Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@solo said:
Cornel, no point debating this issue, not all kids believe in Santa Claus, some are clever enough to realize how silly and impossible it is...same goes for religion.
The same goes for a FALSE religion, but not for a TRUE FAITH, in a TRUE GOD!
-
@unknownuser said:
The same goes for a FALSE religion, but not for a TRUE FAITH, in a TRUE GOD!
And how can you tell exactly which is a TRUE FAITH?
I'd rather accept TRUE ATHEISM or TRUE CAPITAL LETTERS. -
Everlasting life is not the prize for a winner but nightmare.
Cornel, your citations of Bible and Jesus guy are irelevant for my perception of the world.
In fact it's quite a bit annoying.... -
where did god come from?
-
if we discover other planets which harbor life, would that change anything as far as your(believer) percepeptions on god/bible is concerned?
how about a visit from an alien civilization?
(though I'm pretty sure if they decided to pay us a visit, they'd be able to clear a lot of this nonsense up for us) -
@solo said:
...Bible...
I'ts a crock of shit, used by the rich, governments and special interest to control the masses, make tons of money and invoke fear and hate.
Religion is the biggest industry in America and controls the government by means of lobbying and direct intervention, they pay no taxes and get funds from taxpayers... the church still controls the power and causes wars as it always has, just now it is no longer the Catholics, now it's the radical fundamental American churches with all the power.
Beg your pardon sir, you are not talking about real christianity .
True christianity is not about religion it's about a true relationship with God and others ,but since you don't believe in God...
I wouldn't talk that nasty about a Book which established most of the world Constitutions . I wouldn't talk that ugly about a book which I know at least 3 friends of mine would have that book as a angle for their life .
I wouldn't talk that bad about a book that has been proven as true and as Word of God..but then,again you don't believe in God...Then at least respect us, a few, who still believe in it, if you find us as trustworthy people.
Thank you !
-
@ely862me said:
I wouldn't talk that bad about a book that has been proven as true and as Word of God..
Your other arguments are quite reasonable. This one, however, isn't. The Bible hasn't been proven true. And no, there can be no debate whatsoever about the meaning of "proven true". Either something is proven to be true, or it hasn't - there's no inbetween.
-
@unknownuser said:
@ely862me said:
I wouldn't talk that bad about a book that has been proven as true and as Word of God..
Your other arguments are quite reasonable. This one, however, isn't. The Bible hasn't been proven true. And no, there can be no debate whatsoever about the meaning of "proven true". Either something is proven to be true, or it hasn't - there's no inbetween.
Well there is something inbetween.. depends on what logical system you choose.
-
Fair enough. Still, I must insist a thesis is either proven or unproven. Possessing a degree of plausibility and being corroborated by facual proof just aren't quite the same thing.
Apologies for the fuzzy English.
-
@ely862me said:
I wouldn't talk that nasty about a Book which established most of the world Constitutions . I wouldn't talk that ugly about a book which I know at least 3 friends of mine would have that book as a angle for their life .
I wouldn't talk that bad about a book that has been proven as true and as Word of God..but then,again you don't believe in God...The bible didn't establish any constitutions. I think you might be refering to the 10 commandmants as theinspiration for some laws but even that claim is ludicrous.
Also if it had been proven as the true word of god we wouldn't have this discussion, there wouldn't be any need for it. People are not that dumb.Those of us who reject religion do so because we look at the facts and weigh them not because we work for the devil. And as such if the facts would be in favor of the bible or a god we would accept it.
@ely862me said:
Then at least respect us, a few, who still believe in it, if you find us as trustworthy people.
You don't deserve respect based only on your religious beliefs. I do call you my friend but none of the respect I have for you is because of what religious views you have.
You are going to be respected because you are trustworthy, talented and a kind person.
Also that is not going to stop anyone from judging the bible. As non-christians we are free to do so. -
Ahhhh Pete! That's a bit heavy! Its like me saying that your 'standards' are a crock of shit! Whether I agree or not with what's written in the bible or any other religious book, I don't think its acceptable debate to call it shit. I may call these books many other things though that would express my disapproval
-
@unknownuser said:
Fair enough. Still, I must insist a thesis is either proven or unproven. Possessing a degree of plausibility and being corroborated by facual proof just aren't quite the same thing.
