The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Fan Clubs & Groups (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=73)
-   -   Atheist Alliance (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=250030)

Esper September 8th, 2012 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix (Post 7332524)
I got a bit confused, probably because I'm still drowsy. So apologies if I get anything wrong. God made people in the beginning to be with him. He also gave them the gift of free will. When man chose to sin, he effectively severed his contact to God. Jesus was then sent to save the world from sin; but we have to accept it. It's as simple as accepting Jesus as your savior, and your saved. As to why God gave man free will in the first place, don't ask; I asked a friend that, and he explained it all, but I completely forgot. And really, I think we won't really convince each other with our arguments. I believe in the afterlife, so it makes perfect sense to me. You don't, so you think we're wasting our time. And sorry if I didn't really answer your argument, I think I did though.

This is one of the things that never made much sense to me. So, assuming all this is true, god gave people free will so they could choose, and not be forced, to accept god. That sounds good to me. I can relate to that on a personal level. I wouldn't want friends who didn't want to be friends with me. The thing I can't relate to is punishing someone for not choosing god. Why would god do that? Punish someone for making a choice he let them have in the first place?

I suppose I could be more sympathetic to this punishment idea if there were bad forces at work, like the devil and so on, that had power over you, but god is supposedly all-powerful. So even if he's being all hands-off and saying "It's your choice. You can choose me or the devil" he's doing it all while knowing he could save you from the devil/evil/damnation/etc. whenever he wants and he's not doing it. He's letting you suffer a fate that he himself created. I just can't relate to that. The way modern, mainstream Christians describe how their god works in relation to freewill just doesn't make sense.

Now, the people who say "it doesn't matter, god will still accept you even if you don't believe" are people I can get behind. That seems much more in keeping with the idea of an "all-powerful, all-loving" god.

Altix September 8th, 2012 2:06 PM

Maybe the reason i'm an atheist is because I don't like the idea of having to worship some invisible giant man in the sky...

Oh, and I like to sleep in on sunday.

Bear September 8th, 2012 2:08 PM

What are your opinions on subjects such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and so on? Why?

I’m divided only slightly on the subject of same-sex marriage since I don’t believe marriage in general is such a good idea. But it’s obviously a matter of equality and everyone should be afforded that right. Kind of baffling that in 2012 we are still fighting this. I’m rather proud to report that same-sex marriage is completely legal in my country and has been since 2006. Still ridiculous that it could have taken so long.

Of all social problems, I think abortion has been the most difficult for me to square away. I am pro-abortion, but every now and then I am reminded why those who oppose it do so. It is absurd and extreme to suggest that aborting a foetus is parallel to murdering a baby with a knife. How can anyone calculate the amount of physical pain experienced and then draw the conclusion that they are the same? Of course, those who oppose the idea of abortion ever gleefully forget that pregnancy is a process of slow, gradual degrees. It should be clear that there is a difference between the group of cells at the start of term and the foetus at the end of it. It’s odd to me that some people value and will defend with violence the life of an embryo, and disregard that of the adult woman.

And again, how can we quantify the suffering that may occur should the baby be born into harsh circumstances or at the hands of ill-equipped parents?

The argument from the “right to life” can be dismantled rather swiftly though. Saying that aborting embryonic life amounts to denying a person the right to live is like saying we are denying the life of every baby that might potentially come from any sexual proposition. Should we then seize every single opportunity to have sex with each other to give every resulting foetus a chance to live?

Why are your beliefs the way they are?

I suppose the fact that my parents are only moderate Christians had a hand in my relinquishing it. I am grateful to them (secretly) that they never really forced religion down my throat. They DID however, mandate regular attendance of Sunday school and the occasional formal church congregation which was a mere chore to me at the time. The Sunday school meetings were, in retrospect, a joke and I wasn’t in the presence of mind to treat it as such. I think I was also a bit of a cynical child, which didn’t help me in embracing the wishful nature of Christianity.

These days my lack of belief is simply due to rational thinking. I realised that the idea of belief is precious to me. It shouldn’t be handed out freely. I want real truth in return for my belief. This, naturally, ruled out a god as a target of my belief.

Do you believe in any form of life after death?

I do not. What have we seen that points to anything like life after death? Finite things do not frighten me.

Do you believe in aliens?

No. How is it that they choose to reveal themselves mainly to desert yokels in America? All the “evidence” that I’ve seen in favour of their presence on earth has been childish. As for their presence anywhere else, that would be little more than a wild stab in the dark.

Does your family and friends know about your faith? If no, why not?

My immediate family knows and most of my friends do too. Of all the people I personally know and speak to regularly are only 2 of them atheists. I am friends with a great amount of believers, all Christian, and I seldom speak to them about religion because I anticipate some black clouds.

Do you think separation of church and state is different from freedom of religion?

I think this is chiefly an American debate so I don’t know all the facets on this one. But judging from the terms, freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. America was founded on secular principles, amirite? Should that not carry some weight here? The separation of church and state gives way to freedom of religion to take place. I think?

If God does exist, what do you think it would be like?

The god that is most familiar to me is Yahweh, and if he did exist our lives would collectively be the most terrifying, violent, divisive and badly written rat race episode of Big Brother ever.

What are your family's general religious beliefs?

My parents are moderate Christians. To give you an idea, every month or so they host a gathering of Christians and drink cocktails and selectively discuss and exalt the poetry of the Bible (mainly New Testament, since the stories of Yahweh are too inconveniently uncomfortable). My atheism was quite abruptly thrown into the air one day during an argument with them. It had been after my begrudged Confirmation (a watered down and largely useless version of the Catholic practice, that I followed through with only to appease my mother) to our church and I had not since then been to the church. One day, as we were all kind of irritably getting the house ready for guests, my father hoarsely said that it was time for me to attend the ceremony again and made some comment about how lazy I had been in the past. I quietly refused, he demanded why. I said something along the lines of “The church isn’t for me anymore,” and he snapped, “So, what? You believe there’s no god?”

I gave him the same answer and he left. No questions, no elaboration. In hindsight I think perhaps if I had said more it could have escalated, but to this day there hasn’t been another word on the matter. They don’t ask me to go to church anymore, which is respectful I guess. Every Christmas I dare myself to buy them the books on religion and unbelief that have been most instructive to me (and maybe for a bit of irony).

Shining Raichu September 10th, 2012 7:01 AM

Phantom, you're a bigger person than I am. Had my parents thrown me out of the family for being either gay or an atheist, I would have walked away and never looked back. I would never have entertained the thought of speaking to them again long enough to rebuild bridges the way you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf
The thing I can't relate to is punishing someone for not choosing god. Why would god do that? Punish someone for making a choice he let them have in the first place?

I suppose I could be more sympathetic to this punishment idea if there were bad forces at work, like the devil and so on, that had power over you, but god is supposedly all-powerful. So even if he's being all hands-off and saying "It's your choice. You can choose me or the devil" he's doing it all while knowing he could save you from the devil/evil/damnation/etc. whenever he wants and he's not doing it. He's letting you suffer a fate that he himself created. I just can't relate to that. The way modern, mainstream Christians describe how their god works in relation to freewill just doesn't make sense.

It bewilders me just as much as it does you, but the one way I've come up with to potentially explain it is this:

You are a married man with a golfing hobby and recently you had a child. Your friends have arranged a golfing day months in advance and you wish to go. When you remind your wife of this date, she plasters on a smile and says sweetly "That's fine. You can go golfing if you really want to, or you can stay with me and the baby. It's up to you, I don't mind."

If you exercise the "free will" your wife has given you and choose to go golfing, do you think that will go unpunished? :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear
Saying that aborting embryonic life amounts to denying a person the right to live is like saying we are denying the life of every baby that might potentially come from any sexual proposition. Should we then seize every single opportunity to have sex with each other to give every resulting foetus a chance to live?

And to extrapolate further, you might say that any male who chooses to masturbate is denying a child the right to a life as his sperm will have zero chance of fertilising an egg :P

FrostPheonix September 10th, 2012 9:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7332904)
This is one of the things that never made much sense to me. So, assuming all this is true, god gave people free will so they could choose, and not be forced, to accept god. That sounds good to me. I can relate to that on a personal level. I wouldn't want friends who didn't want to be friends with me. The thing I can't relate to is punishing someone for not choosing god. Why would god do that? Punish someone for making a choice he let them have in the first place?

Now, the people who say "it doesn't matter, god will still accept you even if you don't believe" are people I can get behind. That seems much more in keeping with the idea of an "all-powerful, all-loving" god.

Dunno. Can't answer right now. And as soon as I get that answer, I guess I could comment on the second part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 7335624)
Quote:

Originally posted by Bear
Saying that aborting embryonic life amounts to denying a person the right to live is like saying we are denying the life of every baby that might potentially come from any sexual proposition. Should we then seize every single opportunity to have sex with each other to give every resulting foetus a chance to live?
And to extrapolate further, you might say that any male who chooses to masturbate is denying a child the right to a life as his sperm will have zero chance of fertilising an egg :P

I dunno about that... I think people are against abortions because they consider the zygote life, and not just the fetus. From fertilization onwards, it's a new person. And I disagree with the original metaphor, saying aborting embryos is denying a baby life is like trying to get as many children as possible isn't the same. If you have a baby, prolife activists argue, you should give it a chance. And not kill it because you don't want it. They aren't suggesting anything else.

voltianqueen September 10th, 2012 9:34 AM

When people who are against abortion suggest adoption instead, I feel like they forget the part where you have to, ya know, be pregnant and later give birth.... Nooo thank you

Bear September 10th, 2012 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix (Post 7335728)
I dunno about that... I think people are against abortions because they consider the zygote life, and not just the fetus.

I'm unfamiliar with "zygote" - Is that not an ovum that's been fertilised by a sperm (thus the eventual foetus)?

Quote:

From fertilization onwards, it's a new person.
How did you come to that conclusion? Does the amalgamation of a sperm cell and an ovum also include the immediate inception of a soul? I happen to think that this is the wrong question, regardless of the answer. I would be more interested to find out how we can quantify suffering in the matter.

"All thinking people recognize a painful conflict of rights and interests in this question, and strive to achieve a balance. The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law. On this basis, an intrauterine device that prevents the attachment of the egg to the wall of the uterus is a murder weapon, and an ectopic pregnancy (the disastrous accident that causes the egg to begin growing inside the Fallopian tube) is a human life instead of an already doomed egg that is also an urgent threat to the life of the mother." - Christopher Hitchens

Quote:

And I disagree with the original metaphor, saying aborting embryos is denying a baby life is like trying to get as many children as possible isn't the same. If you have a baby, prolife activists argue, you should give it a chance. And not kill it because you don't want it. They aren't suggesting anything else.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant to say that the idea of observing the right to life for all potential clusters of reproductive cells is a mad one if you try to uphold it. Shining Raichu made a salient point - is a sperm cell by pro-life logic not a potential person?

People who think in this way are trying to create a rule - I applied this rule thoroughly (hypothetically) and am pointing out that it does not work.

FrostPheonix September 11th, 2012 9:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by voltianqueen (Post 7335733)
When people who are against abortion suggest adoption instead, I feel like they forget the part where you have to, ya know, be pregnant and later give birth.... Nooo thank you

...? No idea what you're saying here...


Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear (Post 7335882)
I'm unfamiliar with "zygote" - Is that not an ovum that's been fertilised by a sperm (thus the eventual foetus)?

Yep.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear (Post 7335882)
How did you come to that conclusion? Does the amalgamation of a sperm cell and an ovum also include the immediate inception of a soul? I happen to think that this is the wrong question, regardless of the answer. I would be more interested to find out how we can quantify suffering in the matter.

I came to the conclusion because from fertilisation onwards it has a different DNA set, different very much from either parent, making it (or who, whichever) a new organism different from parents with a unique personality and the potential for a fulfilling life. Dunno about the soul tho. And what do you mean quantify suffering?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear (Post 7335882)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant to say that the idea of observing the right to life for all potential clusters of reproductive cells is a mad one if you try to uphold it. Shining Raichu made a salient point - is a sperm cell by pro-life logic not a potential person?

People who think in this way are trying to create a rule - I applied this rule thoroughly (hypothetically) and am pointing out that it does not work.

...Prolife logic? Prolife is a group of people believing in something, not a cult... But yeah, I think whichever way you look at it, a sperm cell is a potential life, but whether or not you decide to actually bring this potential to fruition is your own choice (or rather, the parents' choice). Prolife merely says that it was your decision to give a possiblilty for life, and just because you don't like the results you can't just kill the zygote. If you don't want the result, why do the action required for it? And I am not sure what you mean with this rule. What rule and how did you apply it?

I myself am for abortion, but not the kind of commercial abortion happening today, where mothers have abortions just like that because they don't want a baby. Why have unprotected intercourse if you didn't? I am for it mostly because of rape victims and of the sort that become pregnant. Or, in some cases, teenage mothers. Although I think teens are just idiots to become pregnant already. But I think you get the point.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and welcome altix!

Shining Raichu September 11th, 2012 9:35 AM

Omg yes Altix hi welcome I'm so sorry I missed your post among all the heavy discussion XD. You're a funny dude haha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix
I came to the conclusion because from fertilisation onwards it has a different DNA set, different very much from either parent, making it (or who, whichever) a new organism different from parents with a unique personality

I have to wonder about the unique personality. Sure, given time it will be born and develop its own personality, but I don't think at the fertilization stage it does. A personality requires a developed brain and a consciousness which a zygote does not have.

Quote:

I think whichever way you look at it, a sperm cell is a potential life, but whether or not you decide to actually bring this potential to fruition is your own choice (or rather, the parents' choice). Prolife merely says that it was your decision to give a possiblilty for life, and just because you don't like the results you can't just kill the zygote. If you don't want the result, why do the action required for it?

I myself am for abortion, but not the kind of commercial abortion happening today, where mothers have abortions just like that because they don't want a baby. Why have unprotected intercourse if you didn't?
Sex feels good, that's why people do it. As to how they get pregnant, while I know that there are a lot of irresponsible people out there who roll the dice, that's not always the case and often the story is more complex than can be fixed by simply stating "well why'd you do it in the first place?" People make mistakes and I think a life sentence is a bit of a harsh punishment for succumbing to your carnal urges.

Esper September 11th, 2012 9:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix (Post 7336639)
I myself am for abortion, but not the kind of commercial abortion happening today, where mothers have abortions just like that because they don't want a baby. Why have unprotected intercourse if you didn't? I am for it mostly because of rape victims and of the sort that become pregnant. Or, in some cases, teenage mothers. Although I think teens are just idiots to become pregnant already. But I think you get the point.

That part I bolded there, there's something I have to say about it. People can still get pregnant even if they are using protection. Even really effective protection sometimes fails, or the person using it doesn't use it properly. Someone may well think that they are doing everything they can to not become pregnant and still get pregnant by accident.

As for teens, they're also going to have the same problems of not using protection properly, especially if no one taught them how, or worse if someone taught them something that isn't true.

Basically, pregnancy doesn't just happen because people throw caution to the wind. Responsible people who do whatever they know to do in order to keep from getting pregnant can still get pregnant. I'm sorry to throw the discussion off so much, but I felt this was important enough to say.

Bear September 11th, 2012 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix (Post 7336639)
And what do you mean quantify suffering?

By that I mean I don't much care to debate at which point exactly a group of cells officially becomes a person because I am not an absolutist. What I do think is important to give ascent to is the amount of pain that can occur to both the mother and the zygote (if it has reached the stage of developing a nervous system) during abortion, and whether one can outweigh the other. Also, it should be considered whether the pain of abortion is at all comparable to the potential suffering of letting the foetus grow to full term and be born.

Here, the state of the parents ought to be scrutinised. Of course, this is where my reasoning is halted - to measure pain is incredibly difficult (impossible, when it comes to potentiality) and details are disputed.

Quote:

...Prolife logic? Prolife is a group of people believing in something, not a cult...
I think you know that is not at all what I said or meant (and to my knowledge, a cult does believe in something).

Quote:

And I am not sure what you mean with this rule. What rule and how did you apply it?
Pro-life people suggest that every human reproductive cell is a potential person - a person who should be, by law, given the chance to life. They also think that not granting this chance is murder. Indeed, an actual person should be given the chance to life, but Pro-lifers choose to give microscopic cells the status of "person", which only ties them in knots of bad logic. We are, by that warped way of thinking, killing potential people since we are not all constantly copulating to give every single one of our reproductive cells a chance to experience life as we know it.

"As the Medawars were entirely right to point out, the logical conclusion to the 'human potential' argument is that we potentially deprive a human soul of the gift of existence every time we fail to seize any opportunity for sexual intercourse. Every refusal of any offer of copulation by a fertile individual is, by this dopey 'pro-life' logic, tantamount to the murder of a potential child! Even resisting rape could be represented as murdering a potential baby (and, by the way, there are plenty of 'pro-life' campaigners who would deny abortion even to women who have been brutally raped)." - Richard Dawkins

voltianqueen September 11th, 2012 10:44 AM

What I mean is, while people can put their babies up for adoption if they don't want to keep them, some people don't even want to go through the pregnancy and give birth in the first place. As mentioned above, not every unwanted pregnancy is the result of being irresponsible or being raped, so I believe that people should be able to get safe abortions if they need to, no matter why.

Bear September 15th, 2012 6:08 AM

Anyone familiar with The Atheist Experience? It's an hour-long cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared towards a non-atheist audience. People call in with questions and challenges for its atheist presenters (their quarterback being Matt Dillahunty) regarding religion and unbelief.

Every episode can be found on their website, but some of their more intriguing and amusing call-ins are posted on Youtube (which is where I found them). I find it encouraging to see average people taking a platform like this.

Here's a short example.

Oryx September 15th, 2012 6:47 AM

AH I'M A FEW DAYS LATE ON THIS BUT I CHANGED MY STANCE ON ABORTION JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO AND I WANT TO KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY HOLDS UP TO CRITICISM SO I'M SHARING.

This is how I see abortion:

Say a woman has a daughter that's about 5 years old. That daughter is well, well into the "I'm a real person" stage of her life. She has the right not to get murdered. Suddenly she falls deathly ill and the only thing that can save her is an immediate donation of part of her mother's liver. Her mother is completely healthy and the surgery poses no extra risk. She's financially stable and can afford the surgery easily. She's been taking care of this child since birth so she is responsible for the child's welfare.

Even assuming all this, she is not obligated to donate part of her liver to her daughter. Even with the knowledge that without that liver, her daughter will die.

Pregnancy is the equivalent of a massive organ donation for 9 months. Since having a child and taking care of it is not a contract that you'll donate organs if they get ill and need them, having sex is not a contract that you'll donate your body to a child if they are conceived and need it. Just like it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial organs for people that can't find donors, it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial incubators yet. However, that doesn't mean that a woman is obligated to become an organ donor to a child without her consent for 9 months.

Therefore to me whether or not the child is a person doesn't matter. Does that make sense? I haven't yet brought it up to anyone that might challenge it so idk if it's reasonable under criticism yet.

Esper September 15th, 2012 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7340543)
AH I'M A FEW DAYS LATE ON THIS BUT I CHANGED MY STANCE ON ABORTION JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO AND I WANT TO KNOW IF IT ACTUALLY HOLDS UP TO CRITICISM SO I'M SHARING.

This is how I see abortion:

Say a woman has a daughter that's about 5 years old. That daughter is well, well into the "I'm a real person" stage of her life. She has the right not to get murdered. Suddenly she falls deathly ill and the only thing that can save her is an immediate donation of part of her mother's liver. Her mother is completely healthy and the surgery poses no extra risk. She's financially stable and can afford the surgery easily. She's been taking care of this child since birth so she is responsible for the child's welfare.

Even assuming all this, she is not obligated to donate part of her liver to her daughter. Even with the knowledge that without that liver, her daughter will die.

Pregnancy is the equivalent of a massive organ donation for 9 months. Since having a child and taking care of it is not a contract that you'll donate organs if they get ill and need them, having sex is not a contract that you'll donate your body to a child if they are conceived and need it. Just like it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial organs for people that can't find donors, it's an unfortunate limitation of science that we don't have artificial incubators yet. However, that doesn't mean that a woman is obligated to become an organ donor to a child without her consent for 9 months.

Therefore to me whether or not the child is a person doesn't matter. Does that make sense? I haven't yet brought it up to anyone that might challenge it so idk if it's reasonable under criticism yet.

I agree with and see the logic of this argument. But, for the sake of argument, which I hope you don't mind, let's say I disagree.

If I did disagree I might say, for instance, that your stance is partially based on a legal argument. Legally a mother would not be forced to give up her liver (or anything else of her body) to save another life, even of her own daughter. Of course, one might say that a mother still has a moral obligation, especially if she is the only person who could conceivable save the girl's life. (Let's imagine that all other possible donors aren't close enough and it's gotta be immediate or the girl dies. The mother is literally the only person who can save the girl's life.) On top of that there are certain laws that say bystanders must help people in emergencies. Could there not be an argument for something like this in liver-girl's case? And then by extension to pregnancy?


And, side note, I'm pretty pissed at all the violence that's spread across the Muslim world. People angered that their religion is attacked with accusations that it's full of bad things including violence acting out with violence. Hypocritical? I know a lot of this violence is being organized specifically by anti-American groups who are themselves using religion to push people, but the people being pushed don't seem to have to be pushed really hard to accept the argument that insulting Islam means it's okay to use violence and attack people who have nothing to do with the offending statements.

Eeveemaster9 September 16th, 2012 1:12 AM

What are your opinions on subjects such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and so on? Why?
Same-Sex Marriage: Surely they can do better at staying together than straight people, yes? I say "Yay"! Love is love.

Abortion: I am with it. Can you image what the population would be like if nobody aborted their babies? Can you image what would happen if you couldn't abort a baby because you didn't have the money to care for them, let alone feed?

Death Penalty: Again. All about population. If there is ABSOLUTE evidence (physical evidence that cannot be mistakened; such as videotape) then it is a yes. Mostly if it is murder, serial rape, ect.

Why are your beliefs the way they are?
I consider myself eclectic pagan (wiccan), not atheist. However, much of my beliefs are tied into everything else. My beliefs are this way because (hopefully) I understand how the human mind generally works, as well as what most religions believe in and why.

Do you believe in any form of life after death?
Yes. What I believe in, is that something of power cannot affect your life or judge you after death if you do not believe in them. So, if you do not believe in the Christian God (Yahweh), he cannot affect your life or after-death, should it exist in your mind. All religious worlds and deities exist in sub-realms, but cannot be opened to you unless you believe in their existance.

Do you believe in aliens?
Green humanoid men and slug-like blobs? No. Life forms from outside Earth, yes.

Does your family and friends know about your faith? If no, why not?
My mom and friends do. My dad does not. He does not know because;

1. My parents are separated
2. He does not believe in magick, and is very tight-skinned about religion in general (He believes in a God, but does not place himself in any sort of religion)

If God does exist, what do you think it would be like?
I notice that much of the discussion here is directly over Christian belief. The correct way to ask this question would be "If deity does exist, what do you think they would be like?"... Anyways, I believe that all spirit and deity have personalities just like ours. There is no "completely good" or "completely bad" being. They all appear to us differently, however. Many associate angels and deities as humanoid, because it is the most comfortable image to see them as. Though in reality, they may come to you as light, an animal, or even something that doesn't even resemble anything you've seen before.

What are your family's general religious beliefs?
My mother and father do not associate themselves with any sort of religious order, yet believe there is a God. I am not so sure about other family members (Such as cousins, grandmothers, ect) however.

Jaegir September 18th, 2012 4:06 PM

Count me in. Here's a little gift to all, in case this hasn't already been shared.
36 Arguments For The Existence Of God in PDF format.
It takes every know argument and dashes it.

Shining Raichu September 21st, 2012 5:49 PM

Welcome, Eeveemaster and Jaegir! I've been meaning to get back to this thread to reply for ages now, but I somehow keep managing to get distracted and never quite got here! :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf
And, side note, I'm pretty pissed at all the violence that's spread across the Muslim world. People angered that their religion is attacked with accusations that it's full of bad things including violence acting out with violence. Hypocritical? I know a lot of this violence is being organized specifically by anti-American groups who are themselves using religion to push people, but the people being pushed don't seem to have to be pushed really hard to accept the argument that insulting Islam means it's okay to use violence and attack people who have nothing to do with the offending statements.

I know, right? Apparently this has been happening all over the world. I recently heard that it even happened in Sydney last weekend. Australia had nothing to do with the video that sparked any of it, but it seems we're just all being lumped together as "the Western world" and they're protesting us all as a group as though the entire world is America. In any case, the violence here is a classic example of humans distorting the concept of what religion is theoretically meant to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eeveemaster9
I consider myself eclectic pagan (wiccan), not atheist. However, much of my beliefs are tied into everything else.

I think this is the part of your post that interested me the most. If I had to choose a religion, it would definitely be Wicca... ashamedly because I love the idea of witches and magic, rather than out of any actual belief in what you believe. Though I'm interested in what you meant by "much of my beliefs are tied into everything else."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaegir
in case this hasn't already been shared.
36 Arguments For The Existence Of God in PDF format.

It hasn't been shared yet, thanks! Unfortunately I doubt I'll ever have the time to sit and read through 53 pages, but I will give it a skim tonight (after work) and pick out some things from the contents that I find particularly interesting XD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear
Anyone familiar with The Atheist Experience? It's an hour-long cable access television show in Austin, Texas geared towards a non-atheist audience. People call in with questions and challenges for its atheist presenters (their quarterback being Matt Dillahunty) regarding religion and unbelief.

Haha, I'd completely forgotten about these guys. I remember seeing a few of their YouTube videos a while back, including the one you linked. They can come off as a little douchey sometimes which is not what the reputation I want atheists to get, but on the whole it's excusable because the callers call in with no prepared argument and basically say "LOOK WHAT JESUS DID! LOOK WHAT JESUS DID!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf
On top of that there are certain laws that say bystanders must help people in emergencies. Could there not be an argument for something like this in liver-girl's case? And then by extension to pregnancy?

I actually didn't know about this law until I watched the final episode of Seinfeld and saw that they were all put in prison for a year for failing to obey that law :P. But I don't think that the law could ever feasibly extend to organ donation simply because a law stating that you must help somebody in an emergency would never state that you would be required to do it at your own peril. If helping somebody in an emergency put my life in danger (as surgery for organ donation does), it would have to be entirely voluntary and not because a law told me to do so.

Eeveemaster9 September 21st, 2012 6:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 7347864)
I think this is the part of your post that interested me the most. If I had to choose a religion, it would definitely be Wicca... ashamedly because I love the idea of witches and magic, rather than out of any actual belief in what you believe. Though I'm interested in what you meant by "much of my beliefs are tied into everything else."

Let's see if I can explain this properly with examples?:

1. I believe in the existance of the Archangels from Christianity (Such as Michael, Cassiel, Uriel, Iophiel, ect). The hierarchy is much different than what nearly everyone writes of, under my experience. Guardian Angels being the weakest/lowest on the scale, and the Thrones and Archangels being the highest. I do believe in the existance of Yahweh, but not at all like any Christian I know. If Yahweh created everything and is everything, that means he is also negative, and creates evil things. My interpretation of the whole "Lucifer cast out from Heaven" is somewhere along the lines of... Yahweh's "Negative" persona was ripped from his form due to the belief of a being called "Satan" which was the opposer of Yahweh and the entity of Evil. Satan isn't even in Hell, nor reigns it. He is just seperate from Yahweh. Lucifer is another seperate entity, and -does- reign over the Underworlds. Those who commit sin do not stay there for an eternity, but rather go to sub-realms to be rehabilitated before being reincarnated again. Lucifer simply works alongside Yahweh. Yahweh is much similar to the Greek or Roman Gods, in that he doesn't have complete power, and -can- be overthrown, but not killed. Under this, I also believe the Archangels to have power like the Gods. (The longest example I will write!)

2. The Chakra system from Hinduism and Buddhism

3. The Reiki system from Japanese Buddhism

4. The idea of a perfect "Enlightened" soul from Buddhism

5. Some Shinto (Especially Folk Shinto) foundations, such as everything having a spiritual "essence" and the particular fashion of water purification (Temizu).

6. The Pagan beliefs of more than one God/Goddess

7. "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt" From Wicca, along with recognizing the moon phases, solar system, crystal working, and basic nature attunement.

8. Nearly all forms of spirits and entities, including demons, djinn, tengu, khodam, fae, kitsune, kappa, Tsukumogami... I've yet to meet something that defines itself as a "Dragon".

Too lazy to list the rest :,D

And now I am done.

droomph October 2nd, 2012 2:57 PM

My church is full of selfish asshats tbh. I love the Christian religion, the fact that it promotes the society that I look for.

But the people make me angry, at least the adults. The youth are fine as far as I can tell, but I am worried that the "leaders" of my church will corrupt them.

They see everything as black and white, and they don't allow for compromises.

They are the anti-Christ. They don't follow the core teaching of my religion.

Yet every sunday they preach the gospel of love and peace and acceptance of the sinners. That is hypocrisy.

And it's been told, that Jesus hated hypocrites. He hated their want for attention rather than their selfless dedication to their supposed faith. One who is a hypocrite will surely be kept from the gates of heaven.

Hypocrisy is the doing of Satan.

They said, "You're only fifteen! It's impossible for you to be right!"

But the Bible tells us, "the one who is blessed will be able to match the wisdom of the wisest." I may not be blessed like it says those who are, are; but in the same idea, you can't discount me for being a dumbass just because I'm fifteen.

For the truth lies in the Bible, and the truth lies in your truth. The truth is to be looked at and examined, not as a symbol of your "faith". This goes for all religions.

Regularly, whenever you lead into trouble, read your truth, and your law.

For whoever doesn't is a hypocrite.

For whoever doesn't is a fool.

For whoever doesn't shall burn in hell forever, even if they have followed the teachings of the Lord.

God loves everyone, and God cares for everyone.

However, he does not stand for those who use his name in vain.

If one uses his name to keep a man or woman from the truth, he will certainly let you die in the afterlife.

If one uses his name to hurt, he will hurt in return. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure it is the most painful thing you've felt.

If one uses his name unnecessarily, he will kill you. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure you have the most anguished death of your life.

But if one praises him, he will bless him. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, whether it seems like a blessing or a curse, he will make sure you have the happiest blessing you will recieve.

But if one lets him carry out his actions through you, he will pay you back ten times as much as you lost, and ten times as much as you ever have earned. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, whether it seems like a blessing or a curse, mentally or physically, he will make sure you have an abundance of wealth.

HarrisonH October 9th, 2012 7:34 AM

I have no idea what spurred the previous post, but no matter.

Fun fact: According to the most recent Pew survey, nearly a third of people under the age of 30 report "no religious affiliation". Additionally, protestants are now less than half of the total population in America.

This is pretty amazing news. This survey shows the continuing trend of religious percentages dropping, while nonreligious percentage grows.

We'll have a secular society yet, and finally catch up to most of Europe in that regard.

Scruffington October 9th, 2012 4:26 PM

I'd like to join. If you had to put a label on me, I'd consider myself an atheist. :)

However, my philosophy follows much of what the intellectual Sam Harris advocates. So long as we call ourselves atheists, people will associate that with negative connotations, or categorize us as simply "those who don't think there is a deity." Rather, if we call ourselves advocates of logic and reason, it becomes very hard to argue against us. Not many people are going to bite the bullet and say that they don't support those.

Barrels October 11th, 2012 8:04 AM

Right, time to leap back into the discussion! :D First, the stuff I agree with:
Quote:

you can't discount me for being a dumbass just because I'm fifteen
Absolutely. While it is statistically more likely that you'll make mistakes due to inexperience/immaturity - so we might be justified in saying, for example, that the world is better off being run by thirty-year-olds than thirteen-year-olds - what should be examined in all cases are the arguments you're putting forward. Are they valid? Are the premises true? If so, your argument is just as sound as any other, and to claim otherwise is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

And now the stuff I don't:
Quote:

For whoever doesn't is a fool.
Sounds rather like Pascal to me. :P Which, of course, was wonderfully summed up by the folks over at RationalWiki like this:
Quote:

Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you.
--
Quote:

If one uses his name to hurt, he will hurt in return. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure it is the most painful thing you've felt.
Eh? God has a separate morality to us? That's news to me - isn't he supposed to turn the other cheek? If God is allowed to retaliate, to be vengeful, then he does have a different moral code to us. And, because he is God, that code must be superior. So shouldn't we be following that instead?

Quote:

God loves everyone, and God cares for everyone.
Quote:

If one uses his name unnecessarily, he will kill you. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, he will make sure you have the most anguished death of your life.
I just. No. You don't kill the ones you love out of anger. Whatever you're feeling as you condemn them to screaming, burning eternity, it sure isn't love (and before anyone offers 'regret', I'd like to point out that God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. So can't regret). If the deepest kind of love is unconditional - which, okay, that's debatable, but a love that can be broken under specific circumstances is by definition not as strong as one that endures through anything - then that rather implies forgiveness, does it not? I'd rather know a God who told me that whatever I did, at the end of the day he'd still love me than one that said, 'whoa, whoa, sure, do what you want, but ONLY UP TO THIS POINT AND NO FURTHER - screw up majorly enough and I'm going to torture you in unspeakable ways forever.' How on earth is coerced, compulsory love worthy of the name? How is a love born out of fear healthy or natural? These are the questions we must have answers to before accepting the truth of your position: if we disagree fundamentally on what love amounts to, then our arguments miss each other entirely.

tl;dr: to reconcile the ideas of a God who loves infinitely and a God who punishes infinitely, you have to bend the concept of love so far over backwards it snaps. You can call the taped-up broken pieces love, if you want to. But - in my humble view - it's unworthy of the name.

Quote:

But if one lets him carry out his actions through you, he will pay you back ten times as much as you lost, and ten times as much as you ever have earned. Whether it be in this life or the afterlife, whether it seems like a blessing or a curse, mentally or physically, he will make sure you have an abundance of wealth.
Eh? I thought everyone was equal in heaven. You're telling me there's some formula that decides who gets more and who gets less? Surely that leads to discontent and jealousy. Can't we all just have the same - enough to keep us happy, no more, no less - for once?

Quote:

If one uses his name to keep a man or woman from the truth, he will certainly let you die in the afterlife.
If only. The cruellest part of the Christian doctrine is that God doesn't just kill you and have done with it. No, instead you're hurled into insufferable torture for eternity.

Think about that. Eternity. Can we even conceive of such a state as finite beings? Can we fully understand the horror of such a fate? And how could anyone possibly be happy in heaven knowing the overwhelming pain and suffering happening beneath them?

Chances are you'll know someone undergoing that torture. Could you live with yourself if you went about your afterlife never thinking of them, never sympathising, never pleading with God to reverse their fate? What if it was your brother? Your wife? Your child?

Wouldn't the mothers who'd lost their children want more than anything to be with them, even if the pain was unimaginable? Anything but sit helplessly on their cloud, knowing how much their baby boy or girl was hurting. That, to me, sounds like Hell. An insidious, emotional Hell, with none of the stereotypical fire and flames, none of the brimstone, the cackling demons - and somehow all the worse for that.

Trapped upstairs while your child burns beneath you - with no hope of escape in either case. I genuinely shudder to think of it.

Altix October 11th, 2012 6:59 PM

Oh my god(lulz) everyone is this thread types so much. I feel lazy here XD. I think Wicca is kinda awesome. I want to buy the book Isis Unveiled Volume two: Theology. It is by this crazy smart Russian lady from 1877. Her name is H.P. Blavatsky. I also want to read the first volume.

Abortion: This to me is Woman's right. I think it is that simple. It think that the situation with the 5 year old daughter is insane, If the mother had the child, given she loves her, She would donate her organ. At that point the girl has not been handed ove to a foster home.

Death penalty: I am still a bit indecisive on this...I mean....I don't know yet.

One thing I really hate is when a ignorant adult assumes that they are better than me based on age. I slap them with my knowledge. One fun little tale: My "Dad", younger brother, and I were going to get Ice cream. My little brother eats wheat free, and my "Dad" is like "What here do you have that is wheat free?", then Ice creamitory man is all like "Oh, well almost all of our stuff has whey or wheat in it so you can only order off the dairy free menu.", So I said "No. We can have whey." (/troll face), And he was like "Well the thing you have to understand is whey and wheat are almost the same thing. I am alot older so do not talk back!", And then I was like "Excuse me!? Whey is milk! I have been on and off on this diet too, I know." He blushed and gave us our damn ice cream. We went about our day.

NANANANANANA, My awesomeness is un-freakin'-deniable.

droomph October 11th, 2012 8:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
Eh? God has a separate morality to us? That's news to me - isn't he supposed to turn the other cheek? If God is allowed to retaliate, to be vengeful, then he does have a different moral code to us. And, because he is God, that code must be superior. So shouldn't we be following that instead?

He has the authority, because he is God. We sin when we judge, because we aren't perfect either. From a thousand miles away, two miles doesn't look much different than one.

And besides, look at our forum's rules - no mini-modding. This is the same idea.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
I just. No. You don't kill the ones you love out of anger. Whatever you're feeling as you condemn them to screaming, burning eternity, it sure isn't love (and before anyone offers 'regret', I'd like to point out that God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. So can't regret). If the deepest kind of love is unconditional - which, okay, that's debatable, but a love that can be broken under specific circumstances is by definition not as strong as one that endures through anything - then that rather implies forgiveness, does it not? I'd rather know a God who told me that whatever I did, at the end of the day he'd still love me than one that said, 'whoa, whoa, sure, do what you want, but ONLY UP TO THIS POINT AND NO FURTHER - screw up majorly enough and I'm going to torture you in unspeakable ways forever.' How on earth is coerced, compulsory love worthy of the name? How is a love born out of fear healthy or natural? These are the questions we must have answers to before accepting the truth of your position: if we disagree fundamentally on what love amounts to, then our arguments miss each other entirely.

The fact of fact is that sinning is not much a big of a deal as taking his place - the Devil was thrown out of heaven not because he screwed up but rather because he tried to take God's place. Whether this is fair isn't up to me, but that's what happens.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
tl;dr: to reconcile the ideas of a God who loves infinitely and a God who punishes infinitely, you have to bend the concept of love so far over backwards it snaps. You can call the taped-up broken pieces love, if you want to. But - in my humble view - it's unworthy of the name.

Not everyone deserves to be with God. It's not a privilege, it's a gift. You must accept it first to get it, and it's sure as hell easy to get.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
Eh? I thought everyone was equal in heaven. You're telling me there's some formula that decides who gets more and who gets less? Surely that leads to discontent and jealousy. Can't we all just have the same - enough to keep us happy, no more, no less - for once?

You're taking this as if it's Earth, and we are in control of this gift. It's so easy to gain what's 100% it's pretty much impossible to get any less. This is the gift of Jesus - everyone now has access eternal heaven, not just the few privileged ones.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
If only. The cruellest part of the Christian doctrine is that God doesn't just kill you and have done with it. No, instead you're hurled into insufferable torture for eternity.

Think about that. Eternity. Can we even conceive of such a state as finite beings? Can we fully understand the horror of such a fate? And how could anyone possibly be happy in heaven knowing the overwhelming pain and suffering happening beneath them?

I didn't say how he would, but that's how it is. I never said he would in an instant - nor did I say he would for eternity. However much you deserve, he will let you have it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
Chances are you'll know someone undergoing that torture. Could you live with yourself if you went about your afterlife never thinking of them, never sympathising, never pleading with God to reverse their fate? What if it was your brother? Your wife? Your child?

I would not sympathize with them, as this is God's choice.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
Wouldn't the mothers who'd lost their children want more than anything to be with them, even if the pain was unimaginable? Anything but sit helplessly on their cloud, knowing how much their baby boy or girl was hurting. That, to me, sounds like Hell. An insidious, emotional Hell, with none of the stereotypical fire and flames, none of the brimstone, the cackling demons - and somehow all the worse for that.

Trapped upstairs while your child burns beneath you - with no hope of escape in either case. I genuinely shudder to think of it.

I wouldn't sympathize with them, because this is God's choice.

Barrels October 12th, 2012 10:00 AM

First, thank you for taking the time to respond so politely! :D It's always nice when you can have a civilised discussion on the interwebs. To that end, here are my thoughts on your rebuttal:

Quote:

He has the authority, because he is God. We sin when we judge, because we aren't perfect either. From a thousand miles away, two miles doesn't look much different than one.

And besides, look at our forum's rules - no mini-modding. This is the same idea.
I'm not entirely sure I comprehend your argument. As I see it (and please do correct me if I'm wrong!), this is what you believe:
1) We have one moral code ('turn the other cheek' etc.).
2) This directly contradicts God's stated intentions ('you will be punished for your sins' etc.).
3) Therefore God has a separate moral code.
4) Therefore morality is not universal - there is no 'right' way to behave. It all depends on who you are (i.e. God/human). There is no true morality - there is one rule for us and one rule for God in all circumstances (although occasionally these might be the same).

Here's where I see the argument running into problems - leaving aside the fact that it is hypocritical by definition to judge others for doing something you yourself engage in, shouldn't we be trying to behave in the best way possible throughout our lives? Since God can't sin, all his behaviour must therefore be perfect. It follows that we ought to imitate God as much as possible in order to strive for perfection - or at least as close to perfection as we can achieve.

It really doesn't make sense to say that we should be governed by a separate moral code if this code is inferior to God's. Internally it's just not consistent. If our code truly showed the right way to live, God would obey it too. Likewise, if God's code is the right way to live, we should obey that instead. Handwaving it with talk of 'authority' is irrational - since when did a big stick imply rightness? We are talking of morality here, not punishment or reward. The truly moral man does not flinch from sticks and stones - or indeed fire and brimstone - if they are an inevitable consequence of doing the right thing.

Quote:

The fact of fact is that sinning is not much a big of a deal as taking his place - the Devil was thrown out of heaven not because he screwed up but rather because he tried to take God's place. Whether this is fair isn't up to me, but that's what happens.
This is really interesting to me. 'Whether this is fair isn't up to me' - that sounds almost like resignation to what is, in my view, a horrible state of affairs! And I disagree - it is absolutely up to you to examine the situation and decide whether or not it is just. That's the moral thing to do. How can you justify supporting a cause you deem to be unfair? You can't - your heart's not in it, you're unwilling, you know deep down that what you are doing isn't honest. It's the Nuremberg defence all over again - here, I'll quote from the Nuremberg Principles:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

In our case, 'a superior' is obviously God. And a moral choice is, at all times, possible. I'll leave you with this question: who is more moral, the man who blindly follows orders or the man who first examines them to see whether they are just and should be followed?

Quote:

Not everyone deserves to be with God. It's not a privilege, it's a gift. You must accept it first to get it, and it's sure as hell easy to get.
Given the circumstances, this is chilling. It's not as if the 'undeserving' simply don't get to be with God in Heaven - they are actually tortured. In my view, no one deserves to be tortured for not accepting a belief for which there is no sound basis. You might as well tie me to a rock and summon an eagle to eat out my heart for not believing in Superman - it's just as unfair.

I'll condense this. Sure, God is allowed to pick who he wants in Heaven. That's fine. Okay. But if there is only one alternative - eternal damnation - then no, he absolutely is not. I cannot accept under any decent moral standpoint that people deserve to be tortured - which is what you are saying. If you and I disagree on this, then our concepts of morality are so wildly different that we might as well be speaking in a foreign language. We're just spinning our wheels, trying hopelessly to convince the other of the rightness of our position.

I also take issue with the assertion that it is 'easy' to believe in God. We need only study the countless examples of men and women (C.S. Lewis is probably one of the most famous) who have struggled backward and forward with belief to see that this is not universally the case.

Quote:

You're taking this as if it's Earth, and we are in control of this gift. It's so easy to gain what's 100% it's pretty much impossible to get any less. This is the gift of Jesus - everyone now has access eternal heaven, not just the few privileged ones.
Could you possibly rephrase this sentence? 'It's so easy to gain what's 100% it's pretty much impossible to get any less.' I've read it every which way I can think of and it's not making any sense to me.

Also, I'm worried you may be misunderstanding: you originally stated that 'if one lets him carry out his actions through you, he will pay you back ten times as much as you lost, and ten times as much as you ever have earned.' I'll do a logical breakdown again:
1) If you are a good Christian, God will pay you back ten times as much as you ever lost, and ten times as much as you ever earned.
2) Some people lose more than others. Likewise, some people earn more than others.
3) Using the formula given in 1), we have 10 x overall loss and 10 x overall gain.
4) Imagine Adam, Betty and Chris. Adam loses his house, his job, his family and dies penniless. Betty, on the other hand, prospers - she becomes a CEO, then a mother, all the while living in absolute luxury. Chris lives a middle-of-the-road sort of life, neither losing nor gaining huge amounts.
5) For the sake of argument, we may quantify loss and gain. (We have to, anyway, to accept 1) as a valid premise.)
6) Say Adam's loss is -90 and his gain is +5. Betty's loss is -5 and her gain +90. Using God's formula, they both receive the same amount in Heaven (namely, +950) - so up to this point, the argument works.
7) But Chris comes along and throws a great big spanner in the works. Say his loss was -30 and his gain +30. His total is +600. This obviously comes nowhere near the relative luxury Adam and Betty are enjoying!
8) So... without completely breaking mathematics, it's impossible for everyone to be equal in the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you choose to break mathematics, you'll have to provide a substitute system - which, since maths is basically logic, will be rationally incoherent. If you choose to state that everyone is equal in the Kingdom of Heaven, you're contradicting your original statement.

--

You didn't answer my question: 'how could anyone possibly be happy in heaven knowing the overwhelming pain and suffering happening beneath them?'

OK, so I'm assuming you're a lovely person who feels empathy for others. My point is that unless that empathy is stripped out, you cannot be happy while imagining the infinite pain and suffering underneath you. Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of another - and imagining that infinite pain isn't going to be pleasant by definition (since pain is unpleasant). So we have ourselves another conundrum:

If you have the capacity for empathy, you can't be happy in Heaven. It follows that the version of you that eventually makes it there is missing some of its original parts - I would argue the parts that are vital to your sense of self. So whatever warped resultant entity is strolling around with the angels, it's not you. Not you as you could recognise yourself. That, to me, is a terrifying thought - and it's why Heaven holds no appeal for me. It isn't me who's going there, after all. Perhaps it looks like me - perhaps it sounds the same. But it is simply a bright machine.

Again, thanks for reading! To make it easier to continue the discussion, here's a list of points I'd like answered:
1) Isn't it hypocritical by definition to judge others for doing something you yourself engage in? Didn't you yourself define hypocrisy as a terrible sin?
2) Who is more moral, the man who blindly follows orders or the man who first examines them to see whether they are just and should be followed?
3) Do people deserve to be tortured just for failing to believe something utterly irrational (e.g. in Superman)?
4) Are you choosing to break mathematics or contradict your original statement with regard to relative rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven?
5) Given the following quotes:
Quote:

Wouldn't the mothers who'd lost their children want more than anything to be with them, even if the pain was unimaginable? Anything but sit helplessly on their cloud, knowing how much their baby boy or girl was hurting. That, to me, sounds like Hell.
Quote:

I wouldn't sympathize with them, because this is God's choice.
Do you claim to speak for everyone deserving of a place in Heaven?
6) How can the entity in Heaven be, in any meaningful sense, the same as the entity on Earth and thus provide some sort of consistency (which is required if salvation/punishment are to be justified) if it is missing vital parts of the original persona?

Once again, thank you for being so polite, and I eagerly await your response! :D

Esper October 12th, 2012 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7368473)
Wouldn't the mothers who'd lost their children want more than anything to be with them, even if the pain was unimaginable? Anything but sit helplessly on their cloud, knowing how much their baby boy or girl was hurting. That, to me, sounds like Hell. An insidious, emotional Hell, with none of the stereotypical fire and flames, none of the brimstone, the cackling demons - and somehow all the worse for that.

Trapped upstairs while your child burns beneath you - with no hope of escape in either case. I genuinely shudder to think of it.

Geez, I'm already in the non-believer camp, but I've never thought of this kind of situation before. There are probably lots of "good Christians" out there who have loved ones who are "sinners." This is reminding me of stories you read about, like ones of people who have left war-torn areas of the world, leaving their families behind and not knowing if they are alive or dead. I already thought those were pretty heart-wrenching stories, but if you were safe and you knew for certain that someone else was suffering that would probably crush you.

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 2:13 PM

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure I comprehend your argument. As I see it (and please do correct me if I'm wrong!), this is what you believe:
1) We have one moral code ('turn the other cheek' etc.).
2) This directly contradicts God's stated intentions ('you will be punished for your sins' etc.).
3) Therefore God has a separate moral code.
4) Therefore morality is not universal - there is no 'right' way to behave. It all depends on who you are (i.e. God/human). There is no true morality - there is one rule for us and one rule for God in all circumstances (although occasionally these might be the same).
This whole 'turn the other cheek' subject must be understood within the context in which it was stated. Put simply, Jesus didn't want His followers (or anyone, for that matter) to follow the path of revenge. We all know what revenge is. However, it is important to understand that there is a difference between revenge and justice. Revenge simply creates more physical and emotional pain for the parties involved and is sprawled from an unholy hatred of a person or a group of people. Justice seeks to reward the good and punish the wicked. The former is wicked while the latter is righteous. When Jesus told us to 'turn the other cheek,' He was telling us to do the opposite of what our nature would want us to do: get even.

Now, it is crucial to understand that God is, indeed, a loving God. The world today has adopted this view of God as an all-powerful being who is sitting upon His throne in heaven, looking down upon the inhabitants of earth waiting for someone to do something wrong so that He may smite them. That's not who God is. He wants all to be saved and to enter the gates of heaven one day to be with Him eternally; the Bible says that God is a patient God and desires all men to be saved. This is why He sent Jesus. For those of you who do not know who Jesus was (and is), put simply, He is the Son of God. Why exactly did He send Jesus to earth? How does that display God's love for us in anyway? This is where the topic of justice comes back in.
The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The Bible also says that the punishment for sin is death: both physical and spiritual. While we must realize that God is a loving God, we must also understand that He is a righteous and holy God. Therefore, sin must be atoned for somehow. This is why God ordained the animal sacrifices in the first five books of the Bible. He alone is holy, and he cannot stand the sight of sin.

However, these animal sacrifices were meant to be temporary: these sacrifices were only meant to lead to His ultimate plan. This is where Jesus comes in. Because He was and is the Son of God, He is perfect. This is what His death on the cross was all about: because He is the perfect and living God, only His blood alone can completely and forever cleanse us from our sins. No other sacrifices had to be made because God the Father was satisfied with the sacrifice made on the cross.

That is how God displayed His love for us through Jesus Christ. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." While we were still his enemies spiritually, He allowed himself to be made a sacrifice for our sins and was thinking about all of us as he hung there on the cross. Yes, there is a hell. But God loved us enough to send His only Son to die for us. Even if you, reader, were the only person on earth He still would have come to lay His life down that you may be forgiven and allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven. His gift of everlasting life has been offered to all of us freely. How do we obtain it? We simply receive it. The Bible says "it is by grace through faith that we are saved, and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." We can't earn our way to heaven because we are sinful by nature (recall all the animal sacrifices even the righteous people in the Old Testament had to make); because we are sinful by nature, our good works will never be enough to get us into heaven. But Christ offers eternal life to us freely if we will only repent (change our way of thinking, turn away from sin and turn our lives towards Him) and put our faith in Him. Once we put our trust in Him alone for salvation, He saves us. In fact, the Bible says that we receive His Holy Spirit when we do, and that Holy Spirit is the assurance of our place in heaven. Salvation is through faith alone: not through any good works we can ever do. No one ever has to work for a gift, right? And that's what salvation is: a gift to all who are willing to receive it. And Christianity isn't about living a perfect life. I, and every Christian living today, are far from perfect. We make A LOT of mistakes. But God promised to forgive those who ask for forgiveness.

God does not follow a different set of morals: morality is ultimate and does not change with time. However, His ways certainly are different than ours. We think of our own plans, but He has even higher plans in mind: for each and everyone of us. Salvation truly is through faith in Him alone: we are made pure by His sacrifice alone. When we ask Him to forgive us and to be our savior, he will never turn his back and reject our request. Certainly, all of this takes faith, but it is through our faith that Jesus will save us that God redeems us.

I hope I made sense in responding to your message. I love Jesus not because of anything on my part, but because He first love me.

droomph October 12th, 2012 2:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels (Post 7369539)
1) Isn't it hypocritical by definition to judge others for doing something you yourself engage in? Didn't you yourself define hypocrisy as a terrible sin?
2) Who is more moral, the man who blindly follows orders or the man who first examines them to see whether they are just and should be followed?
3) Do people deserve to be tortured just for failing to believe something utterly irrational (e.g. in Superman)?
4) Are you choosing to break mathematics or contradict your original statement with regard to relative rewards in the Kingdom of Heaven?
5) Given the following quotes:

Do you claim to speak for everyone deserving of a place in Heaven?

6) How can the entity in Heaven be, in any meaningful sense, the same as the entity on Earth and thus provide some sort of consistency (which is required if salvation/punishment are to be justified) if it is missing vital parts of the original persona?

1) What is the hypocritical part? I don't understand what you're trying to say...
2) I have never said to blindly follow orders. I have only said that faith is the one salvation. In fact, you should never blindly follow orders, because that clouds you from the truth. What if someone misguides you?
3) It's not the failure to believe - God will show Himself to you when it's time, in the right form. It's the pride that blinds you that is so wrong.
4) I never contradicted myself - I merely said that it's up to Him, rather than you, or any worldly authority.
5) I wouldn't feel for them, because they were stuck up in refusing God's gift for so long. He doesn't require anything from you, and he is in fact, actively giving you his gift. If you don't accept it, you don't deserve a place in heaven. I can't stress this point enough. All you need to be is to submit to him. Obtaining His gift is the easy path out (since he has taken your place and done the hard work), and yet it is the best path to take.

6) The person above me has answered that. God loves all of us, and is actively trying to help us cleanse ourselves of our sin. However, if one refuses his effort to help us (which is harder than to not), we have shown that we don't want, nor deserve, his love.

Oryx October 12th, 2012 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7369634)
Geez, I'm already in the non-believer camp, but I've never thought of this kind of situation before. There are probably lots of "good Christians" out there who have loved ones who are "sinners." This is reminding me of stories you read about, like ones of people who have left war-torn areas of the world, leaving their families behind and not knowing if they are alive or dead. I already thought those were pretty heart-wrenching stories, but if you were safe and you knew for certain that someone else was suffering that would probably crush you.

I spoke to my aunt a few months ago and was horrified at what she was saying. She's a hardcore Catholic, she watches EWTN all the time and goes to church multiple times a week. Her husband that she had been married to for 60+ years died a few years ago. She's insistent that he's in hell because he didn't go with her to church or believe in God. I was so taken aback and honestly hurt that she was so nonchalant about it.

Then I told her if God exists I couldn't imagine him being so unmerciful as to reveal that he exists to a person and then ignore their repentance in the afterlife to torture them for eternity, and she just kept interrupting me and saying "no" over and over again. ;_;

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7369758)
I spoke to my aunt a few months ago and was horrified at what she was saying. She's a hardcore Catholic, she watches EWTN all the time and goes to church multiple times a week. Her husband that she had been married to for 60+ years died a few years ago. She's insistent that he's in hell because he didn't go with her to church or believe in God. I was so taken aback and honestly hurt that she was so nonchalant about it.

Then I told her if God exists I couldn't imagine him being so unmerciful as to reveal that he exists to a person and then ignore their repentance in the afterlife to torture them for eternity, and she just kept interrupting me and saying "no" over and over again. ;_;

It certainly can be a scary thought. However, I simply cannot call God unmerciful. He gives many the opportunity throughout their lives to place their faith in Him. It's true that God really is love. He desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is why He sent Jesus: to give all of us a chance to be forgiven through Him.

Also, I understand that the thought of a loved one being in hell can certainly be scary and quite hurtful. In the case with your aunt, simply because she speaks of it so nonchalantly does not necessarily mean she didn't carry hurt inside when her husband passed away. What appears on the outside isn't necessarily a representation of what people feel on the inside. But forgive me if I am out of place in speaking on such a matter. I just understand what it is like to mask hurt from others.

droomph October 12th, 2012 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7369758)
I spoke to my aunt a few months ago and was horrified at what she was saying. She's a hardcore Catholic, she watches EWTN all the time and goes to church multiple times a week. Her husband that she had been married to for 60+ years died a few years ago. She's insistent that he's in hell because he didn't go with her to church or believe in God. I was so taken aback and honestly hurt that she was so nonchalant about it.

