If you think, you have a mind, because that is what makes you capable of thinking.Points 1 and 3 are valid, but points 2 and 5 make a definition, so if we accept that definition, it is not debatable. Point 4 is where your argument falls through. There is no support for "Some being made your soul," or that "it would have to exist in its own existence" and this does not imply that it must be "eternal, changeless, timeless."
The mind is the soul and the brain working together.
If you have a soul, your soul must have been created.
Some being made your soul, and it would have to exist in its own existence, which would make it eternal, changeless, timeless.
This being is God.
("I am who am")
Also, even if you don't think that argument makes sense, how would you feel if you died and found out you were wrong about yourself being in a dream? This philosophy could make facing God at your judgement rather uncomfortable...Personally, if this happens to me, then it is as simple as that-- I would be wrong and that is the extent of it. If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god. If that god values goodness, then I can respect such a god and I would see God as a friend. Regardless of the existence of God, I try to be a good person because that matters more to me than the belief in a god. I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.Which is basically says "if God made everything and stuff exists, then God has eternal power and a divine nature". Let's analyze that:
If God created everything, then who created God?
This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation.
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..
Just to clarify, it is possible to prove God exists, but it is not possible to explain how He exists.The 'proofs' by St. Thomas Aquinas (the ones you linked to in the other topic) each make unjustified claims. While that does not mean God does not exist, it does not prove that God exists.
So, St. Thomas Aquinas gave five proofs for why God exists. Just because our human minds cannot understand the existence of God does not mean he does not exist.
A rock does not comprehend the existence of living creatures, but that does not make living creatures non-existent.
If God created everything, then who created God?Well that is only assuming that God needs to be created ;)
This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
No it does not challenge anything. There cannot be an infinite chain of "makers", so at some point there needs to be a supreme "maker". Now, just because you cannot explain how He can exist does not mean He does not exist.Well, why couldn't there be an infinte chain? Is it because humans cannot grasp that?
Your "bribe" and "fear" are only the secondary reasons to be good. The primary reason is to please God, because you owe everything to Him.My primary reason lies more in devotion to others and the future :/
If God created everything, then who created God?That is a question that will be hard to understand, but I believe that he was not created and was always there already. Remember, the God is not limited by time, physics and stuff.
This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.
It answers how he came to be without having an infinite regress, that's the point - though it is, arguably, no better explanation than an infinite regress.What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..
What if He did? It doesn't matter.
Xeda, the Bible says that we are not justified by doing good, but by having faith.Okay, that clarifies it for me more, thanks!
/me actually agrees
everything is, to some extent, something that has to be believed in. knowing your surroundings requires that you first have faith in the trustworthiness of your senses, knowing mathematical theorems to be correct requires first that you have faith in the work of those who have proven them (or, in the case where you have proven all the necessary prerequisites for some conclusion, faith in yourself :P). for humans, then, "truth" is not an absolute, but rather a degree of certainty.
also, as per the rules, this topic will be watched. feel free to speak your minds, but don't let it turn into a flame war, please.
but with maths you can go and redo all the work before to confirm its validityIt depends. There are some axioms in maths too, that can't be proved, like Peano's axioms, and a lot of things are based on it. So yeah, mathematics can be in some way compared to religion.
If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god. If that god values goodness, then I can respect such a god and I would see God as a friend. Regardless of the existence of God, I try to be a good person because that matters more to me than the belief in a god. I would rather do something purely out of my own desire to be good than with the bribe of eternal contentedness or the fear of eternal damnation."If God is a being that requires my devotion and belief more than being a 'good' person, then I cannot respect such a god." According to christians, God does want you to be a good person. He requires you in order to save humanity from evil. God is a love God, he doesn't want us to pray for him, but for yourself. By praying, we can communicate with God, ask for help and do you best. Humans can't do anything by themselves about evil, they need God's help.
Just to clarify, it is possible to prove God exists, but it is not possible to explain how He exists.It isn't possible to prove God exists. Thsi debate won't come anywhere, because we can't prove anything about that. As je ne sais plus qui said, you cannot understand to believe, but you have to believe to understand.
If God created everything, then who created God?ERR: Invalid. God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.
This thought challenges the "someone created you" part of religion, because God would then have to have been created by someone higher and mightier, and then it chains on.No, because of what I just said.
What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..God wasn't created.
Brings up the problem that in many religions there's a book that they believe is the truth...It isn't a "book of the truth". It is a book the enables to understand many things.
I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence.Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.
Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)See above in my message.
Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.What if God created himself? Infinite chain broken. And never mind that it doesn't make sense, making sense was never a requirement..God wasn't created.
...I'm convinced that that did not happen.
The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements. Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe. You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.I'm not one to believe it either, not until I see hard evidence.Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.Evenso, if he would be real and such only put us here to believe in him and please him and doing bad will get us ending up in hell, then I can't help but not bring up much respect for such a god. (This probaly is a very sharp turn, but I can't think of another way to express it.)See above in my message.
Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.
The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.
Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.
You cannot deny that we are pretty good with doing that. We have explained a lot already and I'm sure we'll be able to explain a lot more (and with that comes the ever growing bubble of not knowing but that's a different subject for a different time...) in the future. Now I can go write an essay here or I can just say it. Lots of things (pretty much all) that has been labled 'divine' or 'Gods work' in the past has been explained by science. Like I said before, I will not deny neither acknowledge the existence God. If there is such a thing as heaven or if it turns out I was wrong in the end, then so be it. I can accept that. But for now, as long as science keeps on doing groundbreaking discoveries as well as explaining things, I will not change the point of view stated here.What's the problem with "science's explanations" ? Does it prove that it isn't God's work ? We can explain how we live with biologie, and give theories to the beginning of universe, this doesn't prove God didn't do it. Science explains how, religions say why. That's all.
If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.
You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
...Well, I guess that the logic is that He loves us unconditionally. But I see your point, since it doesn't sound logic to nonbelievers.If there is a God, don't you think it would be logic that he wants His creation to do what He wants, and that they love Him(like He loves them) out of free will.The logic doesn't take place here. Would it be logic that the powerfull God give to humans his only son, and that his really loved son let himself be crucified? No. It doesn't make sense to give such a present to humans who are filled of evil. The reason of that : his infinite love.You can't expect God to come to everybody every generation again to prove His existence. That would make him mad. Jesus said to Thomas, since he didn't believe he had raised from the dead before seeing Him(John 20:29):His coming in the past wasn't a proof at all, because he appeared resurrected to only a few people.
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
The thing is there are so many things that we believe in, without having actual proof for it(since that would be insane work to check everything). We just trust people.
I made a big typo here, apologies. I meant that the discussions between science and religion tend never to end well.Let me rephrase myself. First of all I'm a science man, so this discussion will certainly call off (possibly big) conflicts/disagreements.Science won't call off "conflicts/disagreements". But you put clear that "Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe". Moreover, the universe created by God, according to the religion.
Science is there to uncover the 'truth' of our universe.
One discussion about religions ? how make for be in accord ? :pMost likely we won't. But it is better to try, than to give up when there is a chance.
In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.Nope, simply because religions and sciences are not in contradiction. Sciences and religions are not at all the same thing.
how the god was created, they won't be able to give a good answer."because God wasn't created as I said. :p
Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.Religion is not only based on the afterlife. It does have applications on the present.
I know science and religion aren't the same thing. Science is very wide, but I was mainly referring to the part that tries to explain how our world was created (theories around the big bang) and how humans were created (theorie of evolution).In science, all proof is based on what we think is true. A lot of the theories in science either have their proof based on other theories, or just seem to 'work' in formulas, but aren't fully proven. When you look at it that way, you can see science as a religion, in which you have to believe in the not (fully) proven theories, and in the mathematics that connects and 'proves' those theories.Nope, simply because religions and sciences are not in contradiction. Sciences and religions are not at all the same thing.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't really think of an application of religion in our present lives. But religion is at least partially directed at the afterlife, while science stops at death.Probably the main difference between science and religion is that science has some applications in our current lives, while religion is often mostly based on the afterlife.Religion is not only based on the afterlife. It does have applications on the present.
I'm sorry, but I couldn't really think of an application of religion in our present lives.One of many examples : christian's religion says to love our neighbours. And you can also think about La croix rouge.
But religion is at least partially directed at the afterlife, while science stops at death.I agree on this point.
Personally, I believe in science. I believe that the big bang created the universe, and that humans evolved from other live forms. It just seems the most logical to me. And what has triggered the big bang? We'll never know. It's one of the mysteries of life, a gap that science will never be able to fill.It does not mean anything to "believe in science". Science isn't a religion. You can believe in God and pratice science, there's no problem for that.
The idea that a god creates everything feels more like moving the problem. The fact that you just have to believe that He always existed, and that he is a creature so advanced that he can create everything doensn't sound logical to me, but I guess the big bang doesn't sound logical to a religious person either.
I find it easier to believe that an explosion suddenly started to exist than that a creature so advanced as a god suddenly started to exist and createdeverything. But it all comes to your point of view. There is now way to prove for the other parties that you are correct. Because there are hundreds of religions (let's just count science as one for now), the chance that you are fully correct is very small. That is why we should respect anyone who shooses an other religion as you.
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.
I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.
Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.
Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
Just popping in the topic for a second, God and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Just because our human minds cannot understand the existence of God does not mean he does not exist.
Somehow believing in no God is a religion too, since you have no proof he doesn't exist. (Although evolution is an attempt).
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.
I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.
Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.
Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.
I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.
Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.
Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator."It must be a Christian god, because the God must be all-good and all merciful."
That sort of reasoning applies only to normal things. Why should gods care about a little problem like causality? They violate the rules anyway. Might as well violate one more.Ok, fine. So he was always there? Or just appeared? But it doesn't really matter anyway. I just threw that into the mix because I thought it would be an interesting alternative.He couldn't appear because according to the religious, He's the inventor of the time. So He was "always" here.
That's all it will be anyway - potentially interesting thoughts. None of it can be verified.
The concept of something creating itself is interesting, right? Well at least I think so.
And you're theory isn't really interesting because it's impossible. A think can't create itself, since it has to already exist to do so.
There are a few things I've been wondering about religion, particularly Christianity:Well, God created man, and man creates stuff. So in that sense He created everything. When saying He created everything, I think the natural stuff I mostly meant though.
Have different old/new testaments been created for Protestant religion than Catholic, as well as other derivatives of Christianity?
Else, are they identical and what about other religions based on Christianity, like Jehovah's Wisdoms?
God created everything... What about the TI-84 Plus C Silver Edition? Since God has supposedly created "everything", this would imply that he created every calculator too, right?
Also, does this includes people's thoughts, religion debates, states of mind and ways of expressing ourselves, such as acrostics?
Moreover, has God created science (well, the fact that it works) or even every other religion too?
Ending this with saying that if God has really created everything I mentioned above, then I can't imagine how our universe would look like if he made division by zero possible... O.O
Also, it seems that religious people tend to generate excuses to dismissively get rid of any challenges. For exampleI actually find that to be a rather neat argument. Like harold said earlier, it is definitely interesting to think about something that is seemingly impossible (like something creating itself). At the least, it is a really creative exercise in logic, and at best, you might be shocked to learn that it is completely possible (this is how some scientific theories were stumbled upon, I believe).
"How was God created?"
"He wasn't. End of story."
Ok. So then this can be said:Also, it seems that religious people tend to generate excuses to dismissively get rid of any challenges. For exampleI actually find that to be a rather neat argument. Like harold said earlier, it is definitely interesting to think about something that is seemingly impossible (like something creating itself). At the least, it is a really creative exercise in logic, and at best, you might be shocked to learn that it is completely possible (this is how some scientific theories were stumbled upon, I believe).
"How was God created?"
"He wasn't. End of story."
So what if something "created itself?" What limitations would it have? I would posit that it wouldn't be restricted. It could be something simple, unthinking, or it could be something all powerful. This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist. However, for somebody that believes in a god or gods, this might serve as a plausible explanation. For the rest, this is just a fun exercise :)
When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine.This is quite strange to me when a page or two back you said:
God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.
Ok. So then this can be said:That is right, and that is why I stated:
"How was the world created?"
"It wasn't. End of story."
No need for God then.
Note: I am still not saying "don't believe in God", you believe in anything you want. I just say that God is a possibility but only a possibility among others, maybe there is a God, maybe not, maybe there are two Gods, I don't know :P
This is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist.:P
Oops, sorry, I have some problems getting all the sentences in topics that are not about everyday life things since English is not my primary language. I just get the main idea of every post but I sometimes miss one sentence or two :POk. So then this can be said:That is right, and that is why I stated:
"How was the world created?"
"It wasn't. End of story."
No need for God then.
Note: I am still not saying "don't believe in God", you believe in anything you want. I just say that God is a possibility but only a possibility among others, maybe there is a God, maybe not, maybe there are two Gods, I don't know :PThis is not at all proof of a God-- this would be like saying, "if wizards existed, they could perform magic, so therefor magic must exist" without proving that wizards exist.:P
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on getting to 5 pages without a flame war. :)True this. I think the main reason for that is that for once the debate is in its own topic and not derailing another one, which already upsets the topic starter but also pushes people to try to convince everyone quickly to end the off topic as soon as possible, which obviously doesn't lead to a calm discussion :)
I think this prove we really can have a religious debate without going off the deep end.
In order for me to believe something, I require evidence; that's just how my mind works.See my answer:
Really? So you have to believe in very few things. And you're doing as Pierre did. But since you need to believe to get the hard evidence in you, you're on an impasse.
I would not say that evolution and Christianity are equal in that they both are believed in by faith. Evolution is not blind faith; there is massive support and evidence for it.Religions are also confirmed in the time. The real difference between science and religions is that sciences are practiced with the brain, and religions with the heart.
Fine, evolution is a theory, but people often misinterpret "theory" for just a guess. A scientific theory actually very comprehensive and is tested and confirmed repeatedly. There is tons of evidence for evolution that can be seen in both living and dead creatures.
Also, theists frequently say that there must be a first cause to start everything, so therefore it must be God.Ok, the need of everything to be caused isn't an argument for saying that God exists, and then? Moreover, religion doesn't fill a gap left by science since their domains are not the same at all. Even if God existed, we could explain all with science. Science says how, religions say why.
Even if there is some supernatural creator to set the universe in motion, how do you know that it is the Christian god? It could be any other supernatural being.
I also find that this is somewhat saying, "Science doesn't know, therefore God."
If we don't know something, it isn't very reasonable to conclude that it must be because of God. I'd instead rather search harder and attempt to find an explanation that can actually be supported.
Even if an explanation can never be found by science, I'd rather leave that gap of knowledge empty as opposed to filling it with religion
As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false. They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks. Zero tolerance...It is a real generalization. And I don't know where you find your statistics, but it is completely false. Catholics really respect other religions. And when you speak about "They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks", I think you're confounding christians with some sects that use bible to have some credibility.
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.
Religion in general, however, is silly.>:(
We use it like myths to explain things we really can't. We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better.See my answer upon about "things we can't explain". And maybe you need yourself something to feel better, when you couldn't accept that a superior being could exist. ;) So it is not an argument.
Those two statements are not contradicory: it is true that big bang must have an origin because it is in time and it has a beginning. God doesn't have beginning. So he doesn't have origin.When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine.This is quite strange to me when a page or two back you said:Quote from: mdr1God lives forever and fromever, that's all. There's no origin to his life. He invented time, so you can't apply to him this notion.
