Roundtable Flame/Discussion about Beliefs

[Mediumunwell]

I took astronomy, too
I don't think it was needed to explain the following, but it might help.

The time it takes for light to reach the Earth from a 12 billion year old star is dependent upon how far away that star is and the speed of light. If it is 2 billion light years away, then the light would take 2 billion years to reach us. NOW the star has been shining for 12 billion years, so we ARE seeing 2 billion year old light from that star unless we get closer to that star (EVEN IF THE EARTH IS ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD.)

Here is a scenario in which case we can not see the star:
The star is 12 billion years old, but it is 14 billion light years away. However because of the expansion rate of the universe we can see stars much older than that as their light becomes stretched out (redshifted) and thus from our perception on Earth due to special relativity the light takes much longer to reach us. Therefore, we have even detected light from stars like Earendel which was created just 900 million years after the big bang or at a distance of 28 billion light years from us. The universe is expanding so fast that when the light from this old star was emitted it was only 4 billion light years from Earth.

What Riot said was correct, but did prove anything. When he said that the planet existed for 6,000 years he added unneeded information to his word problem. Again, understand that the planets age has nothing to do with light hitting it. Light waves are constant (in basic physics), so light is going to be hitting the planet if it exists.

 

[RiotZ]

This is incorrect. The light would begin to travel when the star would be created.
Let's assume a 12 billion year old star.
11.999994 billion years later, the earth is created. (In this case, we assumed the Earth is 6000 years old)
The light of the star would reach the Earth in 6000 years, so you see, the age of the Earth is irrelevant, it's the age of the universe.

Yes that's very true, the Christian explanation I heard in school, was that god made the stars with the light already on Earth, which sounded completely absurd to me... Even for a god.

 

[Hakeem]

Meta

Well, if you still think I am not or have not added any substance to this thread, I'm just gonna go unactive for awhile.

I wouldn't say your effort has been for naught.

Barbarians? Mobs/Gangs?

Effectively maintaining it was no trivial aspect to my wording.

No several times. I still am.

Well what are you trying? Keep in mind the possibilities here:

• If we're talking telepathy on a layer underlying "reality," then we're talking structure on a layer we don't understand.
• We may need to explicitly ask permission of any existing operator of this layer.
• If we can communicate bypassing space, what's to say be can't do it by bypassing time?
• If it were something you could just do, wouldn't we have done it by now?

Assuming it is possible, there are a few things we know about it, but quite a lot we do not.

What I propose is a set of simple structured exercises to develop neural pathways that heretofore have gone largely unused, but hopefully have not atrophied beyond repair. Of course the only method to ensure success is to determine if the communication was successful via an already decidedly consistent medium. (Read: Reality.)

I just need to focus more on my self, for the time being.

I consider all of us to be more connected than I can imagine.

 

[Edhel-dur]

Was busy, couldn't check thread. You guys really discussed things here. I lack the time to read it all since I posted. Anyway I just want to answer to "mr subs" some of his questions regarding what I posted.

@mr subs

however my math is correct, the chance is equal with the end of the world coming as I type this message.

Actually I just wrote this part to amuse myself, because that's what I do sometimes. Just pointing out that my belief is that most likely none of the current religions are 100% real.

No amount of followers (small or large) will determine if either religion is better or worse, just which is more popular and will show where the mediocrity of this planets people belief in or like to believe in.

Mediocrity is indeed the wrong word. Was referring to the general opinion. I wrote this in a rush since I had to walk out the door and didn't had time to correct myself.

Man does need spiritual balance, and sometimes he needs guidance via religion to achieve this.

Here is what I meant... first of all, by balance I don't mean perfect balance in the sense of two halves, or four quarters, etc.

Here is the thing, as we all know people have thoughts. These thoughts cannot be touched or interacted with, but they do exist, because they are there, they exist in our mind. Because we can't see them, or interact with them, we consider that our thoughts take the form of energy. This energy is also known as "soul", "spirit" or "human mind".

Now, we don't know what happens with the soul when the host body dies, but we do know that it is linked to said body, and they both affect one another. For example:
A great spirit can affect the body to achieve greater results.
A broken body can make the spirit feel depressed.
If the spirit is depressed, the body than cannot achieve greater results, it actually won't function properly. It is a chain of back and forth between the body and the spirit.

Now what I was referring to when I meant that a person needs a balanced spirit.

Let's take an example of a simple person. This person enjoys three things: driving, sex and good food. Of course life is much more complex, but let's think in the abstract, let's keep things simple and simply believe for this example, that all that man needs is driving, sex, good food and sleep. In the course of 24 hours, he sleeps for 8 (which is necessary) leaving 14 hours for driving, sex and eating. Now, he is driving for 7 hours, having sex for about 2 and eats for 5 hours. And this balance of activities makes him a happy camper. He just needs to live like this and his body will be happy, and so will his spirit.

But let's say something happens, and he needs to drive more. If he drives more, it means less sex, or less eating time, or less of both. Let's say that he now drives for 9 hours, eats for 5 hours, sleeps for 8, and stops having sex. Because he won't have sex, hormones will go crazy and after a period of time he will become more angry overall. Furthermore having fun while driving stops at the 7 hour mark, so the extra 2 hours feel like a burden.

Being angry on a day to day basis is not normal and it's not okay. When he is simply angry everyday, his spirit is not balanced anymore and is not a happy camper either.

And if this person doesn't know how to solve his problem, if he isn't strong enough, if can't solo life, than his answer can be found in a religion where they tell you to have sex for 1h 30m everyday. And he will do that because he is "religious" and all of a sudden voilla, he is happy again, because the ratio of time between driving, sex, eat and sleep is back again in amounts close to what makes him happy.

This should make you understand.

