Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #26    
Old April 13th, 2013 (1:26 AM).
SaniOKh's Avatar
SaniOKh SaniOKh is offline
The Cynical Completionist
     
    Join Date: Jun 2006
    Location: France
    Age: 29
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Lonely
    Posts: 534

    The following statement is me trying to calm things down, but I'm not sure if I'll succeed, this is developing in quite a (puts on glasses) holy war (yeeeeaaaaaaah!) .

    This part will be mostly retelling and expanding on another statement by Richard Dawkins (who, by the way is not an angry vitriolic mad man, unlike what christians make him out to be) because here goes another part where I completely agree with him: I think the best way for believers to understand us atheists, non-believers, is to realize that from certain angles they are non-believers themselves. Let me elaborate: you adhere to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other faith of your choosing, but that's only one religion. You don't believe in Thor, you don't believe in Zeus, you don't believe in Osiris, you don't believe in Hindu gods, if you have read ancient mythologies, you obviously did not see them like sacred texts, you saw them as simple literature. In this way we completely agree, it's only that (quote by Richard Dawkins) "some of us go one god further".

    Reply With Quote

    Relevant Advertising!

      #27    
    Old April 13th, 2013 (1:47 AM). Edited April 13th, 2013 by Ivysaur.
    Ivysaur's Avatar
    Ivysaur Ivysaur is offline

    You found a heart!

    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Mar 2007
    Location: Madrid
    Age: 26
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 20,641

    @Pedro: But, of course, we go back to point a: how was god created? Did he appear out of nowhere? Why should a god be exempt from the logic that "everything has a cause"? Was god always there? I personally don't need a god to wonder how the universe came into being because I can ask the same exact questions about the universe itself (how was it created? was it always there? did it appear out of nowhere? etc.), and adding a god only adds another layer of the same exact uncertainty. Therefore, I don't think it answers any questions about the origin of life- it just raises the same exact ones but one step ahead.

    And second, I don't got for the "design" theory as laws of physics explain very nicely how and why all particles tend to merge together. And, of course, they are going to merge within the realm of possibility. A god didn't design central Africa, and yet there are hundreds of species living there, all adapted to the conditions of that zone. If it rained a bit more often there, those animals couldn't have survived in the same way they have! But that's because it rains X times a year in that zone, so the animals need to work on the existing framework. In other words, if there was less binding force, another sort of atoms would have been developed, and possibly another different universe that followed the new laws. We can't know, because we are looking at a fait accompli- things could have gone a billion other ways instead, but they went this one. The probability of the universe ending up the way we know it might be of one between several trillions, but it went THIS particular way- and that's what we have to live with.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Droomph
    That's what faith is - I have hope for the future. I want there to be a unicorn. I want there to be a money tree. Those things aren't true, but they might be, and I imagine the day they come. There has to be something, why not hope for the future? That's what makes us happy. You don't believe me? Remember when you got to order something you've always wanted to come to you? Were you more happy after it came, or the days leading up to the day you got it? To get happiness is to believe that something is coming. I'm sorry for being happy, I'll try to be miserable like I was, before I found something to make me happy.

    I have hope for the future- but for the future I know I will live. I'm immensely happy with my life. I live every second to its fullest because I know one day I'll die and I won't get to enjoy anything else anymore as I'll disappear from existence. That's why I want to enjoy everything, so I can go and say "Well, it was worth it, wasn't it? 10/10 would live again".

    But I don't think happiness is "expecing something to come". I don't think that hoping that a tree will sprout spaghetti one day will give me happiness as I know that is impossible. No, I try to fight for what I can get, for what I know is possible, as immensely hard as it may sound- who could have guessed I'd end up being a staff admin when I joined? Who thought I would have got the great job I got? Well, I knew those things were possible and I fought for them and I got them. And I enjoy having them. Waiting for a game coming up on the mail doesn't give me happiness, playing one I already have does. So waiting for an "afterlife" doesn't give me happiness- enjoying the life I do have does.

    __________________

    Oh, we've made a mistake
    We've lost our minds
    We've lost our memory
    Oh, what's it gonna take?
    There's always something else
    So occupy yourself

    Yes kids, once upon a time I was an admin

    Reply With Quote
      #28    
    Old April 13th, 2013 (2:27 AM). Edited April 13th, 2013 by Echidna.
    Echidna's Avatar
    Echidna Echidna is offline

    i don't care what's in your hair

    • Platinum Tier
     
    Join Date: Aug 2010
    Location: Illinois
    Age: 23
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Brave
    Posts: 2,082

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Went View Post
    @Pedro: But, of course, we go back to point a: how was god created? Did he appear out of nowhere? Why should a god be exempt from the logic that "everything has a cause"? Was god always there? I personally don't need a god to wonder how the universe came into being because I can ask the same exact questions about the universe itself (how was it created? was it always there? did it appear out of nowhere? etc.), and adding a god only adds another layer of the same exact uncertainty. Therefore, I don't think it answers any questions about the origin of life- it just raises the same exact ones but one step ahead.
    Yes but the two are not similar. Here's how I see things:
    If matter creates matter, the second level of creation must abide by the rules of the first. It's physics. You put two solutions together and they produce a third, the third abides by the same physical standards as the originals (mass, gravity, density... etc. And I don't mean it'll have the same density, I mean it'll exist within the standard of density, it'll have a density), simply because matter does not have a mind of its own and thus cannot create something entirely new that does not abide by the original's rules. If we want to attribute our world to anything other than God, we're gonna have to assume that there was a chain reaction of sorts, because something cannot come out of nothing. One thing led to another which led to another which led to another and so on and so forth.
    If we try to find the origin, we can't, because the origin of something that does not have a mind has to abide by the rules of the creation in the preceding chain. So the origin of our world would follow the same physical standards and base-points as our own. In essence, we'd have to convince ourselves that somehow, something came out of nothing, at one point in time.

    However, a God would have a mind. A God would have the ability to create something new. You create a world inside a video game, that world might not have gravity or not even abide by our laws of physics. You are capable of creating something completely new.
    In the same manner of thought, apply this to God. What God creates does not apply to him. God created a world where everything needs a cause, a beginning. How are we to assume that God needs a beginning?
    This could be extremely confusing, and it's supposed to be. When something exists outside our horizon of thought, beyond what we can comprehend, we're bound to be skeptical, confused... etc.

    But the only way to explain our incapability to comprehend the origin of the world is by attributing it to an entity capable of thought and creation.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Went View Post
    And second, I don't got for the "design" theory as laws of physics explain very nicely how and why all particles tend to merge together. And, of course, they are going to merge within the realm of possibility. A god didn't design central Africa, and yet there are hundreds of species living there, all adapted to the conditions of that zone. If it rained a bit more often tehre, those animals couldn't have survived in the same way they have! But that's because it rains X times a year in that zone, so the animals need to work on the existing framework. In other words, if there was less binding force, another sort of atoms would have been developed. We can't know, because we are looking at a fait accompli- things could have gone a billion other ways instead, but they went this one. The probability of the universe ending up the way we know it might be of one between several trillions, but it went THIS particular way- and that's what we have to live with.
    So we're to assume that not only was their some sort of cosmic coincidence that led to the creation of a universe, but also that it somehow managed to turn up in the one out of a trillion ways that would allow stability?
    Besides, the nuclear binding energy between nucleons is extremely delicate. If it were the tiniest bit stronger, we'd probably have only half of our periodic table because during the expansion of the universe, it would have been significantly harder for new materials to come into existence.
    And if it were even the tiniest bit weaker, there would be no periodic table at all.

    __________________

    but my taste in music is your face

    Reply With Quote
      #29    
    Old April 13th, 2013 (3:22 AM).
    Dakotah's Avatar
    Dakotah Dakotah is offline
       
      Join Date: Aug 2010
      Posts: 903

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by PEDRO12 View Post
      If something happened to created matter, something that did not involve a God, it had to have followed the existence of something else. Matter came from light, according to the Big Bang theory, so where did the light come from? You could go on with this argument forever, and the only way to stop is to reach, at some point, an entity responsible for all of creation.

      The reason behind this is the classic paradox or creator vs creation. What a creator creates does not apply to them because before they created it, it did not exist. On the other hand, they created it, so it should apply to everything, but it does not apply to them.
      More to that, if we deny the existence of a God, then I ask you this: What was there before there was everything? You could say nothingness but you'd be wrong, because nothingness is a concept that can only exist or be used if there is something somewhere else, because nothingness is the absence of something.

      So basically, there is no way to attribute our incapability to comprehend the origins of this world without somehow involving a God. Our knowledge is limited and at the scale of the universe, our logic may be flawed.

      I suggest you read "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" by physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. It's a fascinating read and refutes your assertions quite conclusively.

      Or better yet, watch this video:

      SOMETHING FROM NOTHING ? [OFFICIAL] Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss

      __________________

      DAKOTAH
      Personal Website
      YouTube Channel

      1693-4093-6753
      Normal Safari
      Lillipup / Audino / Ditto

      "...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi

      Reply With Quote
        #30    
      Old April 13th, 2013 (7:05 AM).
      Ivysaur's Avatar
      Ivysaur Ivysaur is offline

      You found a heart!

      • Crystal Tier
       
      Join Date: Mar 2007
      Location: Madrid
      Age: 26
      Gender: Male
      Posts: 20,641

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by PEDRO12 View Post
      Yes but the two are not similar. Here's how I see things:
      If matter creates matter, the second level of creation must abide by the rules of the first. It's physics. You put two solutions together and they produce a third, the third abides by the same physical standards as the originals (mass, gravity, density... etc. And I don't mean it'll have the same density, I mean it'll exist within the standard of density, it'll have a density), simply because matter does not have a mind of its own and thus cannot create something entirely new that does not abide by the original's rules. If we want to attribute our world to anything other than God, we're gonna have to assume that there was a chain reaction of sorts, because something cannot come out of nothing. One thing led to another which led to another which led to another and so on and so forth.
      If we try to find the origin, we can't, because the origin of something that does not have a mind has to abide by the rules of the creation in the preceding chain. So the origin of our world would follow the same physical standards and base-points as our own. In essence, we'd have to convince ourselves that somehow, something came out of nothing, at one point in time.

      However, a God would have a mind. A God would have the ability to create something new. You create a world inside a video game, that world might not have gravity or not even abide by our laws of physics. You are capable of creating something completely new.
      In the same manner of thought, apply this to God. What God creates does not apply to him. God created a world where everything needs a cause, a beginning. How are we to assume that God needs a beginning?
      This could be extremely confusing, and it's supposed to be. When something exists outside our horizon of thought, beyond what we can comprehend, we're bound to be skeptical, confused... etc.

      But the only way to explain our incapability to comprehend the origin of the world is by attributing it to an entity capable of thought and creation.

      Except that doesn't really explain anything- or rather, it raises the questions of who is that god, how did it come into play, and why he doesn't have to abide by the same laws as everything else. I myself would rather accept my ignorance about how the existing universe whose existence we are 100% sure of works, rather than trying to find an imperfect explanation that raises a new set of unanswerable questions. Furthermore, we can continue investigating the universe, but we can't investigate an entity whose existence we can just imagine or theorize about. I personally am not comfortable with such an explanation.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by PEDRO12 View Post
      So we're to assume that not only was their some sort of cosmic coincidence that led to the creation of a universe, but also that it somehow managed to turn up in the one out of a trillion ways that would allow stability?
      Besides, the nuclear binding energy between nucleons is extremely delicate. If it were the tiniest bit stronger, we'd probably have only half of our periodic table because during the expansion of the universe, it would have been significantly harder for new materials to come into existence.
      And if it were even the tiniest bit weaker, there would be no periodic table at all.

      Exactly. We are to assume that such a cosmic coincidence happened because it did happen. When you find a dice lying on the "six" face, you can wonder why it didn't fall on the 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 faces, or you can acknowledge it did fall on the 6 and start working from there.

      In other words, if any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't be here and therefore we wouldn't be asking these questions. But, over a possibly infinite amount of universes, every single chance is expected to happen. We are just in one in which that cosmic coincidence did happen, the nuclear binding energy works this particular way, and we are writing phylosophical rambles on a keyboard. If any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't exist, and "we", whatever we are, would be waiting in nowhereland until the right cosmic coincidence allowed us to exist.

      Reply With Quote
        #31    
      Old April 13th, 2013 (8:04 AM).
      Esper's Avatar
      Esper Esper is offline
      • Silver Tier
       
      Join Date: Jun 2009
      Location: California
      Posts: 10,487

      This "the universe is too complex to be random" idea never sat well with me because we know that random, incredibly unlikely events do happen and the more time, the more changes you give it the more likely they are to happen. I feel like what I know of science and mathematics (which admittedly isn't a lot, or at least isn't as deep as it is broad) explains to me pretty easily why there are complex things like human beings: simple structures like electrons and protons exist, after a long time they gather together through random bumping around the universe, create atoms, which do the same thing, etc. etc. after enough time random change gives you more and more complex things. I think the fact that the universe has existed for billions of years is a long enough time for all kinds of unlikely things to occur.

      __________________

      Reply With Quote
        #32    
      Old April 13th, 2013 (9:14 AM). Edited April 13th, 2013 by droomph.
      droomph's Avatar
      droomph droomph is offline

      weeb

      • Crystal Tier
       
      Join Date: Sep 2011
      Location: nowhere spectacular
      Age: 20
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Impish
      Posts: 4,291

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
      I'm colour blind. :P
      Then you'll understand my logic perfectly.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
      So many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view (okay, I couldn't resist!). Truth is subjective. It is not universal. My truth may not be your truth, but that does not make one more valid than the other. Where I have to object, however, is when one person, or a group of people, attempt to force their truths on others. That crosses a line with me that should never be crossed. But of course, some just can't resist the temptation.
      Then I won't force it upon you. That's pretty much what I've been saying.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
      No thanks. All the verses you cite are taken out of context. They cannot be read properly without being in context, or in other words, without being read as part of the larger story. It's no different than someone pulling a quote from someone's speech and using that quote to prove a point. Because the quote is pulled out of context, the text cannot be read as it was meant to.
      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV go wild.
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
      Please refrain from painting people with such a broad brush. I condemn no one, and I haven't heard anyone on here even come close to condemning you. I just happen to disagree with your point of view. That is not condemnation. That is discussion.
      I'm not referring to you, rather to those I addressed. There are people (Youtube!) that do that constantly, but I think you're a cool guy, I was referring to those people personally.

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Went View Post
      Except that doesn't really explain anything- or rather, it raises the questions of who is that god, how did it come into play, and why he doesn't have to abide by the same laws as everything else. I myself would rather accept my ignorance about how the existing universe whose existence we are 100% sure of works, rather than trying to find an imperfect explanation that raises a new set of unanswerable questions. Furthermore, we can continue investigating the universe, but we can't investigate an entity whose existence we can just imagine or theorize about. I personally am not comfortable with such an explanation.

      Exactly. We are to assume that such a cosmic coincidence happened because it did happen. When you find a dice lying on the "six" face, you can wonder why it didn't fall on the 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 faces, or you can acknowledge it did fall on the 6 and start working from there.

      In other words, if any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't be here and therefore we wouldn't be asking these questions. But, over a possibly infinite amount of universes, every single chance is expected to happen. We are just in one in which that cosmic coincidence did happen, the nuclear binding energy works this particular way, and we are writing phylosophical rambles on a keyboard. If any of the other options had happened, we wouldn't exist, and "we", whatever we are, would be waiting in nowhereland until the right cosmic coincidence allowed us to exist.

      God is the unknown. We were created by the unknown.

      People can't accept that God is the unknown, so they personify him. That's what's confusing to many people. We're not talking to an imaginary person, we're talking to everything that we haven't found out about. We are talking to the 1,2,3,4,5 faces, not the person who rolled them.

      __________________

      did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
      o i forgot 5
      uraqt

      Reply With Quote
        #33    
      Old April 13th, 2013 (9:29 AM).
      Dakotah's Avatar
      Dakotah Dakotah is offline
         
        Join Date: Aug 2010
        Posts: 903

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by droomph View Post

        Interesting. The bible version you're referring to is the New International Version (NIV). But it is just one of about 100 different versions out there. Each one of them translating the original texts differently. How is any one to know for certain that this particular version is the correct one, and not another?

        I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you have to agree, it does create a problem. Because if the original texts are interpreted so many different ways, how can any one be certain that what they are reading is truly an accurate translation of the original texts. And then there are so many different people who further try to interpret the interpreted bible. It's like a story that travels from mouth to mouth and in the end resembles nothing like the original story by the time it cycles back to the source. I could tell you that Jane leapt over the fallen log, and that single sentence, after being told to 100 different people could end up saying instead: Jane tripped on the root.

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by droomph View Post
        God is the unknown. We were created by the unknown.

        Funny, I thought my parents created me, and their parents created them, and so on and so on...

        Reply With Quote
          #34    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (9:36 AM).
        droomph's Avatar
        droomph droomph is offline

        weeb

        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Sep 2011
        Location: nowhere spectacular
        Age: 20
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Impish
        Posts: 4,291

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
        Interesting. The bible version you're referring to is the New International Version (NIV). But it is just one of about 100 different versions out there. Each one of them translating the original texts differently. How is any one to know for certain that this particular version is the correct one, and not another?

        I know I'm splitting hairs here, but you have to agree, it does create a problem. Because if the original texts are interpreted so many different ways, how can any one be certain that what they are reading is truly an accurate translation of the original texts. And then there are so many different people who further try to interpret the interpreted bible. It's like a story that travels from mouth to mouth and in the end resembles nothing like the original story by the time it cycles back to the source. I could tell you that Jane leapt over the fallen log, and that single sentence, after being told to 100 different people could end up saying instead: Jane tripped on the root.

        http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm you know, these things are so readily available

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
        Funny, I thought my parents created me, and their parents created them, and so on and so on...
        Then who created the person that created all of us? By that, I mean the atoms, and the quarks that make up the molecules that make up life. And obviously something had to create the Big Bang, right? Then who is that? That is God. Whatever that thing that created us is, that is God. It could be human, it could be a giant blue mass of worms, it could be energy from another dimension and existence, or something that is incomprehensible to us. But nonetheless, that is God.

        Reply With Quote
          #35    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (10:55 AM).
        Kanzler's Avatar
        Kanzler Kanzler is offline
        naughty biscotti
        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Jul 2008
        Location: Toronto
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Relaxed
        Posts: 5,897

        You're usually cool droomph, but I guess you're too cool to respond to my posts on a thread I started myself.

        I guess it's much easier to quote endlessly from scripture by assuming that the Bible holds the same authority in every individual you encounter. Which is totally not imposing a moral norm on them, totally respectful just like God intended.

        Passive-aggressiveness aside, I would appreciate that you consider the bolded text in my previous post before you continue like that opinion doesn't exist. You see, one thing I disagree with religion is how authoritative it is. Thus a person can claim he's being respectful and open, because after all, isn't that what the religion commands you to do? So being respectful and tolerant of other people's idea becomes conflated with abiding with religious doctrine - which is an illogical step to take. When you're tolerant of other people's ideas, you're usually able to identify the differences between their frames of reference and from then on synthesize some common ground. Or at least be able to admit there is no common ground. But that can only occur after you understand both perspectives - and currently you're still arguing from scripture. Are you not aware that you yourself could also be mistaken by your own frame of reference? I am asking you to take a step back and consider why you say the things you do, without plodding on without thinking about it critically. It's not even an "atheist" thing to do. Many ministers and religious figures undertake an education involving theology, which is the rational and systematic study of God and religious truths.

        Quote:
        Then who created the person that created all of us? By that, I mean the atoms, and the quarks that make up the molecules that make up life. And obviously something had to create the Big Bang, right? Then who is that? That is God. Whatever that thing that created us is, that is God. It could be human, it could be a giant blue mass of worms, it could be energy from another dimension and existence, or something that is incomprehensible to us. But nonetheless, that is God.

        Let's not go into creation theory when you haven't explained the root of your faith - your rationale, if you will. But like many of us have expressed, what makes God the ultimate creator - what made God himself? And if you're saying God is the creator of our universe, why would he give us religion and salvation? Why couldn't he have stepped back and enjoy his handiwork never to intervene with it again, or simply disappeared?

        Reply With Quote
          #36    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (1:13 PM).
        droomph's Avatar
        droomph droomph is offline

        weeb

        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Sep 2011
        Location: nowhere spectacular
        Age: 20
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Impish
        Posts: 4,291

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
        You're usually cool droomph, but I guess you're too cool to respond to my posts on a thread I started myself.

        I guess it's much easier to quote endlessly from scripture by assuming that the Bible holds the same authority in every individual you encounter. Which is totally not imposing a moral norm on them, totally respectful just like God intended.

        Passive-aggressiveness aside, I would appreciate that you consider the bolded text in my previous post before you continue like that opinion doesn't exist. You see, one thing I disagree with religion is how authoritative it is. Thus a person can claim he's being respectful and open, because after all, isn't that what the religion commands you to do? So being respectful and tolerant of other people's idea becomes conflated with abiding with religious doctrine - which is an illogical step to take. When you're tolerant of other people's ideas, you're usually able to identify the differences between their frames of reference and from then on synthesize some common ground. Or at least be able to admit there is no common ground. But that can only occur after you understand both perspectives - and currently you're still arguing from scripture. Are you not aware that you yourself could also be mistaken by your own frame of reference? I am asking you to take a step back and consider why you say the things you do, without plodding on without thinking about it critically. It's not even an "atheist" thing to do. Many ministers and religious figures undertake an education involving theology, which is the rational and systematic study of God and religious truths.

        Do you not realize that I was trying to support your point, that the Bible tells the ones that you don't like to respect people like you?
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
        Let's not go into creation theory when you haven't explained the root of your faith - your rationale, if you will. But like many of us have expressed, what makes God the ultimate creator - what made God himself? And if you're saying God is the creator of our universe, why would he give us religion and salvation? Why couldn't he have stepped back and enjoy his handiwork never to intervene with it again, or simply disappeared?
        That's what I've been trying to say. Nobody can know who and why, but it is. If you search long enough, you'll find it.

        Reply With Quote
          #37    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (1:45 PM).
        Kanzler's Avatar
        Kanzler Kanzler is offline
        naughty biscotti
        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Jul 2008
        Location: Toronto
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Relaxed
        Posts: 5,897

        As an atheist my perspective doesn't come from religious texts, so even if you're agreeing with me, I'd rather you disagree with me and come from a rational framework. Reverence to religious texts is something we don't share, but rational arguments are. I've wanted to hear why religious authority is something you take seriously, because you take it seriously.

        Quote:
        That's what I've been trying to say. Nobody can know who and why, but it is. If you search long enough, you'll find it.

        Good, we have two clearly outlined perspectives. Let's put creation on pause right now and get our mutual understanding of where we come from in order.

