(s).
Talking about the mistakes in the Bible or inaccuracies is not something easily done. Someone would really need to prepare an specify which version of the Bible and what verses and why they are flawed. A lot of it is not very obvious and mostly it's based on two portions contradicting each other. Again most of the religious are taught explainations for these 'problems' and you will hear the same canned response that does not really satisfy the error, but sounds good to most and gets the easily swayed in agreement.
The thing is most of the time no one is claiming "Oh look! look! here is a mistake that proves the whole Bible is false and God does not exist!", quite the contrary...many are trying to prove their is a God to satisify their own requirements as a scientist not to trust on faith alone.
But the religious take everything WAY TO PERSONALLY, hell they used to torture people that did not agree until they recanted, pardoned for their sins and then were killed.
Plus the whole blanket statement that those that do not accept the Bible and Jesus/God go to Hell, Purgatory, anyway but Heaven sort of leaves out a lot of the world that are either ignorant/illiterate or just not having heard the story yet. However a lot of the religious like the exclusivity that they get from excluding others from the prize.
Å
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
Now that is not true at all, most of the Bible is fairly accurate as far as history goes....I don't know where you get just about everything can be proven wrong.
Some of the figurative parts perhaps where faith is required or of tales of the future maybe...but a lot of it is based on well documented facts.
Also that definition "to teach a moral lesson" is a very small part, some portions do, some teach a part of history, etc.
So many people think the bible is genesis and the 'bible stories' (the 7days, adam and eve, the apple, the ark, etc), the ten commandments, and then revelation ... most do not realize the majority of the bible is history of the world and some key stories to the hows, whys, whats, and wheres things took place.
Å
I keep it in the cabinet, next to the nasty cans of cambells chunky soup. Seriously what are you talking about? I deal with guilt just like I would with any other emotion such as rage, love, confusion, happiness, etc.
Phhhhfffft a book? Lando Calrissians been in two movies!! Now thats star power. Lando Bless you!
We're full of geeks and I think most geeks give more weight to science than blind faith. Just because I may not have all the answers does not mean it has to be attributed to a god, its just something we don't understand yet. The notion of a rain god didn't seem too silly to many people once. Now we can explain rain. Someday we may be able to answer questions as to the origin of the universe.
Religion is fine if thats your thing, I've developed my own guidelines and feelings about life and intend to live according to them. I would feel foolish trying to mold my life to please a diety that I have no proof of the existance of.
"I contend we are both Atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours." -Stephen F. Roberts
I find this very hard to believe, as if it were more verifiable such information and treaties would be trotted out almost at the onset of these discussions. I've heard of a number of cool historical "facts," such as Roman records recording that in their equivalent of 34 AD a man named Jesus who had been a registered resident of Nazareth was put to death by Pilate, and that documents of his and his family's registered in Bethlehem do still exist. Yet I have never seen mention made to these by any scholarly sources, even during the events of the uncovering of the coffin (can't think of the real name) that was supposed to be the brother of Jesus. Of course I've also heard of a book (this was mentioned in a first-year history course I took) that details how accepted historical analysis techniques were used to disprove the existence of Napoleon. If anyone can find the title of that book, I want it! Or will just have to try tracking down that professor again.
Anyway, the flaw is that you're using the bible to prove its own validity (and by extension, Christ's) and not outside sources. Even Napoleon's existence was documented quite well by those he warred with and conquered. Christ left few, if any, footprints during his time here. So, if you can cite me some of where the New Testament is supported, I'd be much obliged.
The problem run into here is the classic "my way or the highway" dilemma. If God did indeed give rise to all these separate religions, why make it pretty much a universal tract that all those who don't follow those specific forms are subject to damnation/oblivion/reincarnation lower down the chain/etc.? If you bring in the fact that those transcribing it may have placed their own biases into it, you effectively taint the whole thing. We have no way of knowing what's untainted and what's not in that case. Also, didn't the Greeks manage to come up with a lot of those morals as well during the logical revolution when they tried to dispel the need for gods? That's a form-follow-function argument. There are only so many ways to reinvent the wheel, and the core design is always the same. Thus a stable, prosperous society requires certain niceties to be observed for it to prosper and flourish. Which is actually the biggest problem with models of social behaviour; they have to rely on people.
-- Jack
I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a lack of confidence.
-- Doug McLeod
By that logic, you must be god himself if you believe absolutely that there is a god. Because by that logic, to believe absolutely is to know absolutely. There are many absolute believers of god. And thus making many gods.
Or maybe you're just wrong?
Now I'll watch this fire burn more.
dfi
Or maybe you're just wrong?
Now I'll watch this fire burn more.
dfi
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
moral panics sig says it best.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts
its so simple, so true, it destroys any reason to continue the thread.
considering how many religions there have been throughout time, theres a good chance that even if one is correct, you probably chose wrong
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen Roberts
its so simple, so true, it destroys any reason to continue the thread.
considering how many religions there have been throughout time, theres a good chance that even if one is correct, you probably chose wrong
Originally posted by: WRXFanatic
--I can certainly claim for certain there is no Christian God, if the Christian God's criteria is that humans came from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, that Noah had an Ark that saved the world from a flood by having 2 of every animal.---
how?
sorry i went out to store...didn't know this would be such a big thread...and incase anyone is wondering...i am a theist, yes, and a christian at that
Dear Lord, not again.
There are several pages devoted to the "Is the Earth 6,000 years old?" argument in the Does Christianty support the theory of Evolution?" thread.
The Earth is not 6,000 years old. To believe the Earth is 6,000 years old requires a massive lack of understanding about some of the most basic Earth sciences.
Why does the Bible have to be taken literally? It shouldn't be taken literally, it's a 2,000 year old book that was written by man. I don't care if it's the word of God or not, it was still written and translated by man.
Why does the bible have to be 100% correct? Clearly, it is not. Our knowledge now is orders of magnitude more advanced than it was 2,000 years ago. If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, why do you not believe it is flat also? The bible says it is, right?
Maybe God had man write the bible in terms that man could understand 2,000 years ago. Maybe he didn't want to write a 5,000,000 page book explaining how everything in the universe works.
Now.. Nobody knows how old the Earth is. It is impossible to determine it's exact age.
But even if science's most conservative models are off by many hundreds of millions of years, it is still more than 6,000 years old.
There are mountains of evidence(literally) that the Earth is older than 6,000 years. There is no evidence the Earth is 6,000 years old or younger. The only "evidence" you will find is on Creationism websites, which is obviously biased. Likewise, Evolutionist websites will be biased. The only source of "clean" information is from unbiased sources, which includes most of science in general.
I find it amusing that the Bible must be 100% correct for you to have faith in it.
Now, don't get me wrong. I think the Bible is a great book. It teaches values, lessons, morals and history. There is nothing wrong with that, although it does some of it in a shady way(fear). However, it is not a scientific educational tool, and anybody that reads it looking to learn more than we currently know about the Earth is a fool.
It would be like reading a medical journal from the 1900s to learn about antibiotics and vaccines.
<--- Agnostic to the bone
Yes, I have a few. An atheist doesn't believe in God, Allah, an all knowing omnipetence etc. That doesn't make them in theirselves all knowing, it just mean that they don't believe in God.
I am willing to bet £100 you do believe and can't comprehend why atheists don't, and you have had to draw a conclusion to help yourself understand. Am I right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter