http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/devil-baby-strikes-new-york-city-article-1.1580159
We should not attack Iraq
-
Hopefully, both of you have lived full, meaningful lives. We argue back and forth, reach little ground. Theories, evidence, proof, miracles, logic, what have you, etc., etc. We’ll all believe what we will, little will change it. The Great Unknown Mystery - death is this. No one can really say with absolute certainy what happens to us when we die. We have to wait to find out. Either way, Heaven, Hell, or nothing at all; we will have wanted our lives to be full and worth our stay here on earth. Finally, the end.
The interesting aspect of all the Diety/Religious posting is the amount of ill feelings and hatred towards certain faiths. Most use history to back this up. Personally, I believe very few of us have been wronged by an entire religious group right now. It’s easy to be angered by the wrongs of others in the past. Very few will argue any good for the Nazi’s defense. It would be wrong to hold it against today’s German people. The same goes for religious groups. Remember, all groups whether religious, political, social, etc. will abuse power when in a position of authority sometime in the past, present, future. It is the flawed human condition - someone will always want power, money, fame, on and on. They will be allied with some belief and/or political structure. Those people will commit crimes against humanity, be disposed of, over and over, again and again. Extremists will deviate from original beliefs and actions. Members of the original beliefs break away - true to their ways. Those who are save the group once the radicals are gone. Those are whom get hated (and improperly so) for the wrongs of their former companions or ancestors. Keep this in mind when we trash a belief system…
-
I must’ve been gone for too long, but wasn’t the topic about whether or not to attack Iraq?
With respect to religion. I will say that religion is not some multiple choice question. You cannot simply eliminate all other religions less “valid” (if this is possible), and the one you have left is right. The problem is that there is no way to think of all possible religions that can be offered or if the right religion has even been discovered.
-
@cystic:
can understand that it comes down to FAITH.
I have a question, i ask it once but i did not get answer… so i’ll ask it again because i am stubborn :)
(pi) You can only believe in god with Faith, not with logic
(pii) Each religion is bases on faith
(piii) Faith is not a guarantor of the veracity of something
(ci) Each religion is as valid as the otherI am sure some will hate the conclusion, but it is true. If i have faith in an “evil” god that hate humanity and create us only to torture us when we will die; there is not a single reason to believe i am more wrong than any christian.
You see, this is our problem. Your question looks extremely rhetorical (can you add an adjective before rhetorical?).
Also your reasoning is flawed in approaching your conclusion. The “validity of religion” has little/nothing to do with whether it is faith-based or not. Rather the validity of religion has everything to do with the original premise (sp?).
(ci) might be more appropriately considered “each religion may appear as valid as the other to a third party non-participant”.
Also your belief in that “evil god” has much to do with your relationship with it, your level of mental acuity, as well as those other things we look to for “validity in a religion”.
Question - going back to the “descartes” theory:
we have 2 people - one Christian, one atheist - both preaching their religion with fervor (one for Jesus, one anti-Jesus). Both die. What have they done?What i want to point out is that if religion is essentially base on Faith, not Logic, no religion can be considered false or more valid. Exemple; faith is on what christian base their religion, same thing goes for the ancient Celt, their gods are in pure contradiction with the christian god, but how can you claim their gods are mythology if the “tool” they use is the same as you; faith ?
About the Atheist and the Christian, you must first understand that Atheism is not a religion, all Atheism believe different thing; they are free. Exept some religion that are atheist like buddhism (most buddhist). If an atheist is “preaching”, it’s like an Empirist or a Rationalist, it’s not a religion; it’s a philogophy. About what they have done; the christian have spread lies to make him feel good, he give false hope and teach how to use faith instead of intellect… Nothing very constructive for humanity, that’s why you’ll see more and more humanist that are militant Atheist.
-
About the Atheist and the Christian, you must first understand that Atheism is not a religion, all Atheism believe different thing; they are free
Agreed. Most of the Atheist I know believe in different ideals and philosophy and ideals (epistemological relativism, epistemological skepticism, ethical relativism or subjectivism, ethical absolutism, ethical realism in purely secular terms, materialism, narcissism, nihilism, humanitarianism, ect). It is NOT a religion and shouldn’t be treated as one.
-
I’m proud to be Agnostic. I view everyone not Agnostic (except maybe Athiests, though they are included in this) to have flawed, stupid, and outrageous views on Religion.