        Reply With Quote
          #38    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (5:05 PM).
        droomph's Avatar
        droomph droomph is offline

        weeb

        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Sep 2011
        Location: nowhere spectacular
        Age: 20
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Impish
        Posts: 4,291

        I understand somewhat where atheism com from, because I do understand that I do not observe that there is a God. Atheists simply do not have a feeling, and I can't blame you for not feeling it. But once you do - wether it be this second or when you die, you will understand everything that I do, which, by the way, is not much at all.

        But what I am saying with giving you such text is simply letting you know that your accusations are wrong - that all Christians are supposed to be as you find people to be ideal - tolerant. I am simply showing that even the highest source of knowledge from my point of view agrees without any reservation that you are completely right, and with the added bonus that if you keep in mind those verses, you can bring light to the very people you dislike, the ones that use God for their own purposes, the ones that treat him like a pet, the ones that hurt the cause.

        And as to why I find religious authority important, I don't. I find the Bible to be an automatic source where I get my morality, though I don't revere it like others revere the American flag, and such. It is more of a self-help book, as no word can describe whatever I'm feeling, etc.

        There is only one place where I can revere, and that is the unknown. Because it's unpredictable (the Bible is just words on a text medium, but the meaning - that's unpredictable), everyone should revere such power. But I don't mind those that don't - it would simply be too unreasonable, like asking a first grader to solve a calculus problem.

        None of this is to insult you, if it seems so - if anything, you may be stronger than me, to know what I fear. But that is not to say you're stronger, either - I may see more than you do, and thus fear it more than you. But the truth is, from a thousand miles away, two inches seems like nothing, doesn't it? Therefore whatever strengths you or I have above the other doesn't really matter in the face of everything else in the world. We are all the same, and we should be discussing this as we have been.

        So. Why did he invent religion? He didn't. He simply is there, and the idea that he's there has frightened so many people into treating him like a god. And reasonably, they are afraid of him, and they use the scary idea of the unknown to trick others. But that dioesn't mean it's always used for bad things - it's used to comfort people, that they don't know everything.

        So, I can't describe this to you any better. Any further "rational" explanation would simply boil down to me analyzing literature, and you telling me how I haven't whatever, etc. So if you skimmed, I understand. But just remember - all of theology, all of religion - it's just a feeling. It's a feeling, sure, but a feeling so big that there's no denying it can only be a feeling. It's a feeling that turns people into bumbling idiots when they try to explain it, because there is no way to explain it. That's my side.

        Reply With Quote
          #39    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (6:49 PM).
        Kanzler's Avatar
        Kanzler Kanzler is offline
        naughty biscotti
        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Jul 2008
        Location: Toronto
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Relaxed
        Posts: 5,897

        That sounds pretty darn good to me. Your thinking is really interesting - it's radical in that you view yourself separate from organized religion, but you still keep faith in the Bible.

        Another question, and this is by no means directed only to you droomph: Why are religious texts a source of morality? I mean it both as a personal question as well as asking why you think people in general take religious texts to be authoritative. Now this isn't the case for every religion - for example Confucianism. The tenets of Confucianism are pretty clear, but I don't think it's a thing for people to start quoting from the Yi Jing, or his book of rites. They seem more like his scholastic works <-- aha I might have found my answer right here. And I'll qualify that not all people see Confucianism as a religion (I don't personally, I just used it as a broad example). But my question still stands: why religious texts? For you or society?

        Reply With Quote
          #40    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (7:13 PM).
        droomph's Avatar
        droomph droomph is offline

        weeb

        • Crystal Tier
         
        Join Date: Sep 2011
        Location: nowhere spectacular
        Age: 20
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Impish
        Posts: 4,291

        Quote:
        Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
        That sounds pretty darn good to me. Your thinking is really interesting - it's radical in that you view yourself separate from organized religion, but you still keep faith in the Bible.

        Another question, and this is by no means directed only to you droomph: Why are religious texts a source of morality? I mean it both as a personal question as well as asking why you think people in general take religious texts to be authoritative. Now this isn't the case for every religion - for example Confucianism. The tenets of Confucianism are pretty clear, but I don't think it's a thing for people to start quoting from the Yi Jing, or his book of rites. They seem more like his scholastic works <-- aha I might have found my answer right here. And I'll qualify that not all people see Confucianism as a religion (I don't personally, I just used it as a broad example). But my question still stands: why religious texts? For you or society?

        I don't know why they use the Bible as a holy thing to swear oaths on, but they do. It's one of the quirks of humanity.

        But the real thing I keep my faith in, is what the Bible tells me. There are millions, literally, of copies of the Bible. Without the meaning behind it, it would probably be worse than Twilight or whatever is popular at this time (believe me, it's horribly hard to understand!). But that's the difference - it has a meaning behind it. I believe in that meaning, not the words.

