What if God..

[PurplePoot]

I'm not talking about creation now. Most Atheists disapprove the very excistence of Jesus Himself, even though there's historical evidence for that.

Saying most do is a rather gross exaggeration. They say that he was just a random martyr, though, and not the son of a god.

Anyhow, I have also seen people demonstrate that there actually is not considerable evidence for Jesus' existence, although I myself see no reason to doubt it.

Your parents however, do need motivation to give you birth.

Instinct. I'll look into the explanation for that (if one has been found yet).

 

[Aschy]

Saying most do is a rather gross exaggeration. They say that he was just a random martyr, though, and not the son of a god.

Anyhow, I have also seen people demonstrate that there actually is not considerable evidence for Jesus' existence, although I myself see no reason to doubt it.

Instinct. I'll look into the explanation for that (if one has been found yet).

Well 2000 years ago is a long time, we are bound to lose a lot of information unless it is written down.

There were also many impostors claiming to be the "son of god", but were not actually Jesus.

 

[Elenai]

Well, it was suppose to be God doing it for him I'm pretty sure, and before that God had created a pillar of fire to slow the Egyptians. But it all does sound to perfect, all these old people and sick people who slow everyone down. I just don't really see how they could have peace'd that fast.

Remember, old, and sick people, do not usually make very long living slaves...

 

[Aschy]

Remember, old, and sick people, do not usually make very long living slaves...

True say lol, I just watch to many movies.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Non-believers look upon Religious history as mere mythology and creative stories therefore, telling them that most of it is true and proven will not solve the argument.

And implying that you will blindly and unquestioningly listen to what you are told, depending on who tells you, is any better...? That's the entire reason most people that hate organised religions hate them.

Also, again, the general issue is whether or not Jesus was a miracle-worker, not whether or not he existed.

Your parents however, do need motivation to give you birth.

For the majority of animals, mating is instinctive. When it's also associated with physical pleasure, and then later on hormones, and then later on affection and love, I would say that most parents do not need motivation for giving birth to their children. "We should have kids" is a normal stage of most marriages, and the majority of people have a pretty good idea how many they want before they are even in a serious relationship, whether they consciously think about it or not.

 

[Zombie]

And implying that you will blindly and unquestioningly listen to what you are told, depending on who tells you, is any better...? That's the entire reason most people that hate organised religions hate them.

Who said that? What does that have to do with the quote? I was simply stating that Jesus' excistence is a proven historical fact, still most atheists doubt he really excisted. I was merely pointing out that a large part of atheists is not as logical as they think they are and they can act exactly like they think Religious people do.

(On a sidenote: Did you guys know that the First church of Atheism was founded? D

 

[Aschy]

I was merely pointing out that a large part of atheists is not as logical as they think they are and they can act exactly like they think Religious people do.

What do Religious people act like?

 

[PurplePoot]

Well 2000 years ago is a long time, we are bound to lose a lot of information unless it is written down.

There were also many impostors claiming to be the "son of god", but were not actually Jesus.

So that justifies stating things without evidence?

Who said that? What does that have to do with the quote? I was simply stating that Jesus' excistence is a proven historical fact, still most atheists doubt he really excisted. I was merely pointing out that a large part of atheists is not as logical as they think they are and they can act exactly like they think Religious people do.

I see many people say the exact opposite, so I'd be interested to see you present this proof.

(On a sidenote: Did you guys know that the First church of Atheism was founded? D

Church of Atheism...?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Who said that? What does that have to do with the quote? I was simply stating that Jesus' excistence is a proven historical fact, still most atheists doubt he really excisted. I was merely pointing out that a large part of atheists is not as logical as they think they are and they can act exactly like they think Religious people do.

I seem to have quoted the wrong post. I'll fix that. What I meant was:

Non-believers look upon Religious history as mere mythology and creative stories therefore, telling them that most of it is true and proven will not solve the argument.

And implying that you will blindly and unquestioningly listen to what you are told, depending on who tells you, is any better...? That's the entire reason most people that hate organised religions hate them.

And anyways, you are the one that implied you would believe anything depending on who told you. Right here:

The point of religion is to believe in something without evidence.

That moronic statement is only fuel to the fire of your imaginary belief that belief in Jesus requires belief in God. Of course people are going to question the validity of "facts" that you yourself acknowledge you have no evidence for. Seriously, I am this |--| close to flaming the shit out of you and leaving it on your front porch.

P.S: Jews believe Jesus existed, but he wasn't the messiah. Muslims believe that Jesus existed, but was only a prophet and not the son of God. Atheists believe that Jesus existed, and was only a carpenter.