Then I told her if God exists I couldn't imagine him being so unmerciful as to reveal that he exists to a person and then ignore their repentance in the afterlife to torture them for eternity, and she just kept interrupting me and saying "no" over and over again. ;_;

She may not show her emotions, as again, this is God's decision. But inside, I'm sure that she's hurting just like you at what she's saying herself.

And she's right in that he probably is, based on the fact he didn't believe in God or whatnot. However, if he has asked for God or even thought about repentance to some sort, he's probably not.

However I have never known him, so I can't say. We can all only hope what is true is true...but as a Christian I do hope that he isn't.

Oryx October 12th, 2012 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shdwj (Post 7369776)
It certainly can be a scary thought. However, I simply cannot call God unmerciful. He gives many the opportunity throughout their lives to place their faith in Him. It's true that God really is love. He desires everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. This is why He sent Jesus: to give all of us a chance to be forgiven through Him.

Also, I understand that the thought of a loved one being in hell can certainly be scary and quite hurtful. In the case with your aunt, simply because she speaks of it so nonchalantly does not necessarily mean she didn't carry hurt inside when her husband passed away. What appears on the outside isn't necessarily a representation of what people feel on the inside. But forgive me if I am out of place in speaking on such a matter. I just understand what it is like to mask hurt from others.

Saying "God is merciful" and then agreeing with the premise that he would not give you a chance to repent after death, instead judging you on your life regardless of your repentance after death is a massive contradiction.

Droomph: please don't try to speculate on whether or not my family members are in hell, that's not really acceptable in this situation.

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7369843)
Saying "God is merciful" and then agreeing with the premise that he would not give you a chance to repent after death, instead judging you on your life regardless of your repentance after death is a massive contradiction.

Excuse me. Let me elucidate. We are given the opportunity to repent in this lifetime. If we put our faith in Christ, we are promised eternal life. Mercy is holding back what we deserve: and we all deserve punishment for our sins. We don't deserve a second chance yet He offers us one anyway. God is patient and is waiting for people to make their decision: whether or not they will accept His gift--His free gift which He offers to all people regardless of anything they have done in the past--of salvation. God loves you! God loves me! He doesn't want anyone to suffer in hell. Why else would Jesus have come down to die the agonizing death on the cross if He didn't want any of us to be saved? if he didn't want to bestow mercy and grace upon people?

We must remember that God is righteous and just. He cannot leave sin unpunished. You know that hell wasn't created for people? It was created for Satan and his demons. However, after the fall of man kind (the story of Adam and Eve) sin entered the world and the hearts of people. This is why God sent Jesus: to show mercy and grace to a people in desperate need of cleansing and forgiveness. As I stated before, He doesn't want anyone to go to hell, but people must make their choice now: to accept His forgiveness or deny it. He has made a way for us because He loves us. :)

Shining Raichu October 12th, 2012 5:10 PM

God is apparently the all-powerful being. If he didn't want anyone to suffer in Hell and if his "gifts" were truly "free" then we would all make it into Heaven whether we believe in him in this lifetime or not. If he doesn't want something to happen, then it needn't.

droomph, I find myself becoming more and more disturbed by the things you say. You seem to have ignored most of Barrels' points and just answered his summary questions as though he had said nothing. In any case, of all the things you've said, sticking to your lack of empathy is possibly the most disturbing thing of all:

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
I wouldn't feel for them, because they were stuck up in refusing God's gift for so long. He doesn't require anything from you, and he is in fact, actively giving you his gift. If you don't accept it, you don't deserve a place in heaven. I can't stress this point enough. All you need to be is to submit to him. Obtaining His gift is the easy path out (since he has taken your place and done the hard work), and yet it is the best path

What you're saying is that you have a lack of empathy for these people. Empathy for those less fortunate than yourself (as the people who are burning in eternal Hellfire undoubtedly are) is a key ingredient in morality - that is, it seems, unless the misfortune comes as a result of the action of God, at which point those people are unworthy of your thought or feeling.

So my question to you is, if you only feel selective empathy and are lacking a key aspect of moral and righteous thought, are you any better than those condemned to Hell? God's word notwithstanding and using only your own sense of morality as a guide, does your lack of empathy not mean that you should also be condemned to the same fate?

And on that note, is it not possible that God is testing you on this point? Would he want you to feel empathy regardless of his actions and be displeased that you don't?

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 7369905)
God is apparently the all-powerful being. If he didn't want anyone to suffer in Hell and if his "gifts" were truly "free" then we would all make it into Heaven whether we believe in him in this lifetime or not. If he doesn't want something to happen, then it needn't.

droomph, I find myself becoming more and more disturbed by the things you say. You seem to have ignored most of Barrels' points and just answered his summary questions as though he had said nothing. In any case, of all the things you've said, sticking to your lack of empathy is possibly the most disturbing thing of all:



What you're saying is that you have a lack of empathy for these people. Empathy for those less fortunate than yourself (as the people who are burning in eternal Hellfire undoubtedly are) is a key ingredient in morality - that is, it seems, unless the misfortune comes as a result of the action of God, at which point those people are unworthy of your thought or feeling.

So my question to you is, if you only feel selective empathy and are lacking a key aspect of moral and righteous thought, are you any better than those condemned to Hell? God's word notwithstanding and using only your own sense of morality as a guide, does your lack of empathy not mean that you should also be condemned to the same fate?

And on that note, is it not possible that God is testing you on this point? Would he want you to feel empathy regardless of his actions and be displeased that you don't?

People can accept gifts. People can also reject them. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. His gift of salvation is truly free, but accepting is something that a person must do out of his own will.

And as I stated before, God simply will not let sin go unpunished. Yes, he loves the sinner, but he must punish sin. And as I stated before, this is the reason why Christ came to earth: to make us clean from our sins.

And yes, God is the only all-powerful being. However, he gives everyone a choice. Imagine a world where people were forced to believe in him--a world where everyone was programmed to love God. God wouldn't be showing true love if he were showing forced love. No, because God truly loves each and every one of us, he gives us a choice. He wants us to be with him.

Now, on God's righteousness and judgment. Consider a judge. What does a judge do? He punishes evil and rewards good. He wouldn't be a good judge if he didn't do that. Imagine further if a loved one of his was caught in the act of murder. The judge wouldn't want to send him to prison, but because justice and righteousness must be upheld, he must give him his sentence. It doesn't make the judge love his friend any less, but the judge understands what is right and knows he must carry out justice in the name of righteousness--even if it brings him much sorrow to do so. Because God is holy, he cannot allow sin into heaven. He can't allow it not because he is following some rules that he must keep, but because it is his character. The laws in the Bible were created by him because he knows what is right because, as we mentioned before, he is the only all-powerful, omniscient being. God is righteousness in its truest form. Christ's sacrifice makes us clean, however, so we are given passage into heaven. But, as I said before, people need to make a choice.

I know I've been doing a lot of talking, but the main point I want to get across is this: God really, really does love you. As I have said before, he doesn't want anyone to go to hell. And as I mentioned earlier, God hates sin, not the sinner. His love is so real: and real love allows people to make their own choices out of their own will. I know that talk of hell can really scare some people, but don't let this conversation fool you into thinking that God is scary. He wants to come into your life and be, not only your God, but your friend. He did die for you, after all. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent him, and all he wants is for you to know that he loves you, and that he has made a way for all of us. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
If you don't accept it, you don't deserve a place in heaven. I can't stress this point enough.

The truth is that none of us, Christian or non-Christian, deserves a place in heaven. We have all sinned. We have all failed God. God is proud of the good things that his followers do for others, but that doesn't make us any more deserving. Christ in us, Christ covering our sins, is the only reason we could ever dream of living in heaven with him someday.

Christians aren't any better than non-Christians. I want to make that point clear. We still make mistakes. We stumble. The only difference is that Christians have asked Jesus to come into their lives and hearts to change them. Our only hope is Jesus. Truly, it takes faith to believe that he loves us more than we'll ever know. It takes faith to believe that he will save us from hell if we only put our trust in him for salvation. In the end, it is by grace through faith that anyone is saved. :)

Oryx October 12th, 2012 6:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shdwj (Post 7369964)
People can accept gifts. People can also reject them. Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. His gift of salvation is truly free, but accepting is something that a person must do out of his own will.

And as I stated before, God simply will not let sin go unpunished. Yes, he loves the sinner, but he must punish sin. And as I stated before, this is the reason why Christ came to earth: to make us clean from our sins.

And yes, God is the only all-powerful being. However, he gives everyone a choice. Imagine a world where people were forced to believe in him--a world where everyone was programmed to love God. God wouldn't be showing true love if he were showing forced love. No, because God truly loves each and every one of us, he gives us a choice. He wants us to be with him.

The point is, what person do you imagine knows that God exists in the afterlife (for obvious reasons) and then still rejects him? So are you saying there are repentant, God-loving people in hell? They don't deserve forgiveness for the sin of not believing in God as much as you deserve forgiveness?

I'm fairly certain if I was 100% sure that God existed I wouldn't reject his love. Which is the point I'm making here. After death, if God is real he would make himself known to the person. And then this person who was bad in life becomes repentant, asks for forgiveness. Who are you to say that they are not receiving forgiveness? Why are you claiming to know which sin in life is worth hell and which isn't? Isn't it part of your religion not to pretend to be God by judging others? Arguing "sin has to be punished" and "people who don't believe in God in life are all going to hell" are two entirely separate things.

Quote:

Now, on God's righteousness and judgment. Consider a judge. What does a judge do? He punishes evil and rewards good. He wouldn't be a good judge if he didn't do that. Imagine further if a loved one of his was caught in the act of murder. The judge wouldn't want to send him to prison, but because justice and righteousness must be upheld, he must give him his sentence. It doesn't make the judge love his friend any less, but the judge understands what is right and knows he must carry out justice in the name of righteousness--even if it brings him much sorrow to do so. Because God is holy, he cannot allow sin into heaven. He can't allow it not because he is following some rules that he must keep, but because it is his character. The laws in the Bible were created by him because he knows what is right because, as we mentioned before, he is the only all-powerful, omniscient being. God is righteousness in its truest form. Christ's sacrifice makes us clean, however, so we are given passage into heaven. But, as I said before, people need to make a choice.
Are you not a sinner then? Since, you know, no sin can make it into heaven and since you accepted God's love you're obviously going to heaven.

Quote:

I know I've been doing a lot of talking, but the main point I want to get across is this: God really, really does love you. As I have said before, he doesn't want anyone to go to hell. And as I mentioned earlier, God hates sin, not the sinner. His love is so real: and real love allows people to make their own choices out of their own will. I know that talk of hell can really scare some people, but don't let this conversation fool you into thinking that God is scary. He wants to come into your life and be, not only your God, but your friend. He did die for you, after all. The last thing I want to do is misrepresent him, and all he wants is for you to know that he loves you, and that he has made a way for all of us. :)
If God loves people then he wouldn't send anyone that repents into eternal damnation, whether they repented in life or after death. A God that looks at a person begging for forgiveness for their actions and says "no, burn for eternity", is not loving. You can't reconcile a merciful, forgiving God and a God that judges you entirely on how your life was, disregarding your repentance after death. One of those has to be not entirely true.

Oryx October 12th, 2012 6:49 PM

I think the general consensus of religion would disagree with your claim that we are not all God's children.

Are you not a sinner then? Or are you resigned to going to hell?

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7369990)
The point is, what person do you imagine knows that God exists in the afterlife (for obvious reasons) and then still rejects him? So are you saying there are repentant, God-loving people in hell? They don't deserve forgiveness for the sin of not believing in God as much as you deserve forgiveness?

I'm fairly certain if I was 100% sure that God existed I wouldn't reject his love. Which is the point I'm making here. After death, if God is real he would make himself known to the person. And then this person who was bad in life becomes repentant, asks for forgiveness. Who are you to say that they are not receiving forgiveness? Why are you claiming to know which sin in life is worth hell and which isn't? Isn't it part of your religion not to pretend to be God by judging others? Arguing "sin has to be punished" and "people who don't believe in God in life are all going to hell" are two entirely separate things.

Okay, before I say any more, I would like to kindly ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that "this particular sin will send you to hell and this sin won't"? Did I judge anyone at all? I simply stated that all of us have sinned. Me, you, everyone on earth has committed some sin or another. Tell me, have you ever told a lie? I know I have. Have you ever used God's name in vain? I have. Have you lusted after a person? Jesus equates that with adultery. All I'm trying to say is that no person is better than another. God created us all equal--we are all his creation. However, because of original sin (the sin Adam and Eve committed when they disobeyed God) man was separated from God. Did you know Adam and Eve walked in the Garden of Eden with God himself? But sin ended that direct relationship. And I'll get to it in a moment, but through Christ's atonement, we can once again have a close relationship with God.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of "don't judge others." I did not say that I was better than anyone in my previous posts. In fact, I was hoping to avoid that, because nothing can be farther from the truth. All men are created equal in the eyes of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours
Now, on God's righteousness and judgment. Consider a judge. What does a judge do? He punishes evil and rewards good. He wouldn't be a good judge if he didn't do that. Imagine further if a loved one of his was caught in the act of murder. The judge wouldn't want to send him to prison, but because justice and righteousness must be upheld, he must give him his sentence. It doesn't make the judge love his friend any less, but the judge understands what is right and knows he must carry out justice in the name of righteousness--even if it brings him much sorrow to do so. Because God is holy, he cannot allow sin into heaven. He can't allow it not because he is following some rules that he must keep, but because it is his character. The laws in the Bible were created by him because he knows what is right because, as we mentioned before, he is the only all-powerful, omniscient being. God is righteousness in its truest form. Christ's sacrifice makes us clean, however, so we are given passage into heaven. But, as I said before, people need to make a choice.

Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. This is how the miracle of salvation works. When a person is born, he is born a sinner by nature, again, because of original sin. This makes us incapable of entering heaven. The animal sacrifices performed by the Israelites in the Old Testament were performed because blood had to be shed because of the sins of the people. They couldn't simply sacrifice any animal, either. It had to be without blemish. This is how serious God takes sin. Jesus came to die on the cross for the sins of everyone. Because he is the Son of God, he is without blemish, but in a different sense than the animals (a lot of the laws in the Old Testament were also symbolic of the things to come in the New Testament). Clearly, he is holy, and animals are not. He truly is without blemish. He took the punishment that we deserve. Because of this sacrifice, all who turn to him can and will be saved. The righteousness and holiness of Jesus is imputed upon the believer (remember, He lived a perfect life, so he really is righteous and holy). This is why believers are given passage into heaven. Not by any good works they may have done during their life time, but because when God looks into the hearts of the believers he sees the perfect sacrifice of his son, and that sacrifice is sufficient. When a person accepts Jesus, the sins of the past, present, and even the future are wiped away. He completely disregards and forgets about them. When God sees us, he does not see our sin but the perfect blood of Jesus Christ.

This is the only reason why anyone can make it into heaven. I'm sorry if I lead you to think that I'm not a sinner. I still fall. I still stumble. I make mistakes. But I have faith that when God looks at me, he doesn't see my sin any longer because he has forgiven me. Why? Because of the blood of Jesus. And also because he loves me, just as he loves everyone else. :) I'm not trying to sound conceited. He offers the very same thing to you and to all on earth.

We must also consider the fact that the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in his name. The Holy Spirit changes us, gives us new desires to not sin and to live for him. Am I saying that Christians no longer have a desire to sin? Of course not. As long as we live in this body, on this earth, we are prone to all kinds of temptations. However, as a person continues to know God more and more, he will want to become more and more like him because of how righteous and loving he is. God's Holy Spirit changes people. In the end, it is his love that leads people to repentance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours
If God loves people then he wouldn't send anyone that repents into eternal damnation, whether they repented in life or after death. A God that looks at a person begging for forgiveness for their actions and says "no, burn for eternity", is not loving. You can't reconcile a merciful, forgiving God and a God that judges you entirely on how your life was, disregarding your repentance after death. One of those has to be not entirely true.

Was my analogy of the judge not clear? Forgive me, but do you realize that one can love while still being just? This is why God the father sent Christ to die for us. Jesus gave his own life for you and me. If he didn't love us then he wouldn't have died the excruciating death on the cross. Did you think it was easy? John 15:13 says "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends." And you need to realize that he died for you while you were still against him. How many of us would do that? How many of us would go out into lands foreign to us (not that God didn't know earth, but it's true that Jesus gave up his position in heaven to come to our corrupt world; yes, you and I know that it's corrupt) and deliberately die for the people who treated him like garbage? Plus, we must remember the other ways he displayed his love for people. He healed the leper, restored the cripple, restored the sight of the blind. He had true, sincere compassion for the lost. Also, because Jesus is the Son of God, he is an exact reflection of who God was and is. How can we say that he's not loving after all the things he has done for people? For us? Not only that, but consider the blessings in your own lives. A lot of those blessings we could go without, but God still gives them to us anyway! I know that many of you own video games (it is a Pokemon forum, after all). Even that is a blessing from God. Many of you are still breathing today. That's a gift from God as well! Now let me go a little deeper. Consider science. Many people say science disproves God--they couldn't be any more wrong. Science actually proves the existence of the living God. Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Think about the fact that the earth is just the right position away from the sun. If it were only a few centimeters closer to the sun, the atmosphere on earth would be too hot for life to exist. If it were any farther away from the sun, it would be too cold. Consider the miracle of the human eye! The complexity of how this body part works is beyond us! We can't imitate the way the eye focuses light, not even with the most complicated cameras and other technology that we have today. Think about just how stable the electrons and protons within an atom are! Oh, how easy it would be for God to simply end it all with the snap of a finger; how easy it would be for him to say the word and cause all atoms on earth to lose that stability, or cause earth to shift in the direction of the sun, or simply crush all under his heel! After all, we did spit in his face with our sins. Why shouldn't he destroy all of man kind? Can't he simply start over? But no. He doesn't do that. Regardless of how people over the years have disregarded and rejected God, he doesn't do it. Now do you understand the magnitude of his patience? Some of us can hardly stand the sarcastic student in our class who lets his mouth slip (I know I can be rather irritable at times). As I said, he wants all people to be saved, so he withholds his hand. Many people are given the chance to accept his love, but some people don't. People are without excuse: creation itself testifies of the majesty and glory of God. All of it points back to Jesus. This is the magnitude of his love for us. By the time the unbeliever dies, he had already made his choice. For those who have been offered the truth during their lifetime, they are without excuse. Do I enjoy this? No! Does God enjoy it? No! But he is righteous and holy. He cannot allow sin into his kingdom. But as I said, God already went to great lengths to make a way for us, to reveal himself to us, and to redeem us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours
I think the general consensus of religion would disagree with your claim that we are not all God's children.