However, I view the “Religions of the book” with a particular bloodthirst. These Religions believe in slavery, except they are the slaves. They believe in Facism, though few even know the definition of the word. They worship a God, and never stop to question his existance. At least other Religions believed their Gods weren’t omnipotent. They had flaws and competition. This God of the book has no flaws. To me, thats the truely stupid part of the Religions.
I look to myself for Religion. I am the most important person in the world to me, as it should be with everyone. Instead, people spend their lives “serving” Jesus or Muhammad, or fearing God’s wrath.
-
At least other Religions believed their Gods weren’t omnipotent.
Unless you want to defy logic, there is no plausible way to believe God is omnipotent. And certainly not a “all loving” God.
-
I’m proud to be Agnostic. I view everyone not Agnostic (except maybe Athiests, though they are included in this) to have flawed, stupid, and outrageous views on Religion.
However, I view the “Religions of the book” with a particular bloodthirst. These Religions believe in slavery, except they are the slaves. They believe in Facism, though few even know the definition of the word. They worship a God, and never stop to question his existance. At least other Religions believed their Gods weren’t omnipotent. They had flaws and competition. This God of the book has no flaws. To me, thats the truely stupid part of the Religions.
I look to myself for Religion. I am the most important person in the world to me, as it should be with everyone. Instead, people spend their lives “serving” Jesus or Muhammad, or fearing God’s wrath.
Probably as much as 90% of the Agnostic i knew became Atheist, myself included. It would probably, one day, seem to you like an unjustified compromise; i don’t think there is much people getting from Theist to Atheist without a little step between the two. Still, agnostic are free thinker, they need only their own will to pass throught life.
Of course, it also depent of your definition of Agnosticism & Atheism…. Agnosticism can be applied everywhere, not only in religion, it is an attitude to say “i don’t have enough information to claim something is true or false”. To some extend i am still Agnostic, i cannot say i am 100% sure god does not exist; that would not be logical. I just say he is as probable as the tooth fairy, for me it’s enough to claim god does not exist.
I am the most important person in the world to me, as it should be with everyone.
I disagree, you are nothing without the people around you. Just imagine how the world would be if you were alone; you will have no more purpose in life. Our purpose is the society we live in, we most make everything to keep this society in good shape.
-
I care about the people around me. However, I come first. My needs are first, I would not take a bullet for someone. I might help them out, but I won’t starve so someone can eat.
Theres a good reason I am not an Athiest. There has to be some kind of a higher power. Every single culture in the history of the world has developed Religion. People are spiritual by nature. Established Religions have taken advantage of that spiritual nature and used it to serve their own interests.
I don’t think any higher being(s) care about what I do. Maybe I’m just a chesspiece in their game. Maybe I’m a play toy. Maybe I’m a God’s bastard son from a love affair in Las Vegas. Maybe I will be reincarnated. Maybe I’ll go to some blissful place. Maybe I’ll live my afterlife like Beatlejuice. I’ll find out when I die, for now I want to enjoy life.
-
I care about the people around me. However, I come first. My needs are first, I would not take a bullet for someone. I might help them out, but I won’t starve so someone can eat.
Well, i bet that will change once you have kids.
-
@F_alk:
Well, i bet that will change once you have kids.
That’s very true F_alk.
-
YANNY, did I catch you in the middle of changing your PIC tonight?
I saw de X box under your Pengy :o :oops: :P :roll:
–---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m havin’ too much fun! - Xi -
Yanny - you are just a step away from an Athiest. Consider the possibility of no “Higher Power”. The world just got simpler, more basic, no goals, no destiny, just life living for the sake of living and/or surviving. No grand plan, no chess board, no pawns (us). Cultures develop religion to personalize the world they don’t understand. Even with our wonderful science and technology, we really still don’t understand. That’s why religion still exists, to cover your unanswered questions - The Higher Power. Let it go. Join us…
-
No grand plan, no chess board, no pawns (us).
A chessmaster is nothing without his pieces.
-
Exactly my point, no chessmaster…
-
Ok, all you Athiests out there.
Name one culture that developed an Athiestic Culture from the get-go. Name one culture who didn’t develope a Religion.
Scientific Law - Something cannot come from nothing.
Where did the first “thing” come from anyway? All that matter had to come from SOMEWHERE.
-
Agreed on all points. This can still be achieved without the burden of a “Higher Power”. We don’t know how our existence began, so give credit to a diety, quite unnecessary. Leave it to the unknown, possibly beyond our arrogant comprehension…
-
Name one culture that developed an Athiestic Culture from the get-go. Name one culture who didn’t develope a Religion.