 

[Tyranid]

How about.. God exists and doesn't exist at the same time. He exists for those who believe in him and for those who do not believe in him he does not exist? In other words he does and doesn't exist at the same time, considering how it is already reality warping creature I doubt this wouldn't be so hard for it.

 

[Arvedui]

Church of Atheism...?

First Church of Atheism

Kinda hypocritical if you ask me :/

 

[Aschy]

So that justifies stating things without evidence?

What were you looking at my sugalumps? Do you mean:

There were also many impostors claiming to be the "son of god", but were not actually Jesus.

You can't tell me that their wouldn't be impostors, of one of the most well known people of history. I'm not saying the one written about in the Bible was a fake, hell if I didn't believe in God and lived at that time I would have done that shit I would have been known forever as Jesus that is...

 

[Hakeem]

they said the bible was open to interpretation. So I attack peoples' interpretations of it

Okay, but unless you are attacking an interpretation that your opponent supports, it is pointless. Note that this is distinctly different from attacking the Bible itself.

Muslims believe that Jesus existed, but was only a prophet

That's a somewhat misleading use of "only."

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Last time I stated some information Hakeem became a douche so this time I'll just ask questions. Usually I have high respect for you Hakeem but in that situation you failed miserably.

What is the point of evolution? How will it help enhance humanity? By proving Christianity false, do you enhance humanity by destroying one of the strongest bases for morality and humanitarian (communistic) thinking? Can Christianity be destroyed if you prove Evolution correct or will it simply *evolve*?

This is the most important question. How old do most scientists believe the earth to be?

 

[xRikkux]

As what kind of guy? Also, Jesus definitely existed, the issue is whether or not he performed miracles.

Jesus Christ, didn't I just get -rep over this, in this exact fucking thread, two pages back? Keep pushing it fuckface, I'm plenty venomous for a whole herd overbearing little shits that thinks they can tell me how to think.

hate to bust your anger bubble on an old post, buuuuuuut grammar check ^-^
there needs to be an 'of' in between herd and overbearing....just so you know
(chalks one up for messing with alex)

haha anyway back to thread topic....

 

[Aschy]

This is the most important question. How old do most scientists believe the earth to be?

Millions and Millions of years old, the argument is whether or not we existed for that long.

How will it help enhance humanity?

Honestly haven't you wished at a party that you could have pleasured both those women at the same time, well if it exists then it could be possible.

By proving Christianity false, do you enhance humanity by destroying one of the strongest bases for morality and humanitarian (communistic) thinking?

I really want answer for this one too.

Can Christianity be destroyed if you prove Evolution correct or will it simply *evolve*?

Well unless God did use creation and evolution to create the earth, if he didn't then I would hope it doesn't "evolve". This would plunge Christianity it deeper into the word we know as "lies".

 

[Pyritie]

What is the point of evolution? How will it help enhance humanity?

Evolution itself won't "enhance humanity". It got Homo sapiens but that's about it. Humans haven't really changed much (biologically) for several thousands of years. (Forget what it was. 60,000 or 100,000 or something.)

Can Christianity be destroyed if you prove Evolution correct or will it simply *evolve*?

Evolution has been proven to be correct for a long while now. Christianity hasn't gone away much at all.

This is the most important question. How old do most scientists believe the earth to be?

About 4.5 billion years.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Last time I stated some information Hakeem [HIGHLIGHT]became a douche[/code] so this time I'll just ask questions. Usually I have high respect for you Hakeem but in that situation you failed miserably.

[HIGHLIGHT]What is the point of evolution? How will it help enhance humanity? By proving Christianity false, do you enhance humanity by destroying one of the strongest bases for morality and humanitarian (communistic) thinking? Can Christianity be destroyed if you prove Evolution correct or will it simply *evolve*?[/code]

This is the most important question. How old do most scientists believe the earth to be?

lolwut

It isn't even possible for evolution to disprove Christianity in any way shape or form. If you weren't such a douche, you'd be able to see that Creationism and evolution are perfectly capable of coexisting. Does the bible say how God created everything? No, just that S/He/It did. Evolution says what and how things happen, and give the "why" as survival. Just because something has one identifiable cause does not mean it can not have any others. Evolution doesn't even acknowledge God, positively or negatively. Evolution is, in simple terms, what has been observed to happen, and extrapolations based upon those observations, with regards to the changes in different species. "These bugs are green because the ones that weren't didn't blend in so well, and got eaten." Finally, is it just fucking possible that God nudges everything in the right direction for evolution to happen?

Maybe God created the universe and scientists are making up the big bang theory to try and explain creation? [HIGHLIGHT]That's why it's called a *theory* they can't prove it.[/code] The only real evidence they have is dark matter/energy. Oh and did I mention those are just theories too that they hope the hadron collider can explain.

By the way. Misusing terminology and basing entire confrontational statements around that fallacious understanding? Definitely doesn't make you look like a douche. For real.

 

[TheDivineBoss]

Eppyboy says:
It isn't even possible for evolution to disprove Christianity in any way shape or form. If you weren't such a douche, you'd be able to see that Creationism and evolution are perfectly capable of coexisting. Does the bible say how God created everything? No, just that S/He/It did. Evolution says what and how things happen, and give the "why" as survival. Just because something has one identifiable cause does not mean it can not have any others. Evolution doesn't even acknowledge God, positively or negatively. Evolution is, in simple terms, what has been observed to happen, and extrapolations based upon those observations, with regards to the changes in different species. "These bugs are green because the ones that weren't didn't blend in so well, and got eaten." Finally, is it just fucking possible that God nudges everything in the right direction for evolution to happen?

Do you mean:

God: "Ok, let's have some fun here. I'll create some life here, here and here and come back over a couple of zillion years and see how things are then. Can't be too long.''

 

[Dreadnought[dA]]

Always wondered how an eyeball could evolve/mutate in less than 4.5 billion years.

You'd like to think evolution has been proven, but science relies on being able to duplicate/replicate. Natural selection, not evolution is what they have proven. But how do lifeforms create new genes? They describe it as mutation which IMO is pretty darn vague.

My discussion (argument) relies on you believing in big bang or primordial goo. If there is another theory or some such let me know.

Actually by even discussing this I'm being hypocritical, because I always tell people it's irrelevant whether or not you know a omnipotent being created the universe. In Christianities case, believing in creation is not a requirement to enter heaven, accepting Jesus as your lord and savior is. It's kind of fun though so keep it a little

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Always wondered how an eyeball could evolve/mutate in less than 4.5 billion years.

Cells for detecting light => cells for detecting specific types of light => clusters of cells capable of detecting different types of light.

You'd like to think evolution has been proven, but science relies on being able to duplicate/replicate. Natural selection, not evolution is what they have proven. But how do lifeforms create new genes? They describe it as mutation which IMO is pretty darn vague.

Genetic mutations happen all the time. Most of them just don't do anything too important.

"In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection." - Wikipedia

"3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." - dictionary.reference.com

"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life." - UC Berkley

My discussion (argument) relies on you believing in big bang or primordial goo. If there is another theory or some such let me know.

Actually by even discussing this I'm being hypocritical, because I always tell people it's irrelevant whether or not you [HIGHLIGHT]know[/code] a omnipotent being created the universe. In Christianities case, believing in creation is not a requirement to enter heaven, accepting Jesus as your lord and savior is. It's kind of fun though so keep it a little

[HIGHLIGHT]Believe[/code]

For the record, disbelief in evolution is not a requirement to believe in Creation.

"Vatican says Evolution does not prove the non-existence of God
Evolution and the Biblical account of Genesis are 'perfectly compatible' claims the Catholic Church" - www.timesonline.co.uk 6 Mar 2009

"In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of 'ensouling' humans was left to God." - www.law.umkc.edu

"Pope John Paul II articulated the church's position most clearly in a 1996 address to the Pontifical Academy for Sciences, saying the theory of evolution is 'more than a hypothesis.'" - www.LATimes.com 5 Mar 2009

You can stop with the bad science now.

 

[PurplePoot]

What were you looking at my sugalumps? Do you mean:

You can't tell me that their wouldn't be impostors, of one of the most well known people of history. I'm not saying the one written about in the Bible was a fake, hell if I didn't believe in God and lived at that time I would have done that shit I would have been known forever as Jesus that is...

No, I mean that you don't get carte blanche to say whatever you want if the document was 2,000 years old. If there is a lack of historical evidence, tough.

Okay, but unless you are attacking an interpretation that your opponent supports, it is pointless. Note that this is distinctly different from attacking the Bible itself.

If large groups (not just single nutjobs) are able to get such interpretations (and understandably) from the bible, then I see that as being a critique of the bible itself.

Especially since whenever you attack the bible itself you're told it isn't meant to be literal, is open to interpretation, blah blah blah.

I really want answer for this one too.

People shouldn't need to be scared into morality. Most nonreligious people are 'moral' as well.

 

[Zombie]

And anyways, you are the one that implied you would believe anything depending on who told you.

Yes, I believe in the Bible's content and I also believe in Catholic dogma. Most Catholics do. Believing everything depending on who said it is called "trust".

That moronic statement is only fuel to the fire of your imaginary belief that belief in Jesus requires belief in God.

I don't recall stating or even thinking anything like that.

Of course people are going to question the validity of "facts" that you yourself acknowledge you have no evidence for.

It's really hard to bring up evidence for creation, but there are many other things that are already proven.

I admit, stating this was stupid.

 

[Gilles]

Teh_Ephy, watch the insults.

---------------------------------------

I'm a little lost. What exactly is being discussed here? It seems more of a discussion for the sake of discussion, with no real focal point.

 

[Elenai]

After looking at the 'evolution vs. creation ex nihlo' argument between Teh_Ephy and Dreadnaught, and Zombie I would like to conclude this, and shall tell you a story:

(and since I'm the HIVE priest you can take my word for it )

A little while back I was discussing this very exact thing with Teh_Ephy, and I went on a research quest. And after passing through all sorts of rather trying times, and conflicting websites, and various other such things, I looked in my bible and I sat down and thought...hmmmn...what seems to be what here...

And after FINALLY making it to mount doom and throwing the ring into the fire and being rescued by eagles...

I concluded:

---

God created the Heavens and the Earth, he 'spread them', thus...The Big Bang is correct! +1

God did not explicitly state "I made animals from nothing", and infact states, birds and fish came out of the sea, sounds alot like evolution to me... +2

These animals were told to multiply and be fruitful, and fill the earth, etc, etc. +3

The 'week' day was not 24 hours, since if it were 'completely literal' and not 'literal with poetic language' then the sun would not have been 'made' yet, and you couldn't even have a day.

The only thing that gives us pause, is the account of Adam, and Eve, which I as of yet am still researching.

But all in all:

God is an artist, and biology is his marble. Genesis' creation story is a parable, that in symbolic language describes a literal event. Much like Revelation.

God over time did indeed make everything that lives today. But he did not 'poof' Venus de Milo into existence. He carved it over time, with a plan, and with a purpose, not through random mutation, or mistakes, or etc. But through a guided, intelligent process, that to us probably seems rather random.

Afterall, when a sculptor works...his chips look random...but alas, he knows what he is doing.

Evolution, The Big Bang, and Creationism...it is compatible. Afterall, if Revelation is a literal:

'Jesus is coming back, and we are going up to be in paradise to defeat evil, while the earth suffers various bad things (symbolically described).

And it is the 'end of all things'

Then Genesis being 'the beginning of all things', can be literal too, if not symbolically described.

 

[Zombie]

Great way of thinking, Elenai. Compromises ftw.

 

[Aschy]

No, I mean that you don't get carte blanche to say whatever you want if the document was 2,000 years old. If there is a lack of historical evidence, tough.

What? I was merely stating how our calender is 2,000 years old based on Jesus's death. And that if we hadn't written it down then we would have probably ended up with the story of a "fake" Jesus.

People shouldn't need to be scared into morality. Most nonreligious people are 'moral' as well.

I agree with you.


It's just hard to argue my part about this one with people because I believe being moral is being clean of sin all the time, or repenting when necessary, not that I live this way myself.

The only thing that gives us pause, is the account of Adam, and Eve, which I as of yet am still researching.

This is the account that almost leads me to believing in the Bible, Satan's trickery. No where else in the bible does Satan do his first wrong doing but here. I'm also a great believer that demons inhabit the earth today.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Yes, I believe in the Bible's content and I also believe in Catholic dogma. Most Catholics do. Believing everything depending on who said it is called "trust".

No. Trust is believing the slightly unreasonable thing Mary tells you instead of the conflicting reasonable thing Joe tells you. Believing everything you are told by a certain person or group is called "stupidity".

I don't recall stating or even thinking anything like that.

If you were the person saying that almost all atheists believe Jesus never even existed, you implied it pretty heavily. I apologise if I'm getting you confused with someone else.

It's really hard to bring up evidence for creation, but there are many other things that are already proven.

So by that logic, if some of the answers on my upcoming mid-term in Logic Design are perfectly correct, all the others have to be, because knowing what I'm talking about some of the time is basically the same as knowing what I'm talking about all of the time. Sweet, I know at least half of the subject material, it looks like I'm good!

Great way of thinking, Elenai. Compromises ftw.

Just because I'm still worked up about this, I said it first:

Finally, is it just fucking possible that God nudges everything in the right direction for evolution to happen?

 

[Zombie]

No. Trust is believing the slightly unreasonable thing Mary tells you instead of the conflicting reasonable thing Joe tells you. Believing everything you are told by a certain person or group is called "stupidity".

Maybe Mary will end up to be right afterall. Besides, if a priest said the sky is green and the grass is blue, I wouldn't believe it either, but let's not go into that subject.

So by that logic, if some of the answers on my upcoming mid-term in Logic Design are perfectly correct, all the others have to be, because knowing what I'm talking about some of the time is basically the same as knowing what I'm talking about all of the time. Sweet, I know at least half of the subject material, it looks like I'm good!

You aren't a writing considered to be sacred by millions of humans.

 

[PurplePoot]

This is the account that almost leads me to believing in the Bible, Satan's trickery. No where else in the bible does Satan do his first wrong doing but here. I'm also a great believer that demons inhabit the earth today.

The bible leads you to believing in the bible?

You aren't a writing considered to be sacred by millions of humans.

Can you say Communist Manifesto?

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Maybe Mary will end up to be right afterall. Besides, if a priest said the sky is green and the grass is blue, I wouldn't believe it either, but let's not go into that subject.

Of course she could be, because what she's saying is only slightly unreasonable, and fully within the realm of possibility, if not probability. We seem to have come to terms on what trust is, so I'll leave it at that.

You aren't a writing considered to be sacred by millions of humans.

What I hold dear to me has little to do with what I criticise. If anything, I will criticise my little brother equally, if not more than, someone else doing the same thing. As it were, most people would be the same.

 

[Arvedui]

Can you say Communist Manifesto?

Torah
Qur'an
The Vedas
Upanishads
Ramayana
Mahabharata
Bhagavad Gita
Puranas
Dharmaśāstra
Star Wars
Lord of the Rings

I mean...*cough*

Anyway a good quote from Futurama (also found in my signature):

God: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

 

[Hakeem]

If large groups (not just single nutjobs) are able to get such interpretations (and understandably) from the bible, then I see that as being a critique of the bible itself.

I'd see it as a critique of people, personally.

The bible leads you to believing in the bible?

It must be very convincing, eh?

 

[PurplePoot]

I'd see it as a critique of people, personally.

And as the bible was written by people, then does that not follow as well?

It must be very convincing, eh?

Indeed.

 

[Hakeem]

And as the bible was written by people, then does that not follow as well?

A different group of people than the one your argument critiques.

 

[Aschy]

The bible leads you to believing in the bible?

I consider everyone atheist until they accept a belief about God, this account is one of the major factors of why I am not atheist. I really believe this is the only thing demons are about, trying to sway us from righteousness in any, any way they can.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I consider everyone atheist until they accept a belief about God, this account is one of the major factors of why I am not atheist. I really believe this is the only thing demons are about, trying to sway us from righteousness in any, any way they can.

Atheism is, specifically, a belief in a lack of God, which is technically a belief about God. I do know what you mean, but you're wording it pretty poorly.

 

[PurplePoot]

I consider everyone atheist until they accept a belief about God, this account is one of the major factors of why I am not atheist. I really believe this is the only thing demons are about, trying to sway us from righteousness in any, any way they can.

Circular reasoning again. You believe in christianity because you believe that if you don't then the christian mythology (can't think of a better word) will get you, and you will fail to ascend to the christian heaven, etc.

Also, the fact that you say "accept" a belief about god implies that you are correct, which is an assumption I think that we can all agree that everyone here needs to attempt to avoid making.

 

[Elenai]

I think he means:

"Those who do not believe in God, believe in nothing"

It is said in some corners of Christian thought, that the pagan gods are demons masked as gods, or spirits, 'false lights' of a sort. And those believing in different gods are instead falling victim to the influences of demonic emissaries. Believing not in gods, but in demons, they are 'atheistic' in the sense that in this context they are 'without God'.

Which on this issue:

Also, the fact that you say "accept" a belief about god implies that you are correct, which is an assumption I think that we can all agree that everyone here needs to attempt to avoid making.

It is a fundamental belief that accepting Christ, and accepting God as the only supreme being is 'essential', and that it is crucial for everyone to choose God, or else not be with him. So saying it is merely an assumption, when to one party it is a given is a bit odd to the mind. It can be similar to telling a doctor to not assume that because someone is sneazing...that they should cover their mouth. (not a good comparison, but the point stands, an 'obvious essential' for protective, and healthy measure)

Which if we are correct, and 'accepting' God is crucial...then well...it isn't really an assumption of fact, but choosing to not accept is indeed a mistake to avoid.

(IF we are correct, which I believe we are)

As it stands, not everyone is an atheist. Not everyone is an agnostic when they say they are either. And not everyone is a theist, or Christian when they claim they are as well.