Are you not a sinner then? Or are you resigned to going to hell?

There is a difference between being God's "children" and being his "creation." We are all his creation. You, me, everyone on earth. The Bible states that when a person is saved, he is adopted into God's family. People are given the Holy Spirit when they are saved, and Romans 8:15 says "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.'" The term 'Abba' signifies the close relationship people gain with God when they receive him. As I stated before, I am a sinner. However, God is continually changing my life, making me more like him. And again, I'm not saying that I'm perfect. I do admit, however, that he has been changing my desires. He's been placing desires for me to follow after him and reject the sins I once called common. But I'm not perfect. Any change for good in my is all because of Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours
I'm fairly certain if I was 100% sure that God existed I wouldn't reject his love.

Are you 100% God exists? This is the point of faith. It is through faith that we are saved, remember? All it takes is for us to trust in him, and he will come into our life and lead us. Life isn't simply about "don't do this" and "don't do that." There's a reason why God gave us rules in the Bible. It says that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." God knows that sin will get us into nothing but trouble during our life on earth. This is another act of love on his part: he wants to give us a true and satisfying life here on earth. Now let me ask you, now: what's keeping you from accepting his sacrifice today?

Oryx October 12th, 2012 8:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shdwj (Post 7370065)
Okay, before I say any more, I would like to kindly ask that you stop putting words in my mouth. Did I say that "this particular sin will send you to hell and this sin won't"? Did I judge anyone at all? I simply stated that all of us have sinned. Me, you, everyone on earth has committed some sin or another. Tell me, have you ever told a lie? I know I have. Have you ever used God's name in vain? I have. Have you lusted after a person? Jesus equates that with adultery. All I'm trying to say is that no person is better than another. God created us all equal--we are all his creation. However, because of original sin (the sin Adam and Eve committed when they disobeyed God) man was separated from God. Did you know Adam and Eve walked in the Garden of Eden with God himself? But sin ended that direct relationship. And I'll get to it in a moment, but through Christ's atonement, we can once again have a close relationship with God.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of "don't judge others." I did not say that I was better than anyone in my previous posts. In fact, I was hoping to avoid that, because nothing can be farther from the truth. All men are created equal in the eyes of God.

Sigh. The point is, when you try to justify why a person would decide "This person is in hell", you are agreeing that it's acceptable for that person to pass judgment on this person's life. This began because I talked about how horrified I was with my aunt passing judgment on my dead uncle, and you're trying to justify it. Perhaps you forgot the source of this?

Quote:

Perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. This is how the miracle of salvation works. When a person is born, he is born a sinner by nature, again, because of original sin. This makes us incapable of entering heaven. The animal sacrifices performed by the Israelites in the Old Testament were performed because blood had to be shed because of the sins of the people. They couldn't simply sacrifice any animal, either. It had to be without blemish. This is how serious God takes sin. Jesus came to die on the cross for the sins of everyone. Because he is the Son of God, he is without blemish, but in a different sense than the animals (a lot of the laws in the Old Testament were also symbolic of the things to come in the New Testament). Clearly, he is holy, and animals are not. He truly is without blemish. He took the punishment that we deserve. Because of this sacrifice, all who turn to him can and will be saved. The righteousness and holiness of Jesus is imputed upon the believer (remember, He lived a perfect life, so he really is righteous and holy). This is why believers are given passage into heaven. Not by any good works they may have done during their life time, but because when God looks into the hearts of the believers he sees the perfect sacrifice of his son, and that sacrifice is sufficient. When a person accepts Jesus, the sins of the past, present, and even the future are wiped away. He completely disregards and forgets about them. When God sees us, he does not see our sin but the perfect blood of Jesus Christ.
This was unnecessarily long. I understand religion, I've been to 7 years of Catholic school. None of this refutes the argument I'm making, which is that if you start believing after death you should be subject to the same forgiveness, and to try to justify claiming otherwise is really pushing it. If you accept that, then you can never justify a person claiming they know whether or not someone went to hell.

Quote:

This is the only reason why anyone can make it into heaven. I'm sorry if I lead you to think that I'm not a sinner. I still fall. I still stumble. I make mistakes. But I have faith that when God looks at me, he doesn't see my sin any longer because he has forgiven me. Why? Because of the blood of Jesus. And also because he loves me, just as he loves everyone else. :) I'm not trying to sound conceited. He offers the very same thing to you and to all on earth.

We must also consider the fact that the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in his name. The Holy Spirit changes us, gives us new desires to not sin and to live for him. Am I saying that Christians no longer have a desire to sin? Of course not. As long as we live in this body, on this earth, we are prone to all kinds of temptations. However, as a person continues to know God more and more, he will want to become more and more like him because of how righteous and loving he is. God's Holy Spirit changes people. In the end, it is his love that leads people to repentance.
Once again, we come back to why you seem so sure that people no longer get this chance after death.

Quote:

Was my analogy of the judge not clear?

...

But as I said, God already went to great lengths to make a way for us, to reveal himself to us, and to redeem us.
Holy crap, condense. Condense. You're making the same mistake here that you keep making over and over - claiming to know for a fact what happens after death. That alone is making your faith-filled rants really obnoxious and personally offensive to me. I shared my comment in a club that is meant to support people that don't believe, and instead I get condescending evangelist who knows what happens after death and thinks it's perfectly alright to tell me why I should expect my family members to be in hell and still accept that God is a wonderful being that loves everyone, especially the ones he throws into eternal damnation for 70-100 years of not acknowledging him.

Quote:

There is a difference between being God's "children" and being his "creation." We are all his creation. You, me, everyone on earth. The Bible states that when a person is saved, he is adopted into God's family. People are given the Holy Spirit when they are saved, and Romans 8:15 says "For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.'" The term 'Abba' signifies the close relationship people gain with God when they receive him. As I stated before, I am a sinner. However, God is continually changing my life, making me more like him. And again, I'm not saying that I'm perfect. I do admit, however, that he has been changing my desires. He's been placing desires for me to follow after him and reject the sins I once called common. But I'm not perfect. Any change for good in my is all because of Jesus.

Are you 100% God exists? This is the point of faith. It is through faith that we are saved, remember? All it takes is for us to trust in him, and he will come into our life and lead us. Life isn't simply about "don't do this" and "don't do that." There's a reason why God gave us rules in the Bible. It says that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." God knows that sin will get us into nothing but trouble during our life on earth. This is another act of love on his part: he wants to give us a true and satisfying life here on earth. Now let me ask you, now: what's keeping you from accepting his sacrifice today?
Am I 100%...what? I'm posting in a club for people who are agnostic/atheist. Is the question is if I'm 100% sure God exists? Obviously I'm not. And honestly, the more you argue the more I believe I made the right decision. You are not coming off well for your religion.

Edit: I shared this anecdote because this club is a safe space for people to share things like this. Don't make this into a place where people have to fear getting preached to every time they post, please.

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 8:39 PM

Okay. Let me apologize if you believe I am ranting. Like I said, I'm far from perfect, ha ha. You're going to have to forgive me if you think I'm trying to put you down. I'm not. But just like the members of this club, I want to get my point across: even if that view may be opposed to what everyone else thinks.

Also, I meant no offense whatsoever. If I created or even opened already closed wounds, I apologize. If I put you down or sounded proud or anything like that, then I messed up. But I just really, really wanted to get my point across: even if that meant laying down different verses and such. Is it so wrong to support my view with as much as I can? I'm sure anyone would want to the same. Again, I apologize if my words came out wrong, but I simply can't apologize for what I believe. I respect you.

You know that the reason why I believe the whole thing about hell to be true because the Bible says so. This is why I am confident. But I won't force you to believe anything. I wanted to share my views with you, not offend you, so please forgive me for any unintended blows.

EDIT: By the way, I didn't intend to make people afraid to post their opinions. It's good to share your views. I understand that sometimes people make it intimidating to voice your opinions, and if I did that to anyone, I apologize. I just wanted to share my views as well.

Pppgggr October 12th, 2012 9:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shdwj (Post 7370115)
Okay. Let me apologize if you believe I am ranting. Like I said, I'm far from perfect, ha ha. You're going to have to forgive me if you think I'm trying to put you down. I'm not. But just like the members of this club, I want to get my point across: even if that view may be opposed to what everyone else thinks.

Also, I meant no offense whatsoever. If I created or even opened already closed wounds, I apologize. If I put you down or sounded proud or anything like that, then I messed up. But I just really, really wanted to get my point across: even if that meant laying down different verses and such. Is it so wrong to support my view with as much as I can? I'm sure anyone would want to the same. Again, I apologize if my words came out wrong, but I simply can't apologize for what I believe. I respect you.

You know that the reason why I believe the whole thing about hell to be true because the Bible says so. This is why I am confident. But I won't force you to believe anything. I wanted to share my views with you, not offend you, so please forgive me for any unintended blows.

EDIT: By the way, I didn't intend to make people afraid to post their opinions. It's good to share your views. I understand that sometimes people make it intimidating to voice your opinions, and if I did that to anyone, I apologize. I just wanted to share my views as well.

I'm not a member of the club, but when I saw your post, I just felt a need to reply. Your reasoning is that "The Bible Says So". What makes you so sure that if there is a God, the Bible is his direct word, or even that he influenced it at all? The book is At LEAST a thousand years old, and it has been translated from Latin again and again. The Bible you have today is a transelation of a transelation of a transelation. Even if this were not the case, how can you be sure that these authors were being sincere? On top of all this, the Bible was written down long after the death of the supposed Christ, so there is very little reason to believe that the records in the New Testiment are accurate. As for the Old Testiment, that's MUCH older and a great deal of it came from Judaism, A religion that came about in ancient times and existed at about the same time as Greek, Egyptian, and Persian Mythology, all religions that have been blatantly discarded. Who's to say that their texts are any more historically accurate?

ON TOP of all this, the Bible is FILLED with contradictions:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

and Atrocities:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

Why would you take any of your morality or beliefs from a book like that?


I'm not meaning to be disrespectful here, just giving my two cents.

Also, I'd like to join the club. The topics of Religion and Secularism greatly intruigue me.

Shdwj October 12th, 2012 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pppgggr (Post 7370159)
I'm not a member of the club, but when I saw your post, I just felt a need to reply. Your reasoning is that "The Bible Says So". What makes you so sure that if there is a God, the Bible is his direct word, or even that he influenced it at all? The book is At LEAST a thousand years old, and it has been translated from Latin again and again. The Bible you have today is a transelation of a transelation of a transelation. Even if this were not the case, how can you be sure that these authors were being sincere? On top of all this, the Bible was written down long after the death of the supposed Christ, so there is very little reason to believe that the records in the New Testiment are accurate. As for the Old Testiment, that's MUCH older and a great deal of it came from Judaism, A religion that came about in ancient times and existed at about the same time as Greek, Egyptian, and Persian Mythology, all religions that have been blatantly discarded. Who's to say that their texts are any more historically accurate?

ON TOP of all this, the Bible is FILLED with contradictions:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

and Atrocities:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-atrocities

Why would you take any of your morality or beliefs from a book like that?


I'm not meaning to be disrespectful here, just giving my two cents.

Also, I'd like to join the club. The topics of Religion and Secularism greatly intruigue me.

Haha, no, no. It's cool that you wanna share your views. I took a look at some of the "contradictions" on that website. However, some of these seem to be very minor and can hardly be called legitimate contractions. Yes, it is true that the various books of the Bible were written by different people. Look at the "contradiction" where Satan takes Jesus to the temple, for example. The truth is, it doesn't change anything. Both authors wrote about the same thing, but we must remember that these men probably weren't worried so much about the order of places Satan brought Jesus. The order doesn't teach a person anything. The main goal of these authors was to get the message of Jesus across. What was important was the context: how Satan tried to tempt Jesus but failed to cause him to stumble. Plus, read the passage from Luke. He didn't use any words indicating time at all. Perhaps Matthew was more accurate with chronology, but that doesn't remove the context of passage. Also, we need to go back to the original language of the Bible. Sometimes translations brings about variances, those differences are so minor and unimportant that they do not change the ultimate message of the Bible. These cannot be viewed as contradictions that discredit the Bible.

As for the atrocities, yes, there are atrocities in the Bible. As for the sins that the people of God committed, the Bible is in no way supporting those actions. The Bible has stories. Stories have ups, but they also have downs. We must also consider the culture of the people of the time. Although some things were acceptable during a specific era or culture, the Bible does not support these things at all. However, if you read throughout the Bible, one will be able to discern what is right and what is wrong (there are many verses that are very direct about what is right and wrong). If you put the entire Bible together, it all points back to peoples' need of a savior, Jesus. As for God destroying nations, we must recall that those nations were wicked and enemies of his children, Israel. God is just, and he must punish sin. It's just that in the Old Testament his punishment was much more swift and direct. The New Testament is were the new covenant comes in, where the Gentile people are introduced into God's family. If you read the Bible, you will see that the things it does support are morality and righteousness.

And I know you're not trying to be disrespectful.

droomph October 13th, 2012 6:49 AM

And based on the fact you may think that the bible has been mistranslated, there's always the original Hebrew and Greek version, complete with particle translations!

I understand that you're all iffy about religion, and I respect that. (After all, this is the ATHEIST alliance :p) However, I wish that you guys didn't bash on us...not that anyone here is necessarily, but...like...YouTube. They bash on religion all the time, on every science-y video saying, "hey dumbass isn't it great to be able to explain things other than..."

Just my two cents. However I know for a fact that most atheist people are pretty nice. However, the few just ruin it for me, and I'm sure the few of us ruin Christianity(or any religion, while we're at it) for you too. And I'm sorry, don't listen to them :)

Barrels October 13th, 2012 7:38 AM

Ah, intelligent discussion! *rubs hands* I love it. Let’s go!

Quote:

1) What is the hypocritical part? I don't understand what you're trying to say...
Well, stooping to the level of the sinner by hurting them makes God as bad, if not worse, than they are. To quote Amy Pond: ‘we have to be better than him, Doctor’.
Quote:

2) I have never said to blindly follow orders. I have only said that faith is the one salvation. In fact, you should never blindly follow orders, because that clouds you from the truth. What if someone misguides you?
Precisely my point! What if the translators of the Bible screwed up? What if a particular word doesn’t mean what you think it means? Is your interpretation of the Bible at five years old the same as it is at fifty? What if God himself is malevolent? It’s hardly sensible to argue that ‘God is not malevolent because God says so.’
Quote:

3) It's not the failure to believe - God will show Himself to you when it's time, in the right form. It's the pride that blinds you that is so wrong.
But it conflicts completely with rationality – and thus science – to stick to old beliefs when evidence proves you wrong. If God reveals himself to me, I’m not going to shut my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears! To quote Tim Minchin:
‘Science adjusts its beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I'll spin on a ****ing dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!’
Quote:

4) I never contradicted myself - I merely said that it's up to Him, rather than you, or any worldly authority.
That’s not what I was arguing, though! It is absolutely up to God and not me to decide who gets what in his Kingdom. What I took issue with was the illogical assertion that everyone can be equal while some people have more than others! (I’ve just realised that this was the entire point of Animal Farm. Orwell sums it up far better than I ever could:
‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.’)
Quote:

5) I wouldn't feel for them, because they were stuck up in refusing God's gift for so long. He doesn't require anything from you, and he is in fact, actively giving you his gift. If you don't accept it, you don't deserve a place in heaven. I can't stress this point enough. All you need to be is to submit to him. Obtaining His gift is the easy path out (since he has taken your place and done the hard work), and yet it is the best path to take.
Stuck-up? Tragic, I’d say. And he does require things from me: my time every Sunday, my love, the way I choose to live my life. Having given me freedom, he should know that I may not want to hand it straight back in at the desk again.
…Also, you answered a different question! I do appreciate the time spent on the answer, but in essence all I wanted was a yes or no. Again, do you claim to speak for everyone deserving of a place in Heaven?
6) The person above me has answered that.
Nope, Shdwg answered number 1) – the one relating to hypocrisy. (No one’s actually yet tackled 6!) I’ll just quote it again, since I think you must have misread – if I’m wrong and the problem was that you didn’t understand my argument, just let me know and I’ll happily reword it! :)
Quote:

You didn't answer my question: 'how could anyone possibly be happy in heaven knowing the overwhelming pain and suffering happening beneath them?'

OK, so I'm assuming you're a lovely person who feels empathy for others. My point is that unless that empathy is stripped out, you cannot be happy while imagining the infinite pain and suffering underneath you. Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of another - and imagining that infinite pain isn't going to be pleasant by definition (since pain is unpleasant). So we have ourselves another conundrum:

If you have the capacity for empathy, you can't be happy in Heaven. It follows that the version of you that eventually makes it there is missing some of its original parts - I would argue the parts that are vital to your sense of self. So whatever warped resultant entity is strolling around with the angels, it's not you. Not you as you could recognise yourself. That, to me, is a terrifying thought - and it's why Heaven holds no appeal for me. It isn't me who's going there, after all. Perhaps it looks like me - perhaps it sounds the same. But it is simply a bright machine.
--

Quote:

‘Saying "God is merciful" and then agreeing with the premise that he would not give you a chance to repent after death, instead judging you on your life regardless of your repentance after death is a massive contradiction.’
Far conciser than I managed. ;) I agree wholeheartedly with this statement: again, we have to bend the common definition of mercy so far it snaps.

--

Quote:

‘Also, I understand that the thought of a loved one being in hell can certainly be scary and quite hurtful.’
Yes, scary. Yes, hurtful. Also absolutely, abhorrently wrong.

Quote:

‘Justice seeks to reward the good and punish the wicked. The former is wicked while the latter is righteous.’
But this entirely conflicts with your statement: ‘God does not follow a different set of morals: morality is ultimate and does not change with time’. If there are universal moral concepts – i.e. shoving someone in an oven is wrong – it doesn’t matter who breaches them. If I push someone into my oven and turn the gas up all the way – and don’t repent – I’m going to Hell. If a demon then shoves me into his oven and turns the gas up even higher on God’s orders, that’s justice. Unfortunately, it’s also hypocrisy.

Quote:

'forced love'
Quote:

'coerced, compulsory love'
We're using the same example! Here's the key point, at least as I see it - the love IS forced, IS compulsory, because the alternative is eternal torture. That isn't a choice! That's not just a rock and a hard place but a cloud and a sulphur pit. As Shining Raichu said, who chooses Hell over God secure in the knowledge that both exist? Either someone severely mentally ill (who in any case is not responsible for their actions) or the most courageous and moral of all of us. Someone prepared to dispute the broken morality preached in the Bible. Someone who does not believe in torture under any circumstances… but I’ll get to that.

Bottom line: I would have absolutely no problem with a God who did not hurt those who do not 'love' him. But since he promises to do so… how is this Father any different to the domestic abuser who punches his children because they no longer worship the ground he walks on? How is that reconcilable with any definition of morality as we know it?