 

[The Wizard]

Ho ho, if we could reach speed faster than a light, we can travel to some point in space far from the Earth and see Jesus(if he really existed)!^^)))
but have you ever heard about speed faster than the light?
it can be only the speed of the Univerce growth...
so, we have a lot of proofs that everything wasn't just created in one moment by one god's hand. but a lot of people try to use their bibles as real facts...
look at this. religious people say that their bibles are written by their prophets. prophets heard that tales from angels. and where have they found their angels? of course they've fallen from the sky right on their heads) and i can't believe that all existing Univerce is created by one person, even if it's almighty.
but if the god is almighty, why won't he just destroy devil and kill atheists and sathanists(and of course heavy metal fans\m/)with his almighty lightnings?
the're too much contradictions in this theory. but don't worry, every theory is far from being ideal!

 

[Magtheridon96]

Hmm.. Actually, I recall reading that the speed of light is not constant and so is the rate at which time passes.
Maybe Earth really is 6000 years old where the "year" would be equivalent to what a "year" was in the past.
The speed of light in the past was approximately 1100x faster (According to some random science dude).

This could be an inaccurate value, but the fact that the speed of light is decreasing over time has been proven
(This is shown by the difference in measurements of the speed light in history.)
Then again, those measurements could've been subjected to human error and they're likely unreliable.
Still, there are a lot of "Universe Theories" that support this. Space and Time are expanding and will continue to
expand for another 20 billion years, then they'll begin to collapse. I recall making a calculation a few years ago
based on the difference in the speed of light over history to find how much time we have left before the speed of
light gets so low it's speed will become negligible. I arrived at 54 billion years. I think I was on to something. If
we have 20 billion years before the universe begins to collapse and we know that the age of the universe is
approximately 14 billion years, and assuming that the amount of time it's going to take for the universe to
collapse is equal to the amount of time it's going to take it to expand, we arrive at 54 billion years exactly.
I don't remember how I got this value, but I didn't know anything about Steven Hawking's theory of the
universe back then.


Ugh, this stuff hurts my brain.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Since this thread is about beliefs, it isnt typical for me in SRS threads to not make a wall of text... so like them or not here are my beliefs, oh wait they are not beliefs, they are simply objective evaluation of events and data.

Firstly, I am not convinced the Bible's stories are representing real events when it comes to 'Opening a path' across the Red Sea, God appearing in light in the desert in front of Moses when they were going for err 40 days?, the Noah's Arc and the Great Flood. IF it were true,

the only option for me that makes sense is one shared by the Ancient Astronaut Theory. This is just a theory, after ALL I've read and I've done lot's of research, I am not convinced aliens have visited Earth. But the existing data - contemporary UFO and USO sightings, depicted clearly saucer objects on portraits, frescos, murals from centuries ago, make me think it is quite possible yet not certain. If it were so, the theory makes very interesting and logical explanations where the pieces seem to fit the most.

When you mention 'God' let's say it is true, who is he? Speaking of Christinaity and Jesus Christ how was he born?

Virgin Marie was told that she would get pregnant one day. How did it happen? She artifically became pregnant because that's what the texts say, not any interaction with a man.

Magic? No, there is no magic, everything is science including one we don't understand. In this case can we talk about intervention? Yes we can, because if you look at so many other pieces of the picture, all points that there MUST BE smth going on when so many civilization talk about being visited by strange looking people they called Gods - including Egyptian, before that Sumerian, in China, others...

http://www.ufoevidence.org/ancientastronauts.htm

Why are so many pictures having such saucerlike objects, some showing the same properties as contemporary sightings?

You should know as working with photoshop or similar that 99% or so, of all you see on the internet - videos, pictures, funny pictures = HOAX. Not so is the case with the rest 1% which accounts for a hundred or more.

So Virgin Marie's becoming pregnant, can you say someone may have implanted here, and that is just like that? A lot of abductions (those that are true) talk about either being in sleep paralyzis, sometimes thinking it is a dream and it's not, etc.

An italian woman has had her pregnancy interrupted after a claimed encounter or abduction. Why would she lie when there are others with similar encounters - now I know 90% of all ufo sightins are fake, majority of people are big liars and money makers but there are cases that show that some of these cases are DAMN REAL.

So to conclusion, Virgin Marie may have somehow been implanted with semens or whatever there to start pregnancy. Because it happens after God talking to her, that's why we should think it is all not caused by say some random man right?

Scientists not related to Ancient Astro Theory tell that - when Jesus resurrected, when the people came to see his body in thte cave where his body was placed, when the people found out his body was not under the cover, the cover was not even removed from where he was lying. How?

Noah-s Ark - where every animal species in two walked in - the explanation for it according to AAT, is that if there has been such species, then this clearly shows the

If it happened, what would you believe, some big boat really that holded animals or that it is something else? Again alone that, you would take it literally,

I think we are not alone, and God is somehow related to them. Who are they? Aliens? Time travelers (like I said I dont believe Time Machines are possible), other dimension - not even one proof of other dimensions.

Though there are objects in the infra-red spectre not seen with naked eye, so there ARE objects in another spectre that the Human eye cannot see..

So I can go on and on, with all stories, some say - 'oh this is just folklore', 'oh this never happened' - sure, Im also not convinced but with all the things, how can you say all is folklore when people clearly see things, forget today's liars and money makers.

I think we are not alone and God could exist and he's either not fully human, he may have been taken away - Resurrection? And the body disappears? Magic? No just no, there is some other presence. Humans cannot heal a heavily wounded body as it must have been.

 

[HFR]

word

It's just a flying hat, get over it.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

I know!!!!! Kung Lao was throwing his hat xD

 

[Magtheridon96]

I recall seeing other paintings with saucers in them (They looked like cigars)

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

 
 
 

 

[akqpars]

Since anyone (along with a lifetime researches) has ultimately put an end in these discussions, which is a loophole that wont be filled with any ego in an unstable state of mind, that even cant overcome the basic animal insticts. Everybody will be alone at their 2 by 1 graves whatever.

 

[RiotZ]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Necro(n) post.

 

[Vunjo]

Speaking of God and religion, I do believe in Him. Actually, I don't see a reason not to believe in God. As some tales from bible cannot be described well, I think it's part of the reason why the religion exists, to show something which cannot be showed just like that. Also, I think that those prophets, and those who were writing history and bible were actually telling the truth. The religion we know now cannot be understood completely, neither it wants us to, but I think that they would come up with a more believe-able story than what's written. They wrote some miracle facts on purpose, to impress people, teach them basics of law in life, and well, to make them think a little.

I really stick to part where I said "They could have come up with a better story", because I think it's exactly the reason why they wrote such tales.

 

[Boris_Spider]

You want a miracle? This thread not becoming a troll haven will be a miracle...

The religion we know now cannot be understood completely, neither it wants us to, but I think that they would come up with a more believe-able story than what's written. They wrote some miracle facts on purpose, to impress people, teach them basics of law in life, and well, to make them think a little.

I really stick to part where I said "They could have come up with a better story", because I think it's exactly the reason why they wrote such tales.

1) Which religion? (I'm just curious)
2) Why would religion not want to be understood completely? Is it afraid of losing "appeal" after all of the mystery is over?
3) How does religion encourage thinking, and what type of thinking? - A god is the ultimate answer to everything, so thinking isn't necessary ...not to mention faith discourages questioning.

//\\0o//\\

 

[En_Fuego]

I'm a Muslim and disagree 100% with everything Vunjo said...

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

The only option I see is if Him is from another dimension which I still cannot imagine how it exists that is how can it exist, and that the dimension thingy also is related to another universe and of course another planet. So that makes all claims correct: spiritual: you could say so if at higher frequency, alien or Marie implanted by other beings of that kind which also are described as coming with spaceship *aka aliens.

At the same time the propaganda done on movies about Aliens, all people who come forward to speak about it, all who tell stories, all witnesses, some eventuallt proven to be fake and lying, I don't get what's the idea of making a propaganda about false things.

If this is all just propaganda and programing of the masses, what's the point? As a researcher of ETs I am not very convinced I can find ONE real person who isn't lying

that's disappointing, then what the fuck is it? False alien invasion? Covering up high technology some countries have developed and callung it ET so that people dont think countries posses high technology??

But even if people believed aliens, then logically with aliens come taking technology from them? SO how is THIS LIE aka FALSE ALIEN STORIES helping HIDE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES when logically if you made people believe in aliens with such propaganda, it actually makes it people say - then we posses THEIR technology - that is people will still think countries have such weapons. What is this??? The questions DRIVING ME CRAZY!

 

[Boris_Spider]

The only option I see is if Him is from another dimension which I still cannot imagine how it exists that is how can it exist, and that the dimension thingy also is related to another universe and of course another planet. So that makes all claims correct: spiritual: you could say so if at higher frequency, alien or Marie implanted by other beings of that kind which also are described as coming with spaceship *aka aliens.

At the same time the propaganda done on movies about Aliens, all people who come forward to speak about it, all who tell stories, all witnesses, some eventuallt proven to be fake and lying, I don't get what's the idea of making a propaganda about false things.

If this is all just propaganda and programing of the masses, what's the point? As a researcher of ETs I am not very convinced I can find ONE real person who isn't lying

that's disappointing, then what the fuck is it? False alien invasion? Covering up high technology some countries have developed and callung it ET so that people dont think countries posses high technology??

But even if people believed aliens, then logically with aliens come taking technology from them? SO how is THIS LIE aka FALSE ALIEN STORIES helping HIDE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES when logically if you made people believe in aliens with such propaganda, it actually makes it people say - then we posses THEIR technology - that is people will still think countries have such weapons. What is this??? The questions DRIVING ME CRAZY!

Come again?

//\\0o//\\

 

[Joe-black-5]

I'm a Muslim and disagree 100% with everything Vunjo said...

You are?

 

[Vunjo]

You want a miracle? This thread not becoming a troll haven will be a miracle...



1) Which religion? (I'm just curious)
2) Why would religion not want to be understood completely? Is it afraid of losing "appeal" after all of the mystery is over?
3) How does religion encourage thinking, and what type of thinking? - A god is the ultimate answer to everything, so thinking isn't necessary ...not to mention faith discourages questioning.

//\\0o//\\

1) I am a Christian.
2) It is very difficult, and almost impossible to think of what happened in past by bible, if we understand it exactly as it says. By that, Moses had to somehow open the Red sea, summon all those 7 wraths on the Egyptian Empire.
3) It makes you think not all things written are correct, it makes you use your own head. Also, it makes you think which events happened, and which are slightly modified in the book.

@En_Fuego, You are contradicting yourself. You do believe in your God, but can't trust some things prophets have said. How? :O You can't both believe in a God and think He doesn't exists at the same time, which you almost said, by saying I am wrong, in part "Prophets could be telling the truth.".

Also, we are completely different believes, no wonder we don't agree.

 

[En_Fuego]

@En_Fuego, You are contradicting yourself. You do believe in your God, but can't trust some things prophets have said. How? :O You can't both believe in a God and think He doesn't exists at the same time, which you almost said, by saying I am wrong, in part "Prophets could be telling the truth.".

My bad, more like 98% disagree

Speaking of God and religion, I do believe in Him. Actually, I don't see a reason not to believe in God.

Disagree. I don't think you should believe in God because you see no reason not to. There are plenty of reasons not to and there are plenty of reasons to. The wise person (whether religious or not) is the one who sifts through and comes to their own decision. Your decision calculus, in my opinion, is very flawed.

As some tales from bible cannot be described well, I think it's part of the reason why the religion exists, to show something which cannot be showed just like that.

Maybe for Christianity...I don't have this problem with Islam though (so again, disagree).

Also, I think that those prophets, and those who were writing history and bible were actually telling the truth.

I don't think it's a question of "true or false" it's a question of belief vs non-belief. Furthermore, the stories themselves aren't tests of truth...that's why they're stories. (They either happened or they did not, but that does not make them 'true' or 'false')

The religion we know now cannot be understood completely, neither it wants us to, but I think that they would come up with a more believe-able story than what's written.

Maybe you can't understand Christianity because of some neurotic disorder, but I don't really have any trouble comprehending any religious text. (Maybe I'm just insane though).

They wrote some miracle facts on purpose, to impress people, teach them basics of law in life, and well, to make them think a little.

I believe they wrote those to get people hooked in, rather than teach them...

I really stick to part where I said "They could have come up with a better story", because I think it's exactly the reason why they wrote such tales.

That literally makes no sense.

Also, we are completely different believes, no wonder we don't agree.

Typical arrogant Christian rhetoric; spouting off nonsense about how because we have different beliefs that we cannot agree on anything absolute. I suppose you also belong to the traditionalist sect and think that when you get married your wife should act subservient to you?

 

[Vunjo]

Exactly, there are plenty of reasons to believe, and not to believe in God. But if He indeed exists, nothing bad will happen if you do believe in him. In the end, if you are religious, only good thing may happen.

About describing some events, I do not think some of events from bible really happened (which ends up as we have different God, different past to believe, we can't really argue about it).

If you believe/do not believe in something, that means in your opinion it either happened or not, like you said, which can be either completely correct, partly, or absolutely wrong. So in theory, there is "true or false", where only few things about past are completely true/false.

You can't really explain that Moses somehow opened the Red Sea (Yes, I know I already said it, but that's the hardest event to understand In my opinion), but he had to find a way to somehow cross it.

They wrote some events on purpose with many reasons. First of all, we must know, that even they needed money, and some handwritten past was affected by human greed (Like I said, some, not all, not none). It can happen because of polithics as well. It's quite simple actually, since even we have many reasons to sometimes lie, they can have same/similar reasons as well.

If you think a little (no offense) about "They could have come up with a better story" part, you may find logic in it. If they really wanted us to believe in something, they wouldn't write miracles to happen. They would more likely compare it to something which includes both science and religion, as current religion is, and it always was completely out of scientific facts. On the other hand, they may have written it with such power on purpose, to get at a better position in polithics, to get more valuable things. Also, it's not just me coming up with that idea, to be more exact, both a priest in church and the religious teacher told me so. I love talking to grown up people, they do know something, and the fact that even a priest is a little against religion (in some parts, don't take it wrong) is impressive.

My post was 0% arrogant. You were posting your sentence because you know me from past, as little arrogant kid, which makes your mind automatically think that my posts are offensive. You haven't thought of the possibility that people change. If I am wrong here, please tell me, but in any way, my post was not arrogant even a bit. In this post, I already said few things which is only based on Christianity, thus speaking of different religions is needed in such conversations. About wife, well, I do not have reason to have one, nor will I ever want to live with another person.

 

[brad.dude03]

Oh man, one of these. Welp: I'm Agnostic, and anyone who is a firm believer in a religious institution, or an atheist, is an idiot. I tend to be more sympathetic to the atheists, but honestly right now militant atheist neckbeardy fucks piss me off just as much as the jesus freaks.

Here's the deal, folks. It's quite possible that there's some kind of afterlife, some kind of higher power, all manner of unknown mystery concerning the universe that we don't jack from shit about. Very likely. Look at how far science has taken us in the last hundred years. Anyone who tells me that we already know every thing there is to know about the higher mysteries just because some guy wrote it in a fucking book 2 thousand years ago needs to be forcibly reeducated.

Honestly, it's been said before, but I'll say it again: organized religion of nearly every form is a crock of shit. Being spiritual is not. It's perfectly okay to be spiritual, and is actually probably healthy, in its own way. Organized religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic, often twisted to extremes, and really does not do anyone any good. At all. Yeah, people need to feel like they 'belong' to something but if you're really so insecure about these issues maybe you should fucking think about them instead of just going with the herd to placate yourself.

AT THE VERY SAME TIME, it is so extremely arrogant to assume that the universe is dead and empty when the signs that it is not are all around us. The miracle of human consciousness should inspire hope for higher mysteries in anyone. Our world never stops astounding me, and while we may one day definitively find out that there is no afterlife, or there is no god, whatever, until then I reserve my right to sit on the fence about it.

I think the take-home point here is to make up your own damn mind about the universe, one way or another. For me, that means recognizing that it's basically impossible for us to understand the mysteries of god(s) and their intentions, and impossible to know if they even exist. I have not seen one credible argument for the existence, or non-existence, of god, in my entire time here on earth. No one has been able to prove anything to me one way or another, so I say fuck both.

 

[Kwah]

Oh man, one of these. Welp: I'm Agnostic, and anyone who is a firm believer in a religious institution, or an atheist, is an idiot. I tend to be more sympathetic to the atheists, but honestly right now militant atheist neckbeardy fucks piss me off just as much as the jesus freaks.

Here's the deal, folks. It's quite possible that there's some kind of afterlife, some kind of higher power, all manner of unknown mystery concerning the universe that we don't jack from shit about. Very likely. Look at how far science has taken us in the last hundred years. Anyone who tells me that we already know every thing there is to know about the higher mysteries just because some guy wrote it in a fucking book 2 thousand years ago needs to be forcibly reeducated.

Honestly, it's been said before, but I'll say it again: organized religion of nearly every form is a crock of shit. Being spiritual is not. It's perfectly okay to be spiritual, and is actually probably healthy, in its own way. Organized religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic, often twisted to extremes, and really does not do anyone any good. At all. Yeah, people need to feel like they 'belong' to something but if you're really so insecure about these issues maybe you should fucking think about them instead of just going with the herd to placate yourself.

AT THE VERY SAME TIME, it is so extremely arrogant to assume that the universe is dead and empty when the signs that it is not are all around us. The miracle of human consciousness should inspire hope for higher mysteries in anyone. Our world never stops astounding me, and while we may one day definitively find out that there is no afterlife, or there is no god, whatever, until then I reserve my right to sit on the fence about it.

I think the take-home point here is to make up your own damn mind about the universe, one way or another. For me, that means recognizing that it's basically impossible for us to understand the mysteries of god(s) and their intentions, and impossible to know if they even exist. I have not seen one credible argument for the existence, or non-existence, of god, in my entire time here on earth. No one has been able to prove anything to me one way or another, so I say fuck both.

I'm always confused by people who make the distinction between atheism and agnosticism on either side of the debate. I guess it works as a way to divide the militant from the not, but the technical definition of atheism is just a lack of belief in deities. Whereas agnosticism is the belief that we don't know if there is a god.

As someone who understands science, not knowing something and not believing it are one and the same. Without evidence to support it, I don't have a belief in it. Could a 'God' exist? Yeah, sure.

Will I believe in one without some positive (or negative, I guess?) proof? No, because that would be silly.

 

[busterkomo]

Oh man, one of these. Welp: I'm Agnostic, and anyone who is a firm believer in a religious institution, or an atheist, is an idiot. I tend to be more sympathetic to the atheists, but honestly right now militant atheist neckbeardy fucks piss me off just as much as the jesus freaks.

The important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.

 

[brad.dude03]

The important thing is you've found a way to feel superior to both.

The best part is that NO ONE has thus far been able to give me a reason not to!

That's what I'm fuckin' talking about.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Would I be favored if I say that either someone really wanted to control people by creating all these texts, OR if they are true (because I think scientifically there may have been a great flood after the last Ice Age, idk why it is denied, and some other events may have been true), then the only thing that someone can be coming from the sky in light and flame (and dragons) could be someone advanced - time traveler (I do not believe this is possible though, going to e.g Middle Ages), from another planet? Besides the drawings, texts a good example how a MACHINE would be named after an animal is how Native Americans called the Trains - 'Iron Horses'. Following this logic, and many other clues, I think it is possible that the so called Dragons and aura may have been a flying machine. So all these lies called RELIGION made to control people is either a work of Them, or such evil minds were merely human. Agreed?

 

[fladdermasken]

My view is a loosely knitted version of the anthropic principle. I observe, therefore the universe exists. If no concious life observes the universe, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Applying this, I haven't observed anything that must carry the touch of an omnipotent deity: therefore, for all intents and purposes, such a deity doesn't exist in a world that I perceive.

Or rather, my belief in its existence would be irrelevant.

You could obviously refute that I will be affected by it regardless of whether or not I have observed it. But from a supposedly infinite set of things that could potentially exist and affect me, I confine it to things I have a self-estimated reason for believing in.

 

[brad.dude03]

Would I be favored if I say that either someone really wanted to control people by creating all these texts, OR if they are true (because I think scientifically there may have been a great flood after the last Ice Age, idk why it is denied, and some other events may have been true), then the only thing that someone can be coming from the sky in light and flame (and dragons) could be someone advanced - time traveler (I do not believe this is possible though, going to e.g Middle Ages), from another planet? Besides the drawings, texts a good example how a MACHINE would be named after an animal is how Native Americans called the Trains - 'Iron Horses'. Following this logic, and many other clues, I think it is possible that the so called Dragons and aura may have been a flying machine. So all these lies called RELIGION made to control people is either a work of Them, or such evil minds were merely human. Agreed?

Pretty much no. Sounds cool, but no. A lot of the crazier stuff from the Bible is borrowed from other sources, and you'll notice that many of the most famous parts are borrowed from other traditions.

You assume that people wanted to use religion to control, which, initially, was not true. Religious beliefs are no different from mythology- people wanted an explanation of why the world is the way it is, what happens after death, etc, and at the time they didn't have science to figure things out with- so they turned to stories. The better the story, the more it was remembered.

People try to justify their religion by applying science to the Bible, but usually that ends up more laughable than religious explanations.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Nope, what I mean to say is that we are not alone and I've seen enough to conclude it.

Meaning - either aliens, or completely made up, no third option. Unfortunately science isn't very open minded, thus, anything not in the school toilet papers (oh I mean textbooks), is considered laughable. I do think so too - the stuff on the internet is laughable cause no real thing would be uploaded), but not all is laughable from what exists.

I am confused, to me the only possibility for any religion texts to be true are if they are describing highly advanced beings which in the eyes of our primitive ancestors were godly things. OR of course, all of it is Bunk.

DO not misunderstand me. I do not agree with religion in its current state presented by some institution to control (yes I know it was initially to learn people to be good but now - DESTROY the VATICAN - The center of ALL evil!). I think religion must be erradicated globally but the only possibility if any of it is true is if we are dealing with those extraterrestrial beings.

No demons, no angels, either flying machines like the example I gave how Indians call the trains 'iron horses' OR as you said - all is a lie.

 

[gorillabull]

RELIGION HAS BROUGHT NOTHING BUT WAR, FALSE HOPE AND DIVISION OF PEOPLE

 

[Joe-black-5]

Because North Korea is so religious, no one can stand it.

 

[The Wizard]

hey guys religion was only to explain unexplainable.
that primitive ancestors couldn't know anything about f.e. lightning - they thought it's god of thunder in rage etc.
the problem is that there'll always be something unexplainable.
but humans now know very much - we know how we appeared(religious version doesn't even seem serious), we know something about the universe. i know one day religion will loose its importance for humans

 

[RiotZ]

The Church is a socialist society of aristocrats controlling the masses by counting on the weak to continue wishing for something good to happen to them, or some dream of a place in the afterlife where when they die their lives won't be so shitty. All the while the church grows stronger and stronger.

This is how religion works.

@Fladdermasken, well put, I feel the same, way. All aside from the part of me loathing Christianity and everything it stands for.

 

[Mr. Bob]

Catholic Church*

Blame Nero.

 

[Ender]

hey guys religion was only to explain unexplainable.
that primitive ancestors couldn't know anything about f.e. lightning - they thought it's god of thunder in rage etc.
the problem is that there'll always be something unexplainable.
but humans now know very much - we know how we appeared(religious version doesn't even seem serious), we know something about the universe. i know one day religion will loose its importance for humans

define something, also define very much, you're definition seems a little../ small , because < 1% is not very much infact saying that is < 1% may make you have the impressions that we know something close to 1%, we don't, anything other then infinity devided by infinity is limit 0(ie not zero but practically 0)

we know how we appeared

we do? no we don't we think that we are almost certain, but we don't know

(religious version doesn't even seem serious)

which one are you talking about? hindu,buddist,christen, muslim, juddist...

the truth is nothing can prove that a god doesn't exist(you cannot prove that something doesn't exist) so any expression about the existence of god is merely an opinion, a belief and in most cases a religion(atheism)

one day religion will loose its importance for humans

morality cannot exist without religion, after all if once you are dead, you are dead why bother being good(how is good defined?) do what you want, you are going to die no matter what you do and there is no benefit from being "good".

 

[Boris_Spider]

hey guys religion was only to explain unexplainable.

There's a difference between "unexplainable" and ignorance... Mostly when the ignorance is intentional...

//\\==//\\

 

[gorillabull]

the bible was written by a bunch of goat herding farmers who lived in an age where science did not exist. the bible being the source of all the beliefs in god and jesus and all i think that we should not be arguing about whether god exists or not but about how for so many years a belief which is completely irrational and idiotic managed to control so many people and sadly still does today.

 

[Ramza]

morality cannot exist without religion, after all if once you are dead, you are dead why bother being good(how is good defined?) do what you want, you are going to die no matter what you do and there is no benefit from being "good".

Albert Einstein has got something to say about that: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

It's true. And this next bit even more so (from another forum): ''The morality of atheists is in a sense more noble than the morality of theists. While theists believe that gods will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own sense of morality. It is morality for its own sake, not out of fear for punishment or desire for reward.''

Also, by your logic all atheists would be murdering psychopaths.

Spoiler

We aren't.

 

[Ender]

Albert Einstein has got something to say about that: "If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

It's true. And this next bit even more so (from another forum): ''The morality of atheists is in a sense more noble than the morality of theists. While theists believe that gods will punish them for immoral acts and reward them for moral acts, atheists have no motivation to be moral other than their own sense of morality.

thank you for giving me a supporting example of why Morality cannot exist without religion.
the Mode¹ Human will always take the easy rout unless there are consequences that out way the gain.

"own sense of morality" exactly my point i couldn't say it clearer, atheists have no reason to be moral other then their own sense of morality, which is.. what exactly?
they are more prone to do drugs^{(need reference)}
they are more prone to commit suicide^A
the list goes on and on.

oh yeah, they also support infanticide.

what is your moral code? can you explain it? most atheists⁴ when asked this question will flounder and blabber and be unable to come up with an definite answer

Also, by your logic all atheists would be murdering psychopaths.

Spoiler

We aren't.

Wrong, You don't need a Moral code to not murder someone, all you need is a society² telling you that if you do you will be punished³

also did you know that Atheists are less happy^{ie their higher suicide rates} then people who believe in a god? and they flounder about searching for a purpose in life.

1 the mode is the most common data in a data set, people mistakenly use average to refer to the most common person, this is inaccurate as average just means the sum of all divided by how many people there are.
2 Morality doesn't even come into your point, any society can create laws to protect weak people's "rights"(what are the rights anyways? how are rights defined? why do humans have these rights?) from strong people.
3 this doesn't prevent some people, but these few feel that the gain out weighs the possible consequence and they think that they won't get caught, this holds true for all criminals especially psychopaths.
4 this is probably a mistake on my part to say most, but since all atheists i have asked to explain their moral code don't come up with anything definite I am making this assumption(note this is on the spot, so they don't have time to think about it, I guess this is unfair, however, any person who is religious⁵ doesn't have a problem telling you what their moral code is
5 religious does not mean they say the are christen, muslim, whatever.. it means they are christen, muslim, whatever..

 

[Ramza]

thank you for giving me a supporting example of why Morality cannot exist without religion.

I did no such thing.

"own sense of morality" exactly my point i couldn't say it clearer, atheists have no reason to be moral other then their own sense of morality, which is.. what exactly?

I think atheists are more moral than theists, because theists’ beliefs are stagnant. Atheists are more willing to adapt their morality to a changing world where new ideas are always evolving. For some reason you seem to be thinking morals can only come from religion. But what about society, culture, and family? Or better yet; logic and reason. Being part of some outdated cult is not a requirement for having morals.

they are more prone to do drugs^{(need reference)}
they are more prone to commit suicide^A
the list goes on and on.

Theists (Christians) believe committing suicide is a sin. Committing a sin means you're going to hell.
Atheists don't believe in hell. Mystery solved.

oh yeah, they also support infanticide.

That would be a generalization.

what is your moral code? can you explain it? most atheists⁴ when asked this question will flounder and blabber and be unable to come up with an definite answer

4 this is probably a mistake on my part to say most, but since all atheists i have asked to explain their moral code don't come up with anything definite I am making this assumption(note this is on the spot, so they don't have time to think about it, I guess this is unfair, however, any person who is religious⁵ doesn't have a problem telling you what their moral code is

Because atheist morals aren't set in stone like they are for theists. Like I said earlier, we are more willing to adapt our morality to a changing world. It's hard to come up with a bunch of rules on the spot.

Wrong, You don't need a Moral code to not murder someone, all you need is a society² telling you that if you do you will be punished³

Really? Are you really that delusional? Do you really think that, without a society/laws, atheists would suddenly start murdering people? That the ONLY reason atheists don't, is because they would be going to prison? You must be trollin' me. :I

Fun fact: In America, about 80% of the population is Christian and 8-16% is atheist. Yet the population of atheists in prisons is 0.21%. Wonder what you'll have to say about that.

also did you know that Atheists are less happy

I didn't know that. Probably because it isn't true.

and they flounder about searching for a purpose in life.

Some atheists might (I know I'm not), but so are theists (one of the reasons religions exist is because people were searching for a purpose in life).

 

[Ender]

I did no such thing.

first you said that atheists moral actions comes from their sense of morality(which i didn't think they had) then you said that their morality adapts to the time and changes, ie its flexible.(you are going to say no its not!, but if something changes to fit the circumstances then it is flexible)
flexible morality yeah like that is really morality, so if by doing something that would break your code of morality will let you live you will do it, because your morality isn't set in stone(well i guess it wouldn't violate your code of morality then because your morality is now.

thank you for arguing for me, with the oppositions debate like yours who needs to type anything?

I didn't know that. Probably because it isn't true.

interesting Happy people are more prone to suicide, I guess a lot of psychology text books need to be rewritten, because they disagree with your expertise.
again, Atheist's are more likely to commit suicide then religious people. From my limited knowledge, depressed people suicide(note depression is an antonym of happiness)

Some atheists might (I know I'm not), but so are theists (one of the reasons religions exist is because people were searching for a purpose in life).

what is your purpose then? It will fall into these two categories, A) taking care care of yourself, B) helping the downtrodden (with some definition of down trodden)
Religious people have one Purpose, one that if they truly believe in they are willing to die a hundred deaths for. how does your purpose compare to that?

That would be a generalization.

wrong this is statistically based most atheist support abortion right? ergo Infanticide,

you cannot say life begins at 3 months, at 4 months at 9 months, once you do that what's to stop it from being moved to 1 year? 20? 30? NOTHING so again if you say that life doesn't begin at conception then you can, using the same thought process say it doesn't begin till you are twenty a human is a human even if it is only a fetal stage.

 

[Ramza]

I like how you cherry picked only four lines out of my whole post. But anyway...

first you said that atheists moral actions comes from their sense of morality(which i didn't think they had)

Well, you thought wrong.

then you said that their morality adapts to the time and changes, ie its flexible.(you are going to say no its not!, but if something changes to fit the circumstances then it is flexible)

I'm not going to say it's not. Atheist morality is ''flexible'', yeah. But not in the way you're thinking (as in, changing over day).

flexible morality yeah like that is really morality, so if by doing something that would break your code of morality will let you live you will do it, because your morality isn't set in stone(well i guess it wouldn't violate your code of morality then because your morality is now.

Don't even know what you're trying to say here. Give me an example.

interesting Happy people are more prone to suicide, I guess a lot of psychology text books need to be rewritten, because they disagree with your expertise.
again, Atheist's are more likely to commit suicide then religious people. From my limited knowledge, depressed people suicide(note depression is an antonym of happiness)

Explained this already in my last post. But it seems like you decided to ignore that part, along with pretty much all the rest of my post.

what is your purpose then? It will fall into these two categories, A) taking care care of yourself, B) helping the downtrodden (with some definition of down trodden)
Religious people have one Purpose, one that if they truly believe in they are willing to die a hundred deaths for. how does your purpose compare to that?

As an atheist, you are free to choose your own meaning in life, without authority, gods, or holy scriptures to tell you why you are here. It's your job to figure it out for yourself. You know this is the only life you are going to get, and that you must make the most of it and enjoy it as much as you can while it lasts. To live life to the fullest, and exult in how fortunate you are to have even lived can go beyond any petty religious experience any theist can claim.

You don't live your life for an eternal reward or fear of eternal punishment, you live life because you want to. To share your life with people you love, and be kind to others because you want to - and no other reason - is far more noble than any reason a theist can claim.

But I bet you're just going to ignore this answer as well. It's what theists do best, right? Ignoring and avoiding. :I

wrong this is statistically based most atheist support abortion right? ergo Infanticide,

Most, maybe. But not all. Your last post was still a generalization.

you cannot say life begins at 3 months, at 4 months at 9 months, once you do that what's to stop it from being moved to 1 year? 20? 30? NOTHING so again if you say that life doesn't begin at conception then you can, using the same thought process say it doesn't begin till you are twenty a human is a human even if it is only a fetal stage.

It's not about when life starts, it's about when life becomes sentient. I'm no expert on this, but I believe it's at 3 months or so.

 

[trolman]

The only reason atheists have morality is because of the sosicety we live in today is heavily based on the bible and its sequals.My point is if you were your morality comes from your parents and your surroundings,you dont figure it out yourself.Ofcourse you are not going to start randomly killing ppl because even if you dont belive,you've been told that doing others harm is bad.Now you might say "well thats natural" but the natural reaction is the eye-for-eye and there are sadly people who still think in that way. And this is where your flexible morality comes in, if society loosens,so will you. Right now most of you "people" dont know that murder is legal... psst and its called abortion,like no one ever asks the baby if it wants to live...

 

[RiotZ]

define something, also define very much, you're definition seems a little../ small , because < 1% is not very much infact saying that is < 1% may make you have the impressions that we know something close to 1%, we don't, anything other then infinity devided by infinity is limit 0(ie not zero but practically 0)
we do? no we don't we think that we are almost certain, but we don't know

which one are you talking about? hindu,buddist,christen, muslim, juddist...

the truth is nothing can prove that a god doesn't exist(you cannot prove that something doesn't exist) so any expression about the existence of god is merely an opinion, a belief and in most cases a religion(atheism)


morality cannot exist without religion, after all if once you are dead, you are dead why bother being good(how is good defined?) do what you want, you are going to die no matter what you do and there is no benefit from being "good".

Law enforces morality, religion can cease to exist while morality is maintained, because morality to a certain point has nothing to do with religion. If you conduct yourself poorly in your actions, people will dislike you, and something bad will likely happen to you, albeit prison, death, etc. When religion is gone, morales will change, but for the most part remain the same.

This is a common argument that religious people make.

As Ramza stated, Atheist morality is flexible, though I am not 100% Atheist, and open to the teachings of any non-Christian religion. In this context flexible means, not to continue doing the same thing even if it cosmically immoral (wrong on a level beyond religion), even if the church or another organization says we should continue.

 

[trolman]

Law enforces morality, religion can cease to exist while morality is maintained, because morality to a certain point has nothing to do with religion. If you conduct yourself poorly in your actions, people will dislike you, and something bad will likely happen to you, albeit prison, death, etc. When religion is gone, morales will change, but for the most part remain the same.

This is a common argument that religious people make.

As Ramza stated, Atheist morality is flexible, though I am not 100% Atheist, and open to the teachings of any non-Christian religion. In this context flexible means, not to continue doing the same thing even if it cosmically immoral (wrong on a level beyond religion), even if the church or another organization says we should continue.

The same law that makes "liberational" wars just for the sake of oil?No thanks.And law has nothing to do with the relegious sayings like "thou shall not kill" or anything,nope -.-

relegion wont be gone but if it does there would be nothing holding together everyone's moral view,like you cant convince that man on the street why he cant take your money

And yeah it seems like you have no idea what christianity really is,read any of the gospels and get a clue why it is a good thing if everyone did what Christ said.

 

[RiotZ]

The same law that makes "liberational" wars just for the sake of oil?No thanks.And law has nothing to do with the relegious sayings like "thou shall not kill" or anything,nope -.-

relegion wont be gone but if it does there would be nothing holding together everyone's moral view,like you cant convince that man on the street why he cant take your money

And yeah it seems like you have no idea what christianity really is,read any of the gospels and get a clue why it is a good thing if everyone did what Christ said.

Your book speaks of its own laws, like you state "Thou shalt not kill" being one of them, but what you forget, that it is your leaders, who sent thousands to die, and thousands to slaughter during the Crusades. That is not to forget the Salem Witch Trials, which as we know today, there is no such thing as Witchcraft, but all things are warranted if it is God's will? This is what you will say.

I would gladly renounce any allegiance, to a cause, if it meant we were to spill the blood of our brothers, regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs.



I wish everyone could come to understand peace, peacefully... This should be enlightening to you all.

 

[Ramza]

The same law that makes "liberational" wars just for the sake of oil?No thanks.And law has nothing to do with the relegious sayings like "thou shall not kill" or anything,nope -.-

relegion wont be gone but if it does there would be nothing holding together everyone's moral view,like you cant convince that man on the street why he cant take your money

I debunked that silly theory some posts ago.

 

[trolman]

Your book speaks of its own laws, like you state "Thou shalt not kill" being one of them, but what you forget, that it is your leaders, who sent thousands to die, and thousands to slaughter during the Crusades. That is not to forget the Salem Witch Trials, which as we know today, there is no such thing as Witchcraft, but all things are warranted if it is God's will? This is what you will say.

I would gladly renounce any allegiance, to a cause, if it meant we were to spill the blood of our brothers, regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs.



I wish everyone could come to understand peace, peacefully... This should be enlightening to you all.

xD you have no clue about any of those events do you?

It was the church that crucified Christ!The pope in his behavior he was a bigger atheist then dawkins and hitchkens combined in the sence of the rape he did.Plus the motivation for the crusades was greed and power,not messages from the bible.Same thing about the witch burnings, got someone you dont like? Frame him for heresy and watch them die! Jesus says it in Mark 34:75 !

"I would gladly renounce any allegiance, to a cause, if it meant we were to spill the blood of our brothers, regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs." A thing we agree on. But in a way the messages of love passed trough the new testemony is the foundation of our current peace. The events you said were ironic examples of how personal hate or lust and greed could come from the people who are supposed to be the exact opposite.That is how terrible we people really are.

 

[RiotZ]

xD you have no clue about any of those events do you?

It was the church that crucified Christ!The pope in his behavior he was a bigger atheist then dawkins and hitchkens combined in the sence of the rape he did.Plus the motivation for the crusades was greed and power,not messages from the bible.Same thing about the witch burnings, got someone you dont like? Frame him for heresy and watch them die! Jesus says it in Mark 34:75 !

"I would gladly renounce any allegiance, to a cause, if it meant we were to spill the blood of our brothers, regardless of their ethnicity or beliefs." A thing we agree on. But in a way the messages of love passed trough the new testemony is the foundation of our current peace. The events you said were ironic examples of how personal hate or lust and greed could come from the people who are supposed to be the exact opposite.That is how terrible we people really are.

I agree with this entire paragraph.

Religion is honest in its intentions, but it will always be used as tool that inspires biggotry, racism, and war.