You have Christians who are practical atheists, and Agnostics who are just agnostics for the sake of appearance in a certain crowd.

Atheism however is a minor faith amongst many, a belief about God's existence, and thus, not everyone is an atheist. Many atheists are infact, simply agnostics who do not know the proper terminology and claim 'mistakenly'.

It is like a Hindu who claims to be a Buddhist, simply because he sees the words 'reincarnation, and kharma' and makes a blind leap.

 

[PurplePoot]

I think he means:

"Those who do not believe in God, believe in nothing"

It is said in some corners of Christian thought, that the pagan gods are demons masked as gods, or spirits, 'false lights' of a sort. And those believing in different gods are instead falling victim to the influences of demonic emissaries. Believing not in gods, but in demons, they are 'atheistic' in the sense that in this context they are 'without God'.

The christian way or... the christian way?

<Stuff replying to me>

First off, it isn't a given if only one side accepts it...

Also, your application of Pascal's Wager raises me to yet again (yawn) state the obvious fallacy in the argument. This belief lies on the assumption that there was only one god, the Judeo-Christian one, and that god behaved exactly as described in the bible, churches, etc. As we can tell that this is not likely to be the case (due to the wide variety of religions, statistics already tells us that it is unlikely), the argument proves to be a bad one, especially when you consider that honouring the wrong god (and thus hating the one that is indeed correct assuming that one exists) would logically lead to much harsher treatment in such a god's decision process than honouring no one.

 

[Elenai]

The christian way or... the christian way?

...what?

First off, it isn't a given if only one side accepts it...

when to one party it is a given

Lets break this down a little bit.

You stated that he should not assume that one must 'accept' God, since his belief may not be correct, because he may not exist. (correct me if I am wrong)

I said: That it is Christian belief, and the Christian side that notes that God does indeed exist, and thus we are arguing from that, so saying that we should not 'assume' that we are correct, when we are arguing our side is rather...odd. When presidential candidates debate a financial plan, each side assumes his plan is correct do they not?

And from that point I also noted: If God does indeed exist, then it would be a mistake to not accept him. What you called Pascal's Wager is not flawed, if Christianity is the true faith then it would be a 'given' and 'crucial' that you do accept God...or else choose the other fork in the road.

Which is what we are arguing from our end. "We are on this team, we believe we are the better team."

It comes down to a belief yes, but to assume that we should not assume that we are correct, is to ask us to take out our teeth, when we are about to join the meal.

You as an agnostic have not made your decision regarding God, or 'lack' of him, or any other beings who may or may not be put in his place. We who are Christians (and the other Abrahamic faiths), and those who are atheistic, or otherwise however, assume they are correct, and thus debate for their team. If that is understandable.

Also, your application of Pascal's Wager raises me to yet again (yawn) state the obvious fallacy in the argument.

This belief lies on the assumption that there was only one god, the Judeo-Christian one, and that god behaved exactly as described in the bible, churches, etc.

Well this is "God" we can assume that "God" acts as "God" does...since...if he doesn't and instead acts like Vishnu...then...he would be Vishnu...so...

As we can tell that this is not likely to be the case (due to the wide variety of religions, statistics already tells us that it is unlikely),

^ elaborate on the point please, as I don't really follow what you mean.

the argument proves to be a bad one, especially when you consider that honouring the wrong god (and thus hating the one that is indeed correct assuming that one exists) would logically lead to much harsher treatment in such a god's decision process than honouring no one.

Honouring God, and honouring 'a god', is not the same as denying the existence of God.

God would rather be given credit where credit is due.

It is like a certain RP map I played, where I was credited for a model General Frank had made. I think General Frank would be less angry with the map since

'atleast someone was credited, although I'm rather miffed it is the wrong name, so I shall seek to change it, and if they refuse then well...time to step it up a notch.'

On the otherhand, if General Frank's model was used, and the maker of the map didn't know to give credit...then General Frank would simply 'ask' to be credited.

However, if in this map he did not credit General Frank at all after knowing, or after being asked...well...General Frank would do as General Frank does, and rightly so.

So therefore, it would not lead to 'harsher punishment' and probably the opposite. Since he was not openly denied, if indeed he did make the steps to 'ask' for credit, or make it know that 'he is the original'.

a note

God however, is much more patient as of now, awaiting for the divine plan to come into fruition. Which does not yet require active 'fist of God' punishments for 'honouring the wrong one, or denying him entirely', so he would not most likely, be as 'wrathful' as General Frank may be, just to note personality wise...I am afterall attempting to put God in a nutshell of a concept using a mortal person with flaws..which is difficult to do.