Quote:

‘The laws in the Bible were created by him because he knows what is right because, as we mentioned before, he is the only all-powerful, omniscient being.’
This is circular - as you know, I think, but see no problem with. 'God knows what is right because he knows what is right (in other words, he's omniscient and knows everything).' And, I mean, that's fine - far be it from me to tell people what they can and can't believe. I certainly wouldn't torture those who hold a different worldview. But if you're prepared to accept circular logic – broken logic - I literally cannot argue with you because there's no hope of either of us being convinced. We're just spinning our wheels. It's exactly the same as me saying, 'a cat is a cat' and you saying 'a cat is a dog' and just having to agree to disagree because we don't share logic as a means to reaching a conclusion.

Quote:

'He did die for you, after all.'
Mmm. Yeah. But he's not in eternal Hell, is he? God has never inflicted eternal punishment on himself (to the best of my knowledge – again, correct me if my scripture is rusty). If God just killed me outright, that would be far more merciful than continuing to roast me even after I am dead!

Quote:

'Now, on God's righteousness and judgment. Consider a judge. What does a judge do? He punishes evil and rewards good. He wouldn't be a good judge if he didn't do that. Imagine further if a loved one of his was caught in the act of murder. The judge wouldn't want to send him to prison, but because justice and righteousness must be upheld, he must give him his sentence. It doesn't make the judge love his friend any less, but the judge understands what is right and knows he must carry out justice in the name of righteousness--even if it brings him much sorrow to do so.'
This is a wonderful example - thank you for introducing it. And I do agree that acting morally sometimes requires acting in the world's best interest rather than the interests of those you love.

But only to the most minimal extent possible. And this is where I cannot comprehend the Christian mindset. To extend your analogy, the judge sentences his child to prison. Prison. Not death. Certainly not everlasting torment. To do so would be ridiculously disproportionate and unfair – it would be unjust. To make the argument that failing to believe in something for which there is no reasonable basis – i.e. Superman – deserves eternal torture directly and absolutely conflicts with morality as I see it. Although your point is relevant and well-made, to me, it still doesn’t answer the question.

…Perhaps rather than continuing to miss one another, we should agree to stand by certain statements. (If I am unintentionally straw-manning, please do correct me!)
1) I believe that no crime is so great as to deserve everlasting torture. This is because I believe in fairness, in justice – I believe that no crime deserves disproportionate retribution. (Or indeed proportionate – Christians no longer believe in ‘an eye for an eye’, am I correct? We have to be better than the sinners. We can’t sin alongside them by punishing them. If murder is wrong, murdering the murderer – whether you’re God or human - is just as wrong. One follows from the other entirely logically.) Thus Hell is unjust.
2) You believe that failing to believe in God deserves everlasting torture. Thus Hell is just.

If we agree to stand by these statements, it’s self-evident that our definitions of morality miss each other completely. Thus it’s futile to argue over who is right – because we don’t agree what ‘right’ even is!

--

Quote:

‘As a Christian I do hope that he isn't.’
But but but that’s contradictory! You’ve spent the last few replies stringently denying that you’d feel empathy for those in Hell: ‘I would not sympathize with them, as this is God's choice.’ You can’t hope he’s not in Hell without sympathising with his predicament if he is. Wouldn’t a true Christian say that ‘if he sinned and never repented, I hope he is in Hell – because I support God’s decision’?

--

Quote:

‘And on that note, is it not possible that God is testing you on this point? Would he want you to feel empathy regardless of his actions and be displeased that you don't?’
Absolutely. I’ve refrained from explicitly making this argument so far just because it’s so divisive, but I believe that the most moral man of all is the one who looks at God’s ‘justice’ and finds it abhorrent. And thus faces Hell, not because he is unafraid or arrogant, but because he will do what he believes to be right at all costs. A truly moral God, who only wrote the Bible as a test, would thus let him into Heaven!

Quote:

‘He wants to come into your life and be, not only your God, but your friend.’
I don’t want him in my life. I don’t want a friend who threatens me. I don’t want to have to sit by as my children burn, screaming, in Hell on his orders and pretend I’m okay about that. Friendship is reciprocal - and I sure wouldn't throw his kids into a furnace! I couldn’t live with myself if I did. I wouldn’t be myself if I did (see 6).

Quote:

‘The truth is that none of us, Christian or non-Christian, deserves a place in heaven.’
So why create us in the first place, if we’re all so pathetic? Why create a species you’re going to condemn to eternal torture if they stick to their factory-default setting? Isn’t that horribly cruel?

Quote:

‘Christians aren't any better than non-Christians. I want to make that point clear.’
You have, and I thank you for doing so. Too often discussions are derailed by claims of superiority. (But if no one's better than anyone else, why do you go to Heaven and we go to Hell? Surely accepting God is a virtue in itself - and that'd throw the scales way out of order.)

Quote:

‘Science actually proves the existence of the living God. Romans 1:20 states "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Think about the fact that the earth is just the right position away from the sun. If it were only a few centimeters closer to the sun, the atmosphere on earth would be too hot for life to exist. If it were any farther away from the sun, it would be too cold. Consider the miracle of the human eye! The complexity of how this body part works is beyond us! We can't imitate the way the eye focuses light, not even with the most complicated cameras and other technology that we have today. Think about just how stable the electrons and protons within an atom are!’
Intelligent design is not science. Here: ‘intelligent design has been widely criticised for its failure to state what mechanism drives it, its lack of falsifiability, and many other problems that leave it lacking as a scientific theory’ [source: RationalWiki]. Under the current definition of science, it’s not even a theory! It can’t be proved or disproved.
Also…
Quote:

‘We can't imitate the way the eye focuses light, not even with the most complicated cameras and other technology that we have today.’
And in ten million years? Say we all have far superior cybernetic implants. Does the argument then collapse?
Quote:

'Consider the miracle of the human eye!'
OK. Assume you're right and it is a miracle. How on earth does this prove that it was performed by the Christian God? 'Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being' - Michael Behe.
Quote:

‘Think about the fact that the earth is just the right position away from the sun. If it were only a few centimeters closer to the sun, the atmosphere on earth would be too hot for life to exist. If it were any farther away from the sun, it would be too cold.’
Yes! Yes, it is extremely unlikely. Incredibly unlikely. I wholeheartedly agree with you! But the solution to the problem of complexity is most definitely not to posit a creator who would by definition have to be even more complex! If your argument is, ‘the eye is far too complex to be anything but an intelligent creation,’ the exact same logic applies in the next step! God is way more complex than the eye, right? So: ‘God is far too complex to be anything but an intelligent creation.’ By your own chain of logic, God himself was created by an intelligent designer!

Quote:

‘Oh, how easy it would be for God to simply end it all with the snap of a finger; how easy it would be for him to say the word and cause all atoms on earth to lose that stability, or cause earth to shift in the direction of the sun, or simply crush all under his heel! After all, we did spit in his face with our sins. Why shouldn't he destroy all of man kind? Can't he simply start over? But no. He doesn't do that. Regardless of how people over the years have disregarded and rejected God, he doesn't do it. Now do you understand the magnitude of his patience?’
No! Because the fact that someone ignores and rejects you does not mean you are justified in murdering them! Worse, torture them for all eternity! If we want freedom, we have to accept that others are entitled to it too. So while it may not be, for example, very pleasant to be ignored and rejected, that is someone’s free decision and to condemn it takes away your own right to ignore and reject people. God is hypocritical in this respect! He rejects people straight into Hell for the sin of rejecting him. ‘The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform’ – this is the definition of hypocrisy!

Also:
Quote:

'Can't he simply start over?'
No, because that implies that he made a mistake to begin with. And he's perfect, so he couldn't have done.

Quote:

‘Now let me ask you, now: what's keeping you from accepting his sacrifice today?’
The fact that it would be a betrayal of everything I believe in. Of everything I love – my family, my friends, the decent people all over the world I will never meet. I cannot and will not accept that these people deserve to be burned alive for all eternity for not believing in God. I will not sit quietly in Heaven as they scream below me. This is my moral stand.

…Whoo. Okay. Deep breaths.

Again, sincerely, thank you for replying and arguing so politely. And please don’t take this as a personal attack – believe it or not, I’m really enjoying this discussion and would like nothing better than for it to continue! (I’m especially interested in your perspective on the sixth point I put to droomph – ‘How can the entity in Heaven be, in any meaningful sense, the same as the entity on Earth and thus provide some sort of consistency (which is required if salvation/punishment are to be justified) if it is missing vital parts of the original persona?’)

EDIT: Reading this back, I feel I ought to make one thing clear - I'm really not trying to hold myself up as this supremely moral entity who's courageous enough to face Hell for my beliefs. I mean, I don't actually believe in God, so any moral stand I take is hypothetical at best - it's all 'what would I do if I was certain that God, Heaven and Hell existed', you know? Drop me in front of an eternity of flames and torture and who knows how I'll react. Perhaps I'll sacrifice my integrity to get into Heaven. If I'm being brutally honest with myself, I don't think I'm anywhere near brave enough to face punishment like that. I'm no Gandhi, no Luther King. (Obviously.)

The key point here is that it wouldn't be honest of me to repent in that scenario - I'd be abandoning my morality. And that's the problem. To me, it doesn't matter that I couldn't lead by example. The fact that I, personally, don't have the courage to face down Hell doesn't make Hell itself any less wrong.

Shdwj October 13th, 2012 8:22 AM

Okay, I understand where this is going. Forgive me, but I am stepping out of this conversation. I have already said that God has made a way out for all of us, but all of you keep insisting he does not have any love to offer us. As I have stated many times before, believing that he does love us requires faith. And with that, I will end my discussion here because it looks like this conversation may end up looping itself.

However, I do thank you for reading our posts, and I thank you for being kind enough to share you views as well. :)

Oh, but before I go. That whole thing about intelligent design? My point was that I simply cannot come to the conclusion that we were made by chance. I believe that there is a creator and that he has done a lot to show his love for you and me.

Pppgggr October 13th, 2012 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7370636)
And based on the fact you may think that the bible has been mistranslated, there's always the original Hebrew and Greek version, complete with particle translations!

I understand that you're all iffy about religion, and I respect that. (After all, this is the ATHEIST alliance :p) However, I wish that you guys didn't bash on us...not that anyone here is necessarily, but...like...YouTube. They bash on religion all the time, on every science-y video saying, "hey dumbass isn't it great to be able to explain things other than..."

Just my two cents. However I know for a fact that most atheist people are pretty nice. However, the few just ruin it for me, and I'm sure the few of us ruin Christianity(or any religion, while we're at it) for you too. And I'm sorry, don't listen to them :)

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
-Thomas Jefferson

Though we find it unintelligable, we are not attacking most Christians. The issue we have with Christians and other religions, is in some of the legislation they try to pass, The ways some denominations are hateful of Atheists, And how most have at the very least a small hatred of homosexuals.

We have people like the Westboro Baptist's church protesting at funerals and weddings with signs saying "GOD HATES ****" in relation to homosexuals, or "AMERICA IS DOOMED, AMERICA IS GOING TO HELL." or teaching their children that everyone who's not a Christian is going straight to Hell, and to be as hateful as possible. In the middle east, we have Islam, where people are willing to burn down Embassies and murder Ambassadors over Cartoons of Muhammad, such as the Dutch ones from the earlier two thousands, or movies attacking him like the "Innocence of Muslims" that was released this year. We have organizations like Al Qaeda willing to rise up and slaughter with their religion as an excuse.

In America, especially along the Bible Belt, the term "Atheist" is cursed. In some places in the US, you can lose your Job simply for using the term. In schools, Atheist Children(Including myself) have, in many cases, been bullied and belittled by their peers.

On top of all of this, we have people like Texan Governer Rick Perry who want to break down the barriers between church and state and run our government solely upon religious ideaolgy, taking no heed to the fact that our country contains more than just Christians.

As well as worrying about the barrier between church and state, we have to worry about the position of Evolution in schools. There are MANY religious organizations that want to remove the idea of Evolution, with is based in facts and science, with the 6,000 Year old Earth theory as well as Creationism.

We also have organizations such as the Flat-Earth society who, in the name of religion, shun everything that science has to offer if it doesn't wholly agree with what's in the bible.



It's not just its followers that plague us, but the idea of the Christian God as well.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


-Epicurus.

Even if we disregard this quote and assume the Christian God is omneiscent and omnipotent, then the man is playing with our lives. Because he's all-seeing, he knows whether or not we will be "Saved" and whether we will go to Heaven or Hell LONG before he even creates us, and thus the Test of life is unnecessary and he's essentially creating people just for them to be tossed into hell. Also, if he's all-seeing, then that completely destroys the idea that we have free will. If he can see what's going to happen in the future before it even occurs, then we only have the illusion of free will. Our lives will take the path that he sees.

On top of that, the God of the bible allows slavery (EXODUS 21:20-21), condemns homosexuality yet condones rape (GENESIS 19:4-9), and condemns simple mistakes (2 SAMUEL 6:6-7 ). Oh, and let's not forget how Jesus said that according to Old Testiment Law, Children who curse their parents must be slaughtered (MARK 7:7-10). These are just a few instances of your God's "Benevolent Justice"

Use http://www.biblegateway.com/ or a bible beside you to check the sections of the Bible I had listed as proof.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”


― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


This quote rings true as you attempt to read the Bible from its very beginning, to its very end.

All of these things combined are why a great deal of us(Though not all) are completely and utterly against religion.

F1refly October 13th, 2012 12:42 PM

Oh how ironic that as I type this there is an ad for a Christian Website on the page.
First of all, I consider myself quite tolerant of Religions. Muslim, Islam, Judaism, Rastafarianism and even Pastafarianism. I respect Catholics, and even respect the pope.

Many years ago I was christian. I was about 9 years old. I had just started learning about world history and was a big dinosaur fan. Then I learned about the fact that Dinosaurs were not mentioned in the bible, nor how long ago they lived. My belief started to falter, then ultimately shattered. I became a pure atheist, one who respects most religions, and believes that if any religion is the true one, it will probably be something like the Mayans or Egyptians.

I see many contradiction with the Bible. The bible is actually built up of Letters by various people, sent to the original author of the first bible. He/She then chose quotes from the letters to include in the book. This is one thing that sticks out in my mind.
Secondly, Jesus possibly had other Brothers like him, and might possibly have been married. Even small things like this can turn religion on it's head, yet it is not widely known because of the panic it might cause.

Then there are other things I have problems with:

Hate against Gay People - Let them do what they want, God apparently loves everyone, and if he made everyone, then why are they gay if he made them?

Women aren't supposed to wear Pants/Trousers/Whatever - Why? So she can be "used" by the husband more easily?

It's nice to have a decent Debate about religion. I'm willing to hear other peoples views, but if I don't agree with them, you'll know.

P.S Please don't read the above as being nasty/hateful/spiteful/blah blah as when I get passionate about something, my writing sounds/looks like it's meant to be nasty. Please take what I say above as a proper and decent argument

Phantom October 13th, 2012 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffington (Post 7367000)
I'd like to join. If you had to put a label on me, I'd consider myself an atheist. :)

However, my philosophy follows much of what the intellectual Sam Harris advocates. So long as we call ourselves atheists, people will associate that with negative connotations, or categorize us as simply "those who don't think there is a deity." Rather, if we call ourselves advocates of logic and reason, it becomes very hard to argue against us. Not many people are going to bite the bullet and say that they don't support those.


Just wanna pop in and say, yay! Another Sam Harris-ian in the house!

droomph October 13th, 2012 1:03 PM

SR, please take me off the list. You all have proven that you will not tolerate Christians here, so I'm gonna not even try to get you to respect my view.

You find it unintelligible? How insulting! I may believe in what could be an imaginary man, but that doesn't mean I'm a retard!

With that, I see the atheists here on PC (or the Internet, for that matter) won't tolerate religion, and justly so.

I'm sorry to have even ever bothered you, and I'm sorry that I ever bothered to try to explain myself and my religion.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 1:19 PM

Sign me up, why not.

I'm an optomistic agnostic you might say? I dont know if there is a term for my belief. I was raised a baptist and while I dont believe in a lot of what the bible says I think theres a god, because why not? I pray sometimes and I believe in an afterlife. I dont really believe in the classic Heaven/Hell but I think that there is some sort of afterlife other than it all just goes black and your done.

What are your opinions on subjects such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and so on? Why?

Gay Marriage: Im against it. Dont really have a good reason though. I think if somebody wants to be gay than whatever. I dont care if they want to have a domestic partnership I just dont want them to call it marriage, if that makes sense.

Abortion: Im pro-abortion.(God, that sounds awful.) I think if someone wants to get an abortion more power to em'. The world is already overpopulated and I hate most people. I dont want more of them. A lot of kids are born into really terrible situations because its "wrong" for their parents to get abortions.

Death Penalty: Im not really for or against it.

Rumille October 13th, 2012 1:57 PM

Sign me up. Being an atheist in one of the least religious countries in the world (The Netherlands), it's not that hard for me being an atheist. Especially in the environment I currently live in (university) where most people are not religious.

What are your opinions on subjects such as same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and so on? Why?

Let gay people marry! For god sake (see what I did there?), what the hell does it matter to you if two gay people get married. How does the fact that they sign a paper make your marriage seem more insignificant or more terrible? How does it affect your life? Kinda proud that my country was the first country in the world to legalize gay marriage (2001). If gay people want to be as miserable as the rest of the married couples, let them ;).

Abortion is legal in my country and rightly so. Overpopulation is becoming a bigger problem every day, so that's already one reason. Second, you can have an abortion untill an x amount of weeks. Before that time, the being in your body isn't sentient yet, so it's not really murdering a living being. A fly for example is more 'living' than that little pile of cells. Don't really care if it's being removed, although I do think people should not think too lightly of it. You are destroying something that eventually will be a living being. So I do think people should be heavily consulted on abortions by their doctor or something.

Death penalty: not a fan. I do get the sentiment in certain cases, but I'd rather have someone locked up for life in a little cell, than have the easy way by just ending their lives, without dealing with the consequences. Let them figure out what they did and why they need to be punished. Plus, it has happened that decades later, they found out that the guy who they killed, didn't actually commit the crime he was killed for. Hard to restore that. Easier when he is locked up.

Why are your beliefs the way they are?
My parents raised me without any religious background. They did teach me to figure it all out myself, without any pressure. In my teens, I decided that religion to me was nothing more than a disturbing fairy tale with too many ****** rules that just seemed absurd to me.

Do you believe in any form of life after death?
I like to think there is something, but I don't actually think there is. If there is, I do hope God won't be a prick about me not believing, but judges me on the way I lived my life. But even if there is anything after death, I don't think it will be the classical Heaven/Hell like the current religions want us to believe, though.

Do you believe in aliens?
Yes. But I don't think we will discover them untill we invent faster than light travel. The universe is immense, I don't think we are the only planet with intelligent live.

Does your family and friends know about your faith? If no, why not?
Most people do. Whether you like the phenomenon or not, religion is a very interesting subject to talk about. And being an atheist in my country is not exactly very strange, so no reason to hide it.