        Reply With Quote
          #41    
        Old April 13th, 2013 (7:23 PM).
        Dakotah's Avatar
        Dakotah Dakotah is offline
           
          Join Date: Aug 2010
          Posts: 903

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by droomph View Post
          Then who created the person that created all of us? By that, I mean the atoms, and the quarks that make up the molecules that make up life. And obviously something had to create the Big Bang, right? Then who is that? That is God. Whatever that thing that created us is, that is God. It could be human, it could be a giant blue mass of worms, it could be energy from another dimension and existence, or something that is incomprehensible to us. But nonetheless, that is God.

          You falsely assume everything had to have a creator. I've already provided a link to answer these questions.

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by droomph View Post
          I find the Bible to be an automatic source where I get my morality, though I don't revere it like others revere the American flag, and such. It is more of a self-help book, as no word can describe whatever I'm feeling, etc.

          The bible also tells you to kill gay people. I certainly hope this is not a part of the morality you adopted.

          Reply With Quote
            #42    
          Old April 13th, 2013 (8:25 PM).
          droomph's Avatar
          droomph droomph is offline

          weeb

          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: Sep 2011
          Location: nowhere spectacular
          Age: 20
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Impish
          Posts: 4,291

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
          You falsely assume everything had to have a creator. I've already provided a link to answer these questions.
          That's what I'm saying. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But whatever is there, is what is there.
          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Jay_37040 View Post
          The bible also tells you to kill gay people. I certainly hope this is not a part of the morality you adopted.
          It also tells me to let God do that whenever he likes. I would be stepping out of line if I were to do such.

          Reply With Quote
            #43    
          Old April 13th, 2013 (9:09 PM).
          Sir Codin's Avatar
          Sir Codin Sir Codin is offline

          Welcome to the Federation Starship: USS Buttcrack

          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: May 2012
          Location: California Republic
          Age: 26
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Quirky
          Posts: 3,755

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by droomph View Post
          That's what I'm saying. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But whatever is there, is what is there.It also tells me to let God do that whenever he likes. I would be stepping out of line if I were to do such.
          The question is proof. Without indisputable proof and empirical tangible evidence, declarations such as "It was God" don't hold much weight.

          __________________

          Reply With Quote
            #44    
          Old April 13th, 2013 (9:12 PM).
          droomph's Avatar
          droomph droomph is offline

          weeb

          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: Sep 2011
          Location: nowhere spectacular
          Age: 20
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Impish
          Posts: 4,291

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by CarcharOdin View Post
          The question is proof. Without indisputable proof and empirical tangible evidence, declarations such as "It was God" don't hold much weight.

          So then, what I am saying is that there is no proof.

          Reply With Quote
            #45    
          Old April 13th, 2013 (9:13 PM).
          Kanzler's Avatar
          Kanzler Kanzler is offline
          naughty biscotti
          • Crystal Tier
           
          Join Date: Jul 2008
          Location: Toronto
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Relaxed
          Posts: 5,897

          I prefer to argue from reasonableness versus absurdity because nothing really is strictly indisputable. But absurdity is relative too

          Reply With Quote
            #46    
          Old April 13th, 2013 (10:06 PM).
          Dakotah's Avatar
          Dakotah Dakotah is offline
             
            Join Date: Aug 2010
            Posts: 903

            Quote:
            Originally Posted by droomph View Post
            That's what I'm saying. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. But whatever is there, is what is there.It also tells me to let God do that whenever he likes. I would be stepping out of line if I were to do such.

            It's really a matter of interpretation, isn't it? We have religious leaders preaching to their congregations that women should not have control over their reproductive organs. We have religious leaders preaching that gay people should be rounded up and kept separate from the general population until they eventually die out. We have religious leaders even preaching that gay people should be put to death by the state. Every one of these leaders, I'm sure, genuinely believes that what they are preaching is god's truth. But is it really? Or is it simply that they are justifying their own prejudices by picking and choosing passages from the bible that they interpret to support their position.

            And this is where, in my opinion, religion fails. Human beings are imperfect beings. We have faults galore, and inevitably, whatever we create becomes corrupted, whether it's a tool such as a hammer, or a belief system or a political system. Nothing we create is perfect, just as we are not perfect. When people created the concept of a god to explain the mysteries of life, they chose to make complicated what really was fairly simple to explain. God is a concept that is very difficult to explain, much less understand. Darwin's theory of evolution, on the other hand, is pretty simple to understand, and it does not require a leap of faith to reach that understanding.