Apologies for the fuzzy English.
....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems
:"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.." -
Mike, Pete is justly frustrated by the influence that this poor excuse for a holy book still has on people and our lives in the 21st century.
Maybe the term "shit" is not appropriate here, but I would submit that "garbage" is. -
@mike lucey said:
Ahhhh Pete! That's a bit heavy! Its like me saying that your 'standards' are a crock of shit! Whether I agree or not with what's written in the bible or any other religious book, I don't think its acceptable debate to call it shit. I may call these books many other things though that would express my disapproval
I'm thinking there are a few people biting their tongues in this thread.. letting a 'crock of shit' slip out it surely an understatement of what really wants to be said.
-
I see what Pete means. It's not an attack on someone's belief more the background on which the belief is based. If it's a pile of unproveable tales then it's fair to say that you find it a load of shit.
It's not fair to say that how someone lives their life is shit because the book is shit.
-
Well, here we go, a "religion" founded on technology. This should make a few folks around here a little less testy. Religion based on science and technology, and by association, facts.
Kopimism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
You can even join online: http://kopimistsamfundet.se/
From the article:
It was founded by 19-year-old philosophy student and leader Isak Gerson. He hopes that file-sharing will now be given religious protection."For the Church of Kopimism, information is holy and copying is a sacrament. Information holds a value, in itself and in what it contains and the value multiplies through copying. Therefore copying is central for the organization and its members," he said in a statement.
"Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for all of Kopimi. Hopefully this is one step towards the day when we can live out our faith without fear of persecution," he added.
Wikileaks just needs the right canon ...
Enjoy.
-
@starling75 said:
"Gödel's first incompleteness theorem shows that any consistent formal system that includes enough of the theory of the natural numbers is incomplete: there are true statements expressible in its language that are unprovable.."
What was that whooshing sound?
-
@solo said:
No Mike it will not be the same as we are not discussing standards, we are discussing dogma.
We are discussing a book that has absolutely zero factual evidence,
I think most of the folks here who've been supporting Christianity have tried to be pretty reasonable. But is this really a statement you're prepared to support?
@unknownuser said:
we are discussing a system of belief that plagues the world with violence committed in it's name, we are talking about a system of corruption masked as a loving path to eternity, we are talking about a book that supports hate then opposes it, supports slavery then opposes it, opposes pork then supports it, calls for an eye for an eye then tells you to turn the other cheek...etc, etc, etc.
I will use Sh#t instead if it's less offensive...even though I still mean shit.
Again, you don't seem to be being reasonable here, Pete. Would you at least concede that there are SOME Christians, trying to follow Jesus and in so doing, are making the world a better place? Really, your argument seems to border on conspiracy and paranoia. The 'system of belief' we seem to be discussing is Christianity - and where is this widespread violence committed in the name of Jesus?
Besides, you yourself claimed Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible was a 'liberal socialist' did you not? And I presume you'd also say he stands for non-violence, as I would. So if there were a significant group of people committing violence under that banner, wouldn't it be likely that they'd probably be committing violence without that banner as well - ie. that they're just violent people? If people began murdering in the name of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, would we advocate not printing their words or biographies? Wouldn't we instead, promote a true understanding of their principles and call people back to a more honest understanding of the lives and actions they were promoting?
That is certainly what I do, although I don't see the sort of thing you're referring to. Mostly I disagree with Christians who find war or being a soldier to be a justifiable option within a consistent Christian world-view. Aside from my electricity, I mostly line up with the Amish in terms of beliefs.
-Brodie
-
@solo said:
Brodie,
Yes I used a broad brush in my statement, yes there are peaceful and non invasive religions, but lets now just focus on Christianity as it seems to be the dominant one on these forums.
Firstly there are thousands of denominations and then you get the non denominational s, everyone thinks the other is wrong, yet all take their beliefs from the same source, so it comes down to the interpretation of that book.
Fair enough, but you must understand that most of these denominations disagree over what we'd call non-essential matters. So, yes, each denomination thinks the others are wrong, but by and large they think the other denominations are wrong on non-essential matters and fully expect to see these people at the resurrection.