Do you think separation of church and state is different from freedom of religion?
If church and state are not seperated, it's hard to have freedom of religion if your religion is not the state's. Seperation is good. It makes sure that people will always have their own freedom of religion, without the state intervening. Freedom of and from religion is good too. I don't get why people don't understand that.

If God does exist, what do you think it would be like?
I really have no clue. I like to think he is a wise old man, but that seems unlikely. If he exists, I'm guessing he is more like an all-powerful entity. Present, but not really visible.

What are your family's general religious beliefs?
My mother is agnostic, my father is atheist, my brothers are both atheist too. I have an aunt and uncle who are religious (Christians), but most of my family members are not really religious. Most are atheists/agnostics.

Phantom October 13th, 2012 1:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7370946)
Gay Marriage: Im against it. Dont really have a good reason though. I think if somebody wants to be gay than whatever. I dont care if they want to have a domestic partnership I just dont want them to call it marriage, if that makes sense.

Welcome to the group!

It makes sense. Marriage in and of itself is a religious institution. I think it's more about getting equal rights than anything. Any religion has the right to say they won't marry a same sex couple, but when it comes to the government they should still be seen as equals. Separation of Church and State.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 2:07 PM

Thanks.

And I also dont believe very strongly in science which Im sure doesnt really fly around here. And i dont believe in Outer Space. Weird, right? Thats the kind of **** you can only tell people anonymously over the internet haha.

Scruffington October 13th, 2012 2:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomX0990 (Post 7370973)
Marriage in and of itself is a religious institution.

Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a social union and a state-regulated legal contract. People were marrying before Christianity was around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7370980)
Thanks.

And I also dont believe very strongly in science which Im sure most of you do. And i dont believe in Outer Space. Weird, right? Thats the kind of **** you can only tell people anonymously over the internet haha.

Science isn't something you believe in or don't believe in. It's just something you understand.

And I don't understand how you can say you don't "believe" in outer space. Look up at the sky tonight, and you'll see space. That's evidence.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 2:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffington (Post 7370984)
And I don't understand how you can say you don't "believe" in outer space. Look up at the sky tonight, and you'll see space. That's evidence.

I look up at night and I see white dots, black sky, and a big white circle or part of it. I dont see planets or other galaxies or black holes or an atmosphere or anything else. And when I say I dont believe in science I mean I dont accept something just because people say its scientifically proven. Probably could have worded that better sorry.

Shining Raichu October 13th, 2012 3:58 PM

Welcome to all our new members :D - and Scruffington I'm so sorry, I must have missed your joining post altogether among all the stuff that's been going on lately haha.

There's a lot of stuff I want to reply to and I will get to that, but I'm running out the door the second I finish this post, so I'll just quickly deal with the two things I find most pressing for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph
SR, please take me off the list. You all have proven that you will not tolerate Christians here, so I'm gonna not even try to get you to respect my view.

You find it unintelligible? How insulting! I may believe in what could be an imaginary man, but that doesn't mean I'm a retard!

With that, I see the atheists here on PC (or the Internet, for that matter) won't tolerate religion, and justly so.

I'm sorry to have even ever bothered you, and I'm sorry that I ever bothered to try to explain myself and my religion.

droomphy, please calm your farm. Of course we find religious arguments unintelligible. We're atheists. If we didn't find religious arguments unintelligible, we wouldn't be atheists. If a word as simple as that will offend you then it's probably for the best that you don't come here and upset yourself, but you will always be welcome if you change your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock
Gay Marriage: Im against it. Dont really have a good reason though. I think if somebody wants to be gay than whatever. I dont care if they want to have a domestic partnership I just dont want them to call it marriage, if that makes sense.

No, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Firstly, I feel the need to point out for what must be the five thousandth time, nobody ever wanted to be gay. Nobody chose it for themselves. Secondly, if you're going to have an "anti" stance on anything you have to have a reason for it. Because if you don't have a reason to be anti-something, then you have no right or cause to be anti-something. Simply stating "I don't really have a good reason" isn't really good enough when it's an issue that affects the lives of other people.

Phantom October 13th, 2012 5:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffington (Post 7370984)
Marriage is not a religious institution. It's a social union and a state-regulated legal contract.

Not exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffington (Post 7370984)
People were marrying before Christianity was around.

Not really. There was a concept the social practice of bonding two people together to form unions, either political, social, or religious. But the word marriage endears it as a Sacrement, making it purely religious.

English fails in that sense.

Alice October 13th, 2012 6:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7371065)
Well thats your opinion I guess. I reserve my right to discriminate against homosexuals for no reason at all other than disgust.

You may have the right to feel that way, but you don't have the right to discriminate on pokecommunity. There are many of them here, and especially in this club, so I would recommend holding back your thoughts on that subject.
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7370990)
I look up at night and I see white dots, black sky, and a big white circle or part of it. I dont see planets or other galaxies or black holes or an atmosphere or anything else. And when I say I dont believe in science I mean I dont accept something just because people say its scientifically proven. Probably could have worded that better sorry.

Buy a telescope?

droomph October 13th, 2012 7:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 7371061)

droomphy, please calm your farm. Of course we find religious arguments unintelligible. We're atheists. If we didn't find religious arguments unintelligible, we wouldn't be atheists. If a word as simple as that will offend you then it's probably for the best that you don't come here and upset yourself, but you will always be welcome if you change your mind.

I don't mind that you find me unintelligible at all - I understand. I know why you're atheist. However, you all make me feel unwelcome just for being Christian. I try to explain it to you, and rather than saying "no, I don't understand so please stop" (which I could understand!) you drag me on and on, and I feel like you all don't respect me.

I know you're trying to have a respectful conversation, but I honestly find some of the things you say insulting. And when you said "I think the general religious consensus would disagree", I felt like you weren't listening to me at all, but rather kicking me at everything that goes against your beliefs, but rarely ever mentioning what you do agree with.

I don't know what it is, but ever since I posted my thoughts on religion, or even mentioning that I'm Christian, I have felt unwelcome.

That's what I meant.

And I understand, that none of you particularly understand religion. But you should at least try - I thought the point of atheism was to create a better world than one based on arbritrary rules.

Oryx October 13th, 2012 7:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7371288)
And I understand, that none of you particularly understand religion. But you should at least try - I thought the point of atheism was to create a better world than one based on arbritrary rules.

Excuse me? I have been to Catholic schools for 7 years now. I have gone to weekly classes where their entire purpose was to explain religion for over a year in the past. Don't assume the people that disagree with you are ignorant of religion.

bobandbill October 13th, 2012 7:38 PM

Alright guys, no need to go about calling other people ignorant, or making clearly obvious trolly statements to rile others up. *deletes bunch of posts*

droomph October 13th, 2012 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7371306)
Excuse me? I have been to Catholic schools for 7 years now. I have gone to weekly classes where their entire purpose was to explain religion for over a year in the past. Don't assume the people that disagree with you are ignorant of religion.

I didn't mean you were ignorant - read again carefully. I said, don't understand.

If you were religious, you would understand what religion is like. However, you said, if I recall, that you were atheist.

You may have knowledge, and I respect that, but there's nothing like experiencing it.

I don't mean to be rude, but I just feel that you choose not to understand. And I realize. However, don't bash on me. That's all I'm saying.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 7:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7371340)
I didn't mean you were ignorant - read again carefully. I said, don't understand.

If you were religious, you would understand what religion is like.

You may have knowledge, and I respect that, but there's nothing like experiencing it.

I said pretty much the same thing. But not as respectfully as you hence the deleted posts and trolling infraction. Just because you hear lectures or take a test on something doesnt mean you understand it.

Oryx October 13th, 2012 8:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7371340)
I didn't mean you were ignorant - read again carefully. I said, don't understand.

If you were religious, you would understand what religion is like. However, you said, if I recall, that you were atheist.

You may have knowledge, and I respect that, but there's nothing like experiencing it.

I don't mean to be rude, but I just feel that you choose not to understand. And I realize. However, don't bash on me. That's all I'm saying.

I was Catholic for a long time before I decided it wasn't for me. So don't try that "there's nothing like experiencing it" as if all atheists haven't been religious in the past. That is rude, no matter how you try to couch it in diplomacy, to imply that people don't disagree with you because they actually disagree, but because they don't "understand" what you're saying.

Saying you choose not to know/understand something is saying that you're ignorant. That's the definition of ignorant, and you're choosing to assume that we're just either not willing or not able to understand because it's more acceptable to you than realizing that we understand and don't agree with you. Why are you making that assumption? The assumption that "we just don't understand" borders on arrogant; it assumes that you must be right no matter what we say.

Notice that in the past in this very club I have defended religion, Catholicism in particular because that's the denomination I have the most experience with. I am farther from ignorant on the subject than most anyone I have ever met, people on PC included.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 8:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7371357)
I was Catholic for a long time before I decided it wasn't for me. So don't try that "there's nothing like experiencing it" as if all atheists haven't been religious in the past. That is rude, no matter how you try to couch it in diplomacy, to imply that people don't disagree with you because they actually disagree, but because they don't "understand" what you're saying.

Saying you choose not to know/understand something is saying that you're ignorant. That's the definition of ignorant, and you're choosing to assume that we're just either not willing or not able to understand because it's more acceptable to you than realizing that we understand and don't agree with you. Why are you making that assumption? The assumption that "we just don't understand" borders on arrogant; it assumes that you must be right no matter what we say.

Notice that in the past in this very club I have defended religion, Catholicism in particular because that's the denomination I have the most experience with. I am farther from ignorant on the subject than most anyone I have ever met, people on PC included.

Wouldnt a man/woman of science say misunderstanding is the base of a disagreement? Cant there only be one right or wrong answer? And just because you used to be Catholic doesnt mean you fully understood the Catholic Religion.

And droomph, dear god, whatever you do dont use the word ignorant. And Toujours quit trying to put that word into his mouth.

Alice October 13th, 2012 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7371344)
I said pretty much the same thing. But not as respectfully as you hence the deleted posts and trolling infraction. Just because you hear lectures or take a test on something doesnt mean you understand it.

The entire purpose of a test is to prove you understand something.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 13th, 2012 8:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuilavaKing (Post 7371361)
The entire purpose of a test is to prove you understand something.

But just because you pass a test it doesnt mean you understand it. In math for example, you can learn how to use an equation to solve a problem but you dont necessarily understand what you are doing when you use that equation.

Cherrim October 13th, 2012 8:31 PM

I think you guys are just going to have to agree to disagree on the point of whether an atheist can truly understand religious views/feelings or not because you can't seem to debate this without arguing and arguments haven't gone very well in here in the last 24 hours. Please turn the discussion elsewhere--this forum isn't really for debates. Those posts were deleted for a reason and it looks like we're heading int he same direction pretty quickly, so I think it's time to start a new topic.

Clubs are safe-havens for like-minded people and while it's okay for non-atheists to come and mingle to build an understanding between the two groups, if a full-on debate is inevitable, it belongs in Other Chat & Discussions, not here.

droomph October 13th, 2012 8:59 PM

(I wasn't part of it)

I never said that you specifically didn't understand it though. I wanna make that clear before we get off the subject.

Anyways.

Shining Raichu October 14th, 2012 12:28 AM

Jeez, what even happened here? I leave the house for six hours and come home to find a nuke has gone off! I went to a friend's house to watch Breaking Bad, but I should have just stayed home. There was more excitement here than even a show about a crystal meth lab could provide!

Reading over the thread (before everything went south) I realise there isn't actually as much I'd like to reply to as I first thought. I would like to say though, that everything Barrels posts is perfectly in line with me. 10/10 would read again. He almost makes me irrelevant, as everything I have to say (other than the things I never would have thought to say, of which there are many) would be a less eloquent exercise in repetition :P.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrels
Of everything I love – my family, my friends, the decent people all over the world I will never meet. I cannot and will not accept that these people deserve to be burned alive for all eternity for not believing in God. I will not sit quietly in Heaven as they scream below me. This is my moral stand.

I actually teared up. You could lead a revolt on words like that, and I would follow you to the ends of the Earth.

Oryx October 14th, 2012 2:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7371456)
(I wasn't part of it)

I never said that you specifically didn't understand it though. I wanna make that clear before we get off the subject.

Anyways.

You specifically said "none of you understand religion". You should be very careful of such strong stances, especially if you intend to back down from them once people call you out on them.

@Andy: Another not-so-feeling-filled point that I was making to my mom recently - a lot of things I love about my mom are actually considered sinful. So say God is more merciful than Christians on Earth apparently are and allow my mom and I into heaven, as basically good people. The mother that I meet there will be a sanitized version of my mom, without a lot of her personality. Although I guess I'll be sanitized into not liking those parts of her in that case too, so I won't be myself anymore either. :/

FrostPheonix October 14th, 2012 2:28 AM

Whoa. I got some time to come over, and I see an all out war. Well, not really but you get the point.

Quote:

[From Barrels I think]
Of everything I love – my family, my friends, the decent people all over the world I will never meet. I cannot and will not accept that these people deserve to be burned alive for all eternity for not believing in God. I will not sit quietly in Heaven as they scream below me. This is my moral stand.
Whoa. If I hadn't been a Christian I would be hoping to put that quote on my sig, its so epic. And since I've never thought of it from that perspective I can't really respond...

Anyways. Hopefully we don't start another argument. But here goes. How do you guys (atheists reading) wrap your minds about time? Do you believe in quantum theory or something that says universes are born out of sparks of cosmic energy or something? How do you think time began? For me, I can't say I find any of the existing theories convincing. But we don't have much of evidence to help form any theories based on science either..

Oryx October 14th, 2012 2:37 AM

I'll be the first one to say that I don't understand in-depth scientific theories about how time began. Hell, I don't understand a lot of scientific theories that affect my everyday life. I hope I get to a point in my life where I have the time and energy to devote to trying to understand it, but that point is not right now, haha. x_o

Keiran October 14th, 2012 4:45 AM

The beginning of time is an interesting topic albeit unremitting in its inability to bring forth concrete, proven truth.

To imply there was a true beginning, that would require an outside force. Thus, it was not the true beginning. I find it ironic that discussing the beginning and end of the universe is much like the actual thing- an endless loop.

We already know that space and time can dilate, so it's very possible that everything that has ever happened, is happening, and will happen has occurred and is occurring at the same moment and we are just experiencing it at the pace of a human traveling on earth. Time is relative.

Personally, I think time is, as I said, an endless loop without beginning or end. I was not brought into existence on my birthday, and I will not cease to exist when I die. Cremated or buried, either way I will return to the earth after leaving it when the first carbon-based organism spawned. Within the earth, the elements that once served as my body will be used and changed in many different ways until one day our Sun envelopes Earth and I return to the stars to do what I did billions of years ago. As part of the Universe, I am forced to believe that this is how it works as well. If our particular Universe could speak and you asked it, "what happened before the Big Bang?" it may not have an answer much like how we have no memory of before we were born- but we still existed and so did the outside world.

Sorry if I conveyed this poorly (which I often to about my opinions..) or if it seems out of place, I just noticed the current topic posted by FrostPhoenix and felt an urge to reply since it's one of the things I'm currently into researching.


Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7370980)
And i dont believe in Outer Space.

I just..what? There are many people who are literally living in outer space.

Barrels October 14th, 2012 6:13 AM

Oh... wow. I feel like there are some things I need to say before I leave the discussion, but it's tough to marshal my thoughts on everything that's been said.

First... I honestly do feel bad if I've upset anyone with my comments. That wasn't my intention, but it looks as if I've managed to break one of the most important rules of the internet during this discussion ('don't be a dick'), and for that I apologise. Perhaps offence is an inevitable consequence of arguing about things like morality – but perhaps it isn’t, and I’m sure I could have conducted myself in a more controlled manner. So on that note...

Thank you Shdwj for being so gracious: ‘I do thank you for reading our posts, and I thank you for being kind enough to share you views as well.’ (I wish I had your ability to remain so calm and level-headed during this type of discussion!) Thank you droomph for answering my questions, and again, I am truly sorry if I contributed to your decision to leave. Any argument that ends with a participant removing themselves from the vicinity isn’t won by their opponent, after all. And finally, thank you Andy and FrostPheonix for your very kind words.

I’m off now. Thanks for the debate, guys – you were all awesome.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 8:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keiran777 (Post 7371942)
I just..what? There are many people who are literally living in outer space.

The post in which I tried to explain my views has been deleted and Im not going to try and do it again. Apparently my opinions are too offensive to argue.

Ivysaur October 14th, 2012 9:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372100)
The post in which I tried to explain my views has been deleted and Im not going to try and do it again. Apparently my opinions are too offensive to argue.

Offensive? What? Saying that "outer space doesn't exist" is like saying "Ecuatorial Guinea doesn't exist" ._. People have been there, you know. There is nothing to argue about. That's not offensive. Just wrong.

And your latest posts have been deleted for being too close to trolling. If that's the way your debates go in general, we'd rather be without them. There have been far much richer and interesting ones in the last few pages.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 7372183)
Offensive? What? Saying that "outer space doesn't exist" is like saying "Ecuatorial Guinea doesn't exist" ._. People have been there, you know. There is nothing to argue about. That's not offensive. Just wrong.

And your latest posts have been deleted for being too close to trolling. If that's the way your debates go in general, we'd rather be without them. There have been far much richer and interesting ones in the last few pages.

Im not saying that my not believing in space is offensive. My other opinions are apparently. And I probably shouldnt do this but, whatever:

Just because the news says people have been to space doesnt mean they really have. I dont accept things just because people on TV say they are "scientifically proven." I would think that more skeptics would share this opinion but nope. Most just blindly accept what they are told as long as it claims to be proven by science.

Ivysaur October 14th, 2012 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372187)
Im not saying that my not believing in space is offensive. My other opinions are apparently. And I probably shouldnt do this but, whatever:

Just because the news says people have been to space doesnt mean they really have. I dont accept things just because people on TV say they are "scientifically proven." I would think that more skeptics would share this opinion but nope. Most just blindly accept what they are told as long as it claims to be proven by science.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "science". The idea of science is trying to give an explanation for a certain phenomenon that a) logically describes why it happens, b) predicts when it's going to happen again and c) fits every instance of the phenomenon, so there aren't any exceptions for a rule.

The point of this is that the explanation that fits all these requirements is the best accepted one. But, if for some reason, there is an instance of the phenomenon that doesn't follow the current laws, or the theory fails to predict an instance, or the logical chain the explanation is based upon is proved false, or if a new, more complete theory is found, the previous one will be discarded. As such, if you "blindly accept" what science says, you are doing it wrong, because science itself asks anybody who cares about it to constantly check the theories and try to disprove them. If they are logically disproven, science moves forward. If they aren't, they hold stronger as their certainty has overcame a challenge.