 

[PurplePoot]

...what?

You basically said you can either believe in the christian god or not believe. In fact, that's exactly what you said (or at least, what you quoted him as saying).

<christian stuff>

Being the christian belief does not make it rational. My point still stands.

Well this is "God" we can assume that "God" acts as "God" does...since...if he doesn't and instead acts like Vishnu...then...he would be Vishnu...so...

There are more "God"s than the Judeo-Christian one, though that specific deity's existence is your assumption.

^ elaborate on the point please, as I don't really follow what you mean.

If we assume that religions are randomly created and that one of them is true (the first part is reasonable given the number that have their "true prophets", etc, and the second is slightly unreasonable to me, but I'll follow it anyways for the purpose of the argument).

We create n different religions, all claiming to be the one true faith.

Now, logically, as they all say the others are wrong, only one may be correct.

Given these n religions, there is a 1/n chance that you are right. Seeing as the number n is very large in reality, the chance that you are right is very small on a statistical basis (PS: No, Hakeem, not those kind of statistics).

<god stuff about GF and such>

However, let's say the Elenaians consistently killed the Frankians in horrible ways. In such a scenario, I doubt Frank would be endeared to Elenaians.

 

[Elenai]

You basically said you can either believe in the christian god or not believe. In fact, that's exactly what you said (or at least, what you quoted him as saying).

That is what "I believe he is saying", from 'his point of view'.

Being the christian belief does not make it rational. My point still stands.

But your point was merely that we shouldn't assume we are correct when...we are arguing that we are correct...so...what exactly is the point of arguing if we are required to be diluted?

There are more "God"s than the Judeo-Christian one, though that specific deity's existence is your assumption.

And?

If we assume that religions are randomly created and that one of them is true (the first part is reasonable given the number that have their "true prophets", etc, and the second is slightly unreasonable to me, but I'll follow it anyways for the purpose of the argument).

We create n different religions, all claiming to be the one true faith.

Now, logically, as they all say the others are wrong, only one may be correct.

Given these n religions, there is a 1/n chance that you are right. Seeing as the number n is very large in reality, the chance that you are right is very small on a statistical basis (PS: No, Hakeem, not those kind of statistics).

That is when you sift through the various faiths and find what is logically the best fit.

Christianity fit the bill for me.

my process

Universe is <insert criteria> -> Must be a creator of some sort -> Search the various sources of this creator -> find religions -> sort through the faiths -> find Abrahamic religions -> sort through them, Christianity fits best = Christianity passes the test.

If four people look at a man and give him four simple equations:

1+1=2

1+1=3

1+1=4

1+1= nothing

And this man has never learned how to add his numbers, and each one says "I am right, the others are wrong", well...the rest of the story is self evident. He can pick one for the sake of picking and be wrong...make a good guess and be wrong...make a lucky guess and be right, or he can do the research and be right. Or...he could be wrong completely on either account, since we assume 1=1, and therefore two 1's makes 2, numbers being an invention of mankind to quantify the world around him, we could easily be eschewed.

However, let's say the Elenaians consistently killed the Frankians in horrible ways. In such a scenario, I doubt Frank would be endeared to Elenaians.

Well, then I'm sure General Frank would do something about that. Though I'm not sure what that has to do with 'giving credit where it is due'.

 

[PurplePoot]

But your point was merely that we shouldn't assume we are correct when...we are arguing that we are correct...so...what exactly is the point of arguing if we are required to be diluted?

You should acknowledge that you might be wrong.

And?

So you can't evaluate the lot based on christianity.

<Accepting Christianity stuff>

That flowchart does not give any indication why you took those steps - it just says that you took them.

Also, where does "born and raised christian" fit into there?

<Math stuff>

But you assume that research proves christianity. I'm sure many people would disagree with you.

Well, then I'm sure General Frank would do something about that. Though I'm not sure what that has to do with 'giving credit where it is due'.

Because not only do you not give credit to the right person, you kill those that do.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

You should acknowledge that you might be wrong.

That would make him agnostic. He's acknowledging that while he may be wrong, he has every reason to believe that what he has put his faith in is correct, and he will stick to his guns.

But you assume that research proves christianity. I'm sure many people would disagree with you.

I don't believe he's saying research proves Christianity, but that the research he conducted led him to believe the view of Christianity he took on.

 

[PurplePoot]

That would make him agnostic. He's acknowledging that while he may be wrong, he has every reason to believe that what he has put his faith in is correct, and he will stick to his guns.