It's a bit like being a republican or democrat. We disagree on how to help the poor (provide less government help vs. more) or how to remain safe (more aggressive foreign policy vs. more negotiations). But we're all after the same thing (fewer poor people, safer citizens) and we all call each other Americans.
@unknownuser said:
The book itself is full of contradictions and abnormalities that lends itself to such controversy,
The bible does have some fascinating paradoxes, which happen to suite my more post-modern sensibilities quite well. But I certainly wouldn't say it's full of contradictions. Can you point out one (or some) of these and how you think it's lead to controversy within Christianity? And I'm not sure what you mean by 'abnormalities'?
@unknownuser said:
now if indeed it is the word of God one would think it would be a little less obscure and confusing to say the least especially having been written in a time that most folk were totally illiterate.
I tend to suspect the Bible probably does what God wanted it to. In our Western mind-sets it's often a wonder that God didn't just provide us with a very clear cut list of do's and don'ts - each with a subset of provisions which answer any and all possible questions. Indeed, we often try to turn it into such a thing.
My guess is that part of the reason the Bible is written as it is, is because it promotes a sort of continued relationship with God. One can learn the essentials without much effort, but even those who've studied it for many years continue to grow in their understanding of God through it in deeper and deeper ways. A side-effect of this is that there are a range of interpretations but as I mentioned, these are mostly on side-issues.
@unknownuser said:
As for violence in the name of Christianity, there are many instances of this in history, no need to go into details.
I disagree, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.
@unknownuser said:
So you mention Jesus and my comment about him seeming a like a caring, loving, social liberal, I agree this is what I get from reading the new testament. If only Christians (name taken from being Christ-like) would be more Christ-like and less Old testament aggressive and polarizing. More accepting and caring and less judging and fear-mongering.
Then we're essentially in agreement then? The answer isn't necessarily for Christians to get rid of Christ, but rather to be more like him. I'm with you here, and I assure you many Christians are. The latest phenomena in American Christianity you'll quickly notice, should you find yourself in a Christian bookstore, is that many young people are disillusioned with the church. Books with titles like "They like Jesus but not the Church" abound. This sentiment isn't just coming from you then, but many Christians as well. We're working on making our churches less judgemental of non-christians and such things that don't look much like Jesus. Feel free to join us in this endeavor
@unknownuser said:
What really pisses me off is how they can pray to Jesus and read from his scriptures then dig up an old testament verse totally out of context to convince the congregation to hate on Homosexuals, but never can they link that hate filled ideal with Jesus, so they end up picking and choosing the bits and pieces of the bible that furthers their hateful agenda.
Things could be different in your part of the world, but in my world here in Texas the Christianity is hateful and divisive Christmas wrapped in a thin sheet of love.
Well, the NT isn't exactly silent on homosexuality but I think that's mostly an issue that has been hyped up by the media and politics (and some Christians have fallen into the trap head first). In my reading, the Bible seems pretty clear that it's a sin, but no more so than greed, lust, lying, hatred, etc (it's certainly talked about FAR less than any of those things). We're all sinners and that's sort of the point. Even if homosexuality isn't a sin, homosexuals are still sinners and need a relationship with Jesus as much as any of us.
Cornell, how do you feel about homosexuality? (
<- does this look like a troll face to you? It's the closest I could find.)-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
As for violence in the name of Christianity, there are many instances of this in history, no need to go into details.
I disagree, I'm really not sure what you're referring to here.
The Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Huguenots (St. Bartholomew's Day, anyone?), witch burnings, the atrocities comitted by Joseph Kony and his cronies (though I'm reasonably sure Kony's beliefs are quite different from yours, to put it mildly.), attacks on abortion clinics, the list goes on. There was a certain religious component to the War on Terror as well - as there was to the Holocaust. And what about the oppression of homosexuals?
I'm not saying all religious folks are violent and oppressive, rest assured. Most aren't, obviously. Also, I think my conception of christianity differs vastly from yours - I live in a region where, for the longest time, Our Holy Mother, the Roman Catholic Church, ran things. And she wasn't the most loving of mothers.
That air of individuality, self-accomplishment and freedom your specific brand of christianity seems to have about it ... pretty much a foreign thing, over here. Look at a Bosch painting for reference.
Advertisement