Of course, your regular Joe in the street doesn't have enough knowledge to try to disprove a theory, and that's why people rely on experts to do so. But, if the millions of scientists checking theories don't find anything seriously wrong about them, it's safe to say that they are as correct as they can get. On the other hand, if someone proves some theory wrong, the general consensus will shift. Just a handful of scientists (like the couple of hundreds who support creationism) will refuse to accept it. True science means that you can try to prove everyone wrong, as long as you accept to be proven wrong if your theories are successfully challenged. Of course, if a theory has remained unchallenged for centuries despite constant research, it is safe to accept it by default and use it as a jumpstart, even if it can be eventually be proven wrong.

But all of this has nothing to do with "going into space". That's not only science. That's not the work of "evil TV's". That's dozens of living people going there, and talking to other people, and bringing rocks and pictures and experiments. That's thousands of satellites there, predicting the weather, taking pictures of the Earth (from where could they be taken if there is nowhere outside of the Earth??). That's the GPS positioning system. That's thousands of rockets being sent into space by dozens of countries during several decades. If all of that is part of a conspiracy, boy howdy is that an extraordinary waste of time and resources for no apparent purpose, one nobody has properly uncovered yet 50 years later.

And even if the discussions between Religion (believe even if there is no evidence) and science (challenge everything you can as long as you have evidence) are somewhat relevant, we are getting offtopic here so I'll stop XD

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 7372205)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "science". The idea of science is trying to give an explanation for a certain phenomenon that a) logically describes why it happens, b) predicts when it's going to happen again and c) fits every instance of the phenomenon, so there aren't any exceptions for a rule.

The point of this is that the explanation that fits all these requirements is the best accepted one. But, if for some reason, there is an instance of the phenomenon that doesn't follow the current laws, or the theory fails to predict an instance, or the logical chain the explanation is based upon is proved false, or if a new, more complete theory is found, the previous one will be discarded. As such, if you "blindly accept" what science says, you are doing it wrong, because science itself asks anybody who cares about it to constantly check the theories and try to disprove them. If they are logically disproven, science moves forward. If they aren't, they hold stronger as their certainty has overcame a challenge.

Of course, your regular Joe in the street doesn't have enough knowledge to try to disprove a theory, and that's why people rely on experts to do so. But, if the millions of scientists checking theories don't find anything seriously wrong about them, it's safe to say that they are as correct as they can get. On the other hand, if someone proves some theory wrong, the general consensus will shift. Just a handful of scientists (like the couple of hundreds who support creationism) will refuse to accept it. True science means that you can try to prove everyone wrong, as long as you accept to be proven wrong if your theories are successfully challenged. Of course, if a theory has remained unchallenged for centuries despite constant research, it is safe to accept it by default and use it as a jumpstart, even if it can be eventually be proven wrong.

But all of this has nothing to do with "going into space". That's not only science. That's not the work of "evil TV's". That's dozens of living people going there, and talking to other people, and bringing rocks and pictures and experiments. That's thousands of satellites there, predicting the weather, taking pictures of the Earth (from where could they be taken if there is nowhere outside of the Earth??). That's the GPS positioning system. That's thousands of rockets being sent into space by dozens of countries during several decades. If all of that is part of a conspiracy, boy howdy is that an extraordinary waste of time and resources for no apparent purpose, one nobody has properly uncovered yet 50 years later.

And even if the discussions between Religion (believe even if there is no evidence) and science (challenge everything you can as long as you have evidence) are somewhat relevant, we are getting offtopic here so I'll stop XD

I understand science in the way you explained it. I was talking about Adam Atheist(No offense intended. I am referring to the close minded condescending atheists that give atheists a bad name.) who sees something on TV which there is no proof for except that the news anchor says its scientifically proven and then mocks all those who dont believe it. And I guess Im just a conspiracy theorist then. Outer Space just doesnt make much sense to me. Maybe as I get older Ill see something that will make me come to believe in space but I refuse to have faith in the scientific community.

F1refly October 14th, 2012 11:21 AM

One only has to look into a Telescope to prove that Space "exists". I myself have seen Saturn and it's rings, in my own back garden with a powerful telescope. I even saw a meteor going slowly acros the sky on Friday. Here where I live I can see satelites slowly trekking their way across the night sky, make out most constellations and even spot UFOs. Well, I don't think I've seen any yet, but we do have a UFO research centre :)

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1refly (Post 7372252)
One only has to look into a Telescope to prove that Space "exists". I myself have seen Saturn and it's rings, in my own back garden with a powerful telescope. I even saw a meteor going slowly acros the sky on Friday. Here where I live I can see satelites slowly trekking their way across the night sky, make out most constellations and even spot UFOs. Well, I don't think I've seen any yet, but we do have a UFO research centre :)

Ive never seen any planets but what you saw could have easily been somehing else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by F1refly (Post 7372252)
One only has to look into a Telescope to prove that Space "exists". I myself have seen Saturn and it's rings, in my own back garden with a powerful telescope. I even saw a meteor going slowly acros the sky on Friday. Here where I live I can see satelites slowly trekking their way across the night sky, make out most constellations and even spot UFOs. Well, I don't think I've seen any yet, but we do have a UFO research centre :)

Ive never seen any planets but what you saw could have easily been something else.

Oryx October 14th, 2012 11:38 AM

So, let me get this straight - you don't believe in observation being a solid basis for belief, and you don't believe scientists because you don't think they're telling the truth, but you refuse to do research on it yourself? And you're Christian, because that's so logical and make so much sense, but don't believe in what you can see?

http://imgur.com/A517m.gif

Edit: Have you told your science teacher at school this belief?

droomph October 14th, 2012 11:47 AM

Well to be fair, the sky does look kinda bland...I find it hard to believe that there's something above that swath of black.

But given that I've been on airplanes...

And honestly, even I find it kinda...weird that you believe observation isn't proof enough, though...I don't know.

I...have nothing to say...no offense but that's just dumb, any way you look at it. Ifthere's no outer space, how can planes fly? Where's the "cap" at? 50 miles? And given that we can plainly see that solar storms have effects on us...Why aren't we all burned up by the sun? And if the sun is that small, how is it possible to keep going for generations after generation?

Whatever.

Edit: how can you not believe in science? I can see that given faith has no real "proof", that some people are rightly skeptical of religion.

But science is truth, however you look at it!

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7372274)
So, let me get this straight - you don't believe in observation being a solid basis for belief, and you don't believe scientists because you don't think they're telling the truth, but you refuse to do research on it yourself? And you're Christian, because that's so logical and make so much sense, but don't believe in what you can see?

http://imgur.com/A517m.gif

Edit: Have you told your science teacher at school this belief?

I think either scientists are lying or the people on TV are lying. I goto a ****** school and my science teachers just read the text books and give tests. They dont really care about science. And Im not really christian but I believe in God because it makes more sense to do so than not to. I dont think that the white dots in the sky are giant balls of burning gas billions of miles away. It doesnt really make much sense. Ive never had the reasoning for it explained to me because Ive never had a science teacher that was any good. Ive seen Stephen Hawkings Mysteries of the Universe on Netflix and it seemed like a crock.

And droomph how is science truth any way you look at it when even scientists disagree with each other. Different scientists believe in different theories. And I just havent seen enough proof to believe in solar storms and all that nonsense.

Oryx October 14th, 2012 11:55 AM

You didn't answer my question at all. Have your told your science teacher at school this belief?

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7372292)
Well, that doesn't give you an excuse to doubt science.

I can see why you don't like your science teachers, but I can't believe you don't believe in science because of that.

I say that you do some research on basic science. It will make sense once you can see what science is.

And...just...no. Any way you look at it, outer space is still there.

I can doubt science if I want to. I dont need an excuse. And I understand most basic science. Ive always gotten As on my science tests and never gotten worse than a B in any science class if that counts for anything. And I dont believe it is. At least not in the way its been shown to me.

and no Toujours I dont think I have. Ive asked questions about other things that didnt make sense to me like parts of the Evolution theory but Ive always been scoffed at and ignored. I dont know why I would ask my science teacher anything. I dont think very highly of her opinion.

FrostPheonix October 14th, 2012 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372286)
I think either scientists are lying or the people on TV are lying. I goto a ****** school and my science teachers just read the text books and give tests. They dont really care about science. And Im not really christian but I believe in God because it makes more sense to do so than not to. I dont think that the white dots in the sky are giant balls of burning gas billions of miles away. It doesnt really make much sense. Ive never had the reasoning for it explained to me because Ive never had a science teacher that was any good. Ive seen Stephen Hawkings Mysteries of the Universe on Netflix and it seemed like a crock.

And droomph how is science truth any way you look at it when even scientists disagree with each other. Different scientists believe in different theories. And I just havent seen enough proof to believe in solar storms and all that nonsense.

I can see where you're coming from. But space is just different. What happens to the rockets that go up? Come back down? Cuz if they do, someone would notice and tell the whole world. And yeah, the stars being balls of gas seems weird. But like others said, look through a telescope. How can that be something else? What is the moon? If you consider the stuff that happens, space fits in to other scientific theorems. Solar storms, ok, I don't really bother think about them, but the stars? Existence of space? Think about it. Gravity, for example, is part of space. Maybe Ill try say more later. But thats just what I think.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrostPheonix (Post 7372308)
I can see where you're coming from. But space is just different. What happens to the rockets that go up? Come back down? Cuz if they do, someone would notice and tell the whole world. And yeah, the stars being balls of gas seems weird. But like others said, look through a telescope. How can that be something else? What is the moon? If you consider the stuff that happens, space fits in to other scientific theorems. Solar storms, ok, I don't really bother think about them, but the stars? Existence of space? Think about it. Gravity, for example, is part of space. Maybe Ill try say more later. But thats just what I think.

i dont have answers to why everything in the sky is how it is. I dont think there is no Outer Space at all I just dont think it is the way we are taught it is. Rockets could easily go up above the clouds and come back down couldnt they? Gravity comes from the earth doesnt it? Arent we all drawn to the earth by its gravitational pull not another planets or a stars? Thank you for not completely ****ting on my beliefs haha.

Somebody watch Mysteries of the Universe with Steven Hawking on Netflix and tell me all that makes sense. It is very far fetched and alot of it seemed baseless.

droomph October 14th, 2012 12:20 PM

Baseless because you most likely don't understand the basics of what he's trying to say. Don't just say it's baseless, prove it.

Oryx October 14th, 2012 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372299)
I can doubt science if I want to. I dont need an excuse. And I understand most basic science. Ive always gotten As on my science tests and never gotten worse than a B in any science class if that counts for anything. And I dont believe it is. At least not in the way its been shown to me.

and no Toujours I dont think I have. Ive asked questions about other things that didnt make sense to me like parts of the Evolution theory but Ive always been scoffed at and ignored. I dont know why I would ask my science teacher anything. I dont think very highly of her opinion.

Okay, let's approach it from this way - outer space is something that's been accepted by everyone. Millions upon millions of scientists that have been learning more and more about the planets, stars, galaxies out there, sending out probes, pouring billions of dollars a year into this kind of research. It's so widespread that Googling "outer space doesn't exist" doesn't come up with even half-reputable sources in all the pages I searched for it (for the record I went 5 pages deep). The world is critical and loves a scandal; take the global warming numbers that were fudged and how the news was all over it.

What's the motive for the millions of people across centuries of time all reporting the same thing, no people debunking it, no one disagreeing with it? Why would they do that? Why not just tell the truth, if it didn't exist?

In addition, your complete dismissal of all science should be logically followed by a replacement with your own beliefs. While it may be "simpler" for you to just do some hand-waving and say "God did it with magic!", it's not the sign of an intelligent, educated person to not attempt to understand the world around them.

Edit, since you posted again: Droomph is 100% right. Do you have scientific proof that shows that his is baseless? Obviously they're not going to go into all the science in a TV special, because people without a significant background in science wouldn't understand even the most basic concepts. And why do you say gravity comes from the Earth? The scientific explanation of gravity is that gravity is caused by mass. You can acknowledge that planets move, you can see them at times in the sky (such as Venus certain times of the year). Why are you seeing them again and again? They move, but then come back. Why? Because of their mass, their gravity puts them in orbit in a balance with all the other planets in the galaxy and our star.

Also, you have to specify how much science you dismiss due to your "beliefs". Do you believe the Earth is flat? Do you believe in the boiling point of water? Do you believe that you have a body?

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7372332)
Okay, let's approach it from this way - outer space is something that's been accepted by everyone. Millions upon millions of scientists that have been learning more and more about the planets, stars, galaxies out there, sending out probes, pouring billions of dollars a year into this kind of research. It's so widespread that Googling "outer space doesn't exist" doesn't come up with even half-reputable sources in all the pages I searched for it (for the record I went 5 pages deep). The world is critical and loves a scandal; take the global warming numbers that were fudged and how the news was all over it.

What's the motive for the millions of people across centuries of time all reporting the same thing, no people debunking it, no one disagreeing with it? Why would they do that? Why not just tell the truth, if it didn't exist?

In addition, your complete dismissal of all science should be logically followed by a replacement with your own beliefs. While it may be "simpler" for you to just do some hand-waving and say "God did it with magic!", it's not the sign of an intelligent, educated person to not attempt to understand the world around them.

Not everyone believes in space. And even if they did, a few hundred years ago everyone believed the world was flat. Just because no one else thinks something doesnt make it untrue. And I dont completely dismiss all science. And who are you to say what the sign of an intelligent educated person is? You put a unnecessary comma after intelligent! :o That doesnt seem like something an intelligent educated person would do. Also, I never claimed to be an intelligent educated person. Maybe Im just a stupid yokel who thinks space doesnt exist because no one ever taught me the "proper" way to think.

And droomph, how can you claim science is the one undeniable truth when only a tiny fraction of scientists believe there can be a God and claim to be a christian?

Oryx October 14th, 2012 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372343)
Not everyone believes in space. And even if they did, a few hundred years ago everyone believed the world was flat. Just because no one else thinks something doesnt make it untrue. And I dont completely dismiss all science. And who are you to say what the sign of an intelligent educated person is? You put a unnecessary comma after intelligent! :o That doesnt seem like something an intelligent educated person would do. Also, I never claimed to be an intelligent educated person. Maybe Im just a stupid yokel who thinks space doesnt exist because no one ever taught me the "proper" way to think.

First of all, I didn't put an unnecessary comma anywhere. You don't understand grammar if you think I did. That's a list of adjectives, not a phrase. Lists have commas.

Show me three people who have scientific reasons to not believe that outer space exists. You are not included. You have no scientific reasons. If you've done even the most basic research you should have something to back yourself up, yeah? If not, why bother trying to argue this?

Maybe you are. You said it, not me.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7372354)
First of all, I didn't put an unnecessary comma anywhere. You don't understand grammar if you think I did. That's a list of adjectives, not a phrase. Lists have commas.

Show me three people who have scientific reasons to not believe that outer space exists. You are not included. You have no scientific reasons. If you've done even the most basic research you should have something to back yourself up, yeah? If not, why bother trying to argue this?

Maybe you are. You said it, not me.

Yes you did. Unless Im mistaken, you only need a comma in a list of adjectives if you have 3 or more adjectives. Even if its only two you didnt put a comma after educated so its still wrong.

I dont need to. Im just answering questions about my beliefs.

Well, you certainly insinuated it.

Ivysaur October 14th, 2012 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372343)
Not everyone believes in space. And even if they did, a few hundred years ago everyone believed the world was flat. Just because no one else thinks something doesnt make it untrue.

A few hundred years ago (actually over 500 years ago), people didn't have enough ways to gather evidence to prove or disprove it, so they went with their own eyes: the horizon looked flat, ergo it must have been flat! Your eyes though, have been telling you and billions of people over thousands of years that there are stars on the sky.

And (I'm remembering now Rumsfeld's quote about the "unknown unknowns"), it's true that something can't be discarded just because nobody else agrees with it. Nobody thought about evolution before Darwin's age. But, the thing is, you can't accept something as a fact unless you have evidence to back it up. It can't be disproven, but it can't be proven either, and something is not true unless it's proven. Ergo, as it's not proven, it's not true. You don't need to disprove something that has been never proved before.

But, going ahead. Outer space has been proven. It's not a matter of "since we can't be sure, I'll go with my own beliefs", as in the legendary god argument. In this case, the existence of outer space has been proven. If you want to argue that it doesn't exist, go on and gather evidence to disprove the huuuuuuuuuuge rolls of evidence in favour of its existence. Otherwise, it's "there is all this evidence" against "I think that". I know what I'll be going with.

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Went (Post 7372369)
Outer space has been proven. It's not a matter of "since we can't be sure, I'll go with my own beliefs", as in the legendary god argument.

How has it been proven? And it sure is a matter of "since we can't be sure, I'll go with my own beliefs".

Mana October 14th, 2012 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372378)
How has it been proven? And it sure is a matter of "since we can't be sure, I'll go with my own beliefs".

Evidence (which even your average person can understand):

You watch TV? Most TV satellites are circling the earth, in space. If not then how are you watching the TV?

Photos from space.

The Sun, unless you believe it is a small ball in the sky.

Telescopes give first hand evidence (as others have mentioned).

The moon. You might not believe people have been there but you can clearly see it in space, if it was in the limits of our 'sky' then we could fly planes there easy peasy.

Oryx October 14th, 2012 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AChipOffTheOldBrock (Post 7372361)
I dont need to. Im just answering questions about my beliefs.

You made a claim of fact. If you're going to make a claim of fact (people believe this), then you have to back yourself up. Your refusal to back yourself up shows that you have no actual reason to believe this, it's just easier for you to yell "MAGIC" at the world and pretend that it all solves itself.

The way science works, to expand on Went's final paragraph, is that there are scientific theories, countless theories, that are based around the existence of space and explain many things about our world. If you truly want to make a case for this, your job is to disprove them. I would suggest starting with scientific papers; science shows on TV aren't good enough because they don't deal with the scientific foundation, just the conclusions.

What part of the evidence in scientific papers do you disagree with?

AChipOffTheOldBrock October 14th, 2012 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7372388)
You made a claim of fact. If you're going to make a claim of fact (people believe this), then you have to back yourself up. Your refusal to back yourself up shows that you have no actual reason to believe this, it's just easier for you to yell "MAGIC" at the world and pretend that it all solves itself.

The way science works, to expand on Went's final paragraph, is that there are scientific theories, countless theories, that are based around the existence of space and explain many things about our world. If you truly want to make a case for this, your job is to disprove them. I would suggest starting with scientific papers; science shows on TV aren't good enough because they don't deal with the scientific foundation, just the conclusions.

What part of the evidence in scientific papers do you disagree with?

When did I make a claim of fact? Ive never read any scientific papers because im not interested in Space because I dont think it exists in the way most people do.

@Swiftsign, I have cable. Photos can easily be faked. Im not sure what the sun is but I have a hard time believing its a ball of burning gas 90 million miles away that we all rotate around at astronomical speeds. The things you see in the sky could just be illusions like the northern lights. Maybe the moon is higher than any plane can fly, or else its not a rock that people can stand on but some sort of optical illusion like the northern lights.

Im going to say again, I dont think there is nothing out in space but I dont think its the way everyone else thinks it is. It doesnt make sense to me.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:04 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.