You can be atheist and religious; by exemple the buddhist. But well… without any religion or believe in mythology; none, none that i know anyway… so ?
Scientific Law - Something cannot come from nothing.
False. Study just a little quantum physic… you won,t need to go very deep into it to see how wrong you are. Even if it was true… there is not a single reason to believe it could be a form of intelligence…
Where did the first “thing” come from anyway? All that matter had to come from SOMEWHERE.
No… but even if Yes, it does not mean it is a god, an intelligence. You must understand that we are very weak, we are not very close to any objectivity, most of the time we use our legendary short vision to understand an object. When the first man look at the rain, they said it was the tear of a god, because it was for them the only way to understand sometime exterior; by passing by themself to understand. Same thing goes for the universe, for order et cetera… When something is ordered, “it must come from intelligence”, this is all non-sence, a short vision base on ourself as the ultime model to understand anything. You look how in history people try to find explanation based on the model of humanity, the sun was carried out by a god, the moon was the eye of a god, humans were created by human-like god (polytheis, & monotheism).
Fin
-
False. Study just a little quantum physic… you won,t need to go very deep into it to see how wrong you are. Even if it was true… there is not a single reason to believe it could be a form of intelligence…
To help clearify what FinsterniS is trying to say, I will give you an example of quantum mechanics of something from “nothing.”
In quantum electrodynamics you can have subatomic particles (electron, positron, and photon) that can come into existence through a vacuum fluctuation. They exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind, which would actually violate energy conservation (is this possible?). These particles have a beginning in time, but they have no cause because vacuum fluctuations are purely random events. In fact there have been many theories that our universe is actually one such vacuum fluctuation, though I have to read into this more.At any point, what Yanny is talking about is more on the grounds of the Creationist trying to use some sort of pseudologic with the Information Theory* claim, which is I often find a rather unsubstantiated claim (with no real scientific proof) made by creationist.
- = Information theory states that “information” never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. The creationist ask, how can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string “dog”, but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
That is pretty much what FinsterniS is trying to say when he mentioned,
“When something is ordered, ‘it must come from intelligence,’.” -
Name one culture that developed an Athiestic Culture from the get-go. Name one culture who didn’t develope a Religion.
None, of course.
Atheism needs knowledge. Theism and religions do not.
No culture developed with an already high standard of knowledge, the gain of knowledge often is combined with the rise of cultures.
Therefore, your question has to be answered negative.
A positive answer would be more of a proof for a “god”, as this culture must have received a lot of knowledge instantanously, ad hoc … that would be a more of a miracle.Scientific Law - Something cannot come from nothing.
Nonsense.
See above on what TG wrote on Quantum Field Theory. And as well:
Our universe itself came from nothing, even “more nothing than nothing”: it created space and time out of “more nothing”=“not even space and time”.Where did the first “thing” come from anyway? All that matter had to come from SOMEWHERE.
Why? It had to come from somewhere for the same reason that you need a god :)
Where did the universe come from when there was no space to come from? What was before the universe when there was no time before it?What sense does it make, to use concepts/attributes that do not (in our example: did not) exist to describe and explain something?
There was no universe before the start of the universe!
Sounds trivial, but it seems like most creationists/theists like to ignore or do not understand that fact !
-
@F_alk:
Name one culture that developed an Athiestic Culture from the get-go. Name one culture who didn’t develope a Religion.
None, of course.
Atheism needs knowledge. Theism and religions do not.F_alk: of course this derives from the assumption that every culture/person ignorantly wondered “where did these pretty lights and me come from - must be God!” Atheism - a belief that there is no God - requires that you do not have any knowledge of a God, whereas in this day and age, i believe that theism may (and many times does) require the knowledge of a God - many times a personal one. I don’t think that it’s anything special to not believe in something, or to believe in the absense of something when it is not demonstrated to us that it exist (i.e. a non-belief in the tooth fairy requires knowledge???). To believe in something contrary to a rational discourse (i still do not believe for a moment that atheism is more rational than agnosticism) requires a knowledge that those supporting the “rational point of view” do not have.
FinsterniS, in another post, you accuse me (and other theists) of not having the will to discern that there is no God. This of course is derived from your feeling that any relationship that i have with said being comes from that little bit of psychosis all of us have in our heads that manifests when we consider ourselves to be communicating with this being - that is, the psychsis that some people have brilliantly, in a flash of reasoning and intelligence, neutralized. Of course you have no knowledge of my “faith journey”. You do not know the amount of time i’ve spent pondering these issues, or how closely i’ve teetered on the edge.
Suggested Topics