            Reply With Quote
              #47    
            Old April 13th, 2013 (10:14 PM).
            Kanzler's Avatar
            Kanzler Kanzler is offline
            naughty biscotti
            • Crystal Tier
             
            Join Date: Jul 2008
            Location: Toronto
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Relaxed
            Posts: 5,897

            Yes! As a budding soon-to-be scientist I give Darwin my backing. But the only people who actually dispute Darwin are creationists, and they are pretty radical in themselves.

            Reply With Quote
              #48    
            Old April 14th, 2013 (12:21 AM).
            gimmepie's Avatar
            gimmepie gimmepie is offline

            Splash!!!

            • Moderator
            • Platinum Tier
            • EOEvent Organizer
            • PokéCommunity Daily
             
            Join Date: May 2012
            Location: Australia
            Age: 21
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Mild
            Posts: 15,971

            I believe in both God and I accept Darwin's theory, not all people who believe in a higher power disagree with science.

            @Jay - You are entirely correct. Organised religion does fail, especially in areas related to ethics. The problem with organised religion is that they take everything they preach from an outdated book written by monks who wanted to promote their own narrow and prejudiced views using fear of divine punishment as a means to do so. I don't think that any religious text defines the view of God because it wasn't God who wrote it, lesser beings such as ourselves will never be able to comprehend the great mysteries of the universe or God because we cannot even understand one another yet.

            Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of this thread for it to act as a forum for two groups with opposing views to understand each other? Not to try and convert people to one or the other or argue the existence of God?

            __________________

            Reply With Quote
              #49    
            Old April 14th, 2013 (2:22 AM). Edited April 14th, 2013 by Dakotah.
            Dakotah's Avatar
            Dakotah Dakotah is offline
               
              Join Date: Aug 2010
              Posts: 903

              Quote:
              Originally Posted by BlahISuck View Post
              Yes! As a budding soon-to-be scientist I give Darwin my backing. But the only people who actually dispute Darwin are creationists, and they are pretty radical in themselves.

              Oh they are a looney bunch to be sure.

              Quote:
              Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
              Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the point of this thread for it to act as a forum for two groups with opposing views to understand each other? Not to try and convert people to one or the other or argue the existence of God?

              To an atheist, who contemplates the world using logic and reason and fact, it is very difficult to understand how otherwise rational people could be so easily made to believe in an imaginary being and follow a book written thousands of years ago by men who's understanding of the world was probably no better than that of a child today, and who believe that simple sheep herders all those centuries ago had a far better understanding of our world and our place in it than we do now.

              To me, it is inconceivable. I shake my head in wonder that these people could be so easily duped into falling for what is probably the world's greatest con. I could never understand the religious because to me it just isn't rational.

              Reply With Quote
                #50    
              Old April 14th, 2013 (7:56 AM).
              gimmepie's Avatar
              gimmepie gimmepie is offline

              Splash!!!

              • Moderator
              • Platinum Tier
              • EOEvent Organizer
              • PokéCommunity Daily
               
              Join Date: May 2012
              Location: Australia
              Age: 21
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Mild
              Posts: 15,971

              That's precisely what I'm talking about. That only applies to organised religion. I don't follow the bible, I don't subscribe to the views it perpetuates I simply believe that a higher power beyond what ever exists in our universe, above our laws of physics etc..., exists and is responsible for the chain of events that lead to the creation of the world we live in. I don't view God as the artist who carefully plotted each and every detail but as the person with a vegetable garden who planted the seeds and watched what they developed into. I am a very rational and critical thinker for the most part, I believe in the majority of sciences I'm not a religious radical like you seem to assume anybody who believes in a higher power is (no offence intended to you, but you do come across a lot like that).

              I'm not asking you to subscribe to my beliefs but I hope that you can at least have the respect to not refer to God as imaginary. It doesn't bother me, I realise this is just your perspective but there are going to be others that are going to be angered or hurt by remarks like that and I figure you should know that, especially since you clearly are quite intelligent.

              It is people like you that I was referring to (again, I'm not saying this with any malice) that are why atheists and those who believe in God or any other deity can't understand one other, you are unwilling to accept that the existence of God is a possibility and the religious are unwilling to accept that they could be wrong. I believe in God, but I realise that my beliefs can be wrong just like any others. My honest guess is the reason that Atheists can't contemplate being wrong and neither can those who are religious is the same deep down: fear. The religious are terrified that there may not be an afterlife and the Atheists are scared that an entity greater that what they comprehend may exist.

              Reply With Quote
              Reply
              Quick Reply

              Sponsored Links
              Thread Tools

              Posting Rules
              You may not post new threads
              You may not post replies
              You may not post attachments
              You may not edit your posts

              BB code is On
              Smilies are On
              [IMG] code is On
              HTML code is Off

              Forum Jump


              All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:06 PM.