Oh, how I wish everyone was agnostic... the reasons for it are so obvious (for example, the argument just listed and how every different faith applies it to their particular beliefs, and the tendency for faiths to do this with arguments in general).

I don't believe he's saying research proves Christianity, but that the research he conducted led him to believe the view of Christianity he took on.

The metaphor he used was fairly black and white.

 

[Gilles]

Oh, how I wish everyone was agnostic... the reasons for it are so obvious (for example, the argument just listed and how every different faith applies it to their particular beliefs, and the tendency for faiths to do this with arguments in general).

I don't see what you're trying to say.

 

[Elenai]

You should acknowledge that you might be wrong.

I acknowledge that I might be wrong, but I assume with reasonable assurance, that I am right.

Much like Teh_Ephy said.

So you can't evaluate the lot based on christianity.

I can evaluate "God" based on the definition of "God" that is given by those who define who "God" is.

I am not evaluating 'the lot' based on Christianity, I'm evaluating the Christian god based on Christianity.

Personally...I'm not even sure where we dipped into the 'other' gods, when we are talking about concept of "God".

That flowchart does not give any indication why you took those steps - it just says that you took them.

I took them for many reasons, explanation of the universe, a means of purification, looking at the world and trying to make sense of it, etc, etc. All the reasons that fall under the various axioms of mankind.

"To be, or not to be, I think therefore I am, I see but 'why' do I see? Who am I? Why am I alive? What is my purpose? Am I <insert concept>"

Also, where does "born and raised christian" fit into there?

"He can pick one for the sake of picking and be wrong...make a good guess and be wrong...make a lucky guess and be right"

It falls somewhere around in that particular spot. However, most people tend to research their beliefs, even if it is done passively.

"I am a Christian just because my dad and mom where" Usually means that you are not a Christian, because to be a Christian requires certain decisions, things that usually require an ounce of thought behind them.

You are not 'born' into any faith. You make the choice to be it. You can be raised as anything, but until you make the conscious choice to 'choose your destiny, you are simply sitting on the fence in a limbo of sorts.

"Your parents can tell you to take the left road at the fork. (raised to-) But in the end...it is your decision to take the left, or the right."

But you assume that research proves christianity. I'm sure many people would disagree with you.

The metaphor he used was fairly black and white.

And those many people are like me, who have a choice of which equation/answer to pick.

I could be right, I believe I am. I did the research to come to a conclusion. Others may believe their equation is right, and disagree with me.

But in the end...someone has to be right. I believe I am, despite what they may believe, while I may acknowledge that I 'could' be wrong.

 

[PurplePoot]

I don't see what you're trying to say.

Everyone assumes their religion is the right one without realizing everyone else claims the same thing.

I acknowledge that I might be wrong, but I assume with reasonable assurance, that I am right.

Much like Teh_Ephy said.

With reasonable assurance? See above.

I took them for many reasons, explanation of the universe, a means of purification, looking at the world and trying to make sense of it, etc, etc. All the reasons that fall under the various axioms of mankind.

"To be, or not to be, I think therefore I am, I see but 'why' do I see? Who am I? Why am I alive? What is my purpose? Am I <insert concept>"

But the other religions also answer those questions.

<born into religion stuff>

It does have an effect, whether you realize it or not. Since many religious people justify their faith based on spiritual reasons (being often built up when they are too young to think critically), they have been pushed into their religion by their parents and others around them.

<Metaphor stuff>

Then please use a metaphor which doesn't imply that yours is the unquestionably correct answer.

 

[Nestharus]

Eh, well I believe that religion is all theory ^_-. Until it can be proven or dis-proven by standard scientific means, it, to me, will remain always remain a theory ^_-.

When looking at it like a theory, it has a probability of being true based on what is currently known about the universe. Think about that : ).

So now I ask you all to think: what is the probability of a given religion being true?

From here, began to expand on that given idea of a religion and think:
What is the probability of my expansion being true over the probability of that given idea for a religion being true?

Here are some ideas to think about:
A hierarchy?
Nothing?
An order?
A council?
A force?
War???

Where do humans fit into all of this?

Now look at the power of imagination and try to see how that can modify everything you came up with.

If another realm allows imagination to run true, what would that entail? What does the phrase we are all made in that image mean? The power of creation? Does everyone have the potential to become something very big? What does it mean when we are all children?

There are just all sorts of things spattered on in religion that isn't generally looked into. While one thing may be true, they say that it def can't mean that. Well, why can't it mean that?

Again, to me, all religion is theory, and as such, theories can be expanded upon and perfected using probability based on what is known about the universe : D.