These two statements seem contradictory to me. You say that God has no origin and has always existed. Yet you state that the big bang could not simply have just happened, nor could it have created itself. You also say that everything must have an origin. Why is it acceptable for one thing but not the other?
Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?
Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.
I'd just like to congratulate everyone on getting to 5 pages without a flame war. :)What's more is that we have done this even with a language barrier o.o
I think this prove we really can have a religious debate without going off the deep end.
Also, if this thread does start to develop into a flame war, could the offending posts be removed instead of locking the whole topic?
I saw this thread and I knew I had to jump in.
I have an intersting relligious development in my 16 years of life. When I was a wee little lad, my brother and I used to blame all the bad things on "God and Jesus". We used to say it was all their fault. As we grew older we went through a super religious phase. Now that I'm older, I am agnostic, not atheist, but agnostic. I find the concept of religion to be annoying, but Chrisitanity by far really upsets me. As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false. They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks. Zero tolerance...
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.
Religion in general, however, is silly. We use it like myths to explain things we really can't. We use it only when it suits us and when we feel like we need something to make us feel better. Also, I feel that all religions are false. They have no truth in them at all. My opinion on death might seem... strange, however. To me death is death. I do not fear death because its not like after you die you're gonna be all upset that you're dead right? (Yeah that's pretty bad...) It just happens, there's no afterlife just an end.
Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads.Some people don't have a version of paradise for one of the following reasons:
Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.What motivation? God doesn't need humans. But His infinite love created us. Though for humans it is really hard to understand that. When you talk about the beginning of creation, such concept doesn't exist because there was no time before.
Ok, this is pretty ridiculous statement imo. Just because something isn't a religion doesn't mean you can't believe in it. I can just as easily say that religion is ridiculous because there is no evidence for (the need of) a deity. For this point, I take my stand with what ben_g posted earlier in the thread.Personally, I believe in science. I believe that the big bang created the universe, and that humans evolved from other live forms. It just seems the most logical to me. And what has triggered the big bang? We'll never know. It's one of the mysteries of life, a gap that science will never be able to fill.It does not mean anything to "believe in science". Science isn't a religion. You can believe in God and pratice science, there's no problem for that.
The idea that a god creates everything feels more like moving the problem. The fact that you just have to believe that He always existed, and that he is a creature so advanced that he can create everything doensn't sound logical to me, but I guess the big bang doesn't sound logical to a religious person either.
I find it easier to believe that an explosion suddenly started to exist than that a creature so advanced as a god suddenly started to exist and createdeverything. But it all comes to your point of view. There is now way to prove for the other parties that you are correct. Because there are hundreds of religions (let's just count science as one for now), the chance that you are fully correct is very small. That is why we should respect anyone who shooses an other religion as you.
When you're speaking about logic, what is logic about the big bang the appears from nowhere ? It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine. Another point: believing in God is not like loto to play for chance.
It's impossible, it must have an origin. Nothing can be its own origine. Another point: believing in God is not like loto to play for chance.Yet you still claim that God didn't have an origin and just was there all the time. That sounds a bit contradictionary.
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it). On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence for creation and God, which isn't fake, and has not been proven to be something else.The so called 'evidence' for a god isn't exactly trustable either and often is contradictionary too much more than evolution sometimes is(discussed somewhere earlier in the thread). Why does this deity or super natural being have to irrevocably be a christian god? I think this is where religion comes short in some places. It is ok to believe in different things, but most of the time when you ask if two gods can be the same yet in a different form, it's out of the game and the other party is being silly.
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.
Don't you think that's a little false argumentation?Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
A God is a lot more plausible to me, since He doesn't have to bend to the rules of physics and therefore also doesn't have to be created.
There is very little, almost no evidence for evolution, and most of the published "evidence" is either fake or turns out to be something totally different than what they and not support the theory of evolution at all (or in some cases, actually refute it).This is just incredibly factually inaccurate. The evidence for evolution is actually overwhelming:
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.You should read about Deism:
And what if there is no paradise ? Even more problems disappear :PBecause you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
Why must something cause God to do something? He doesn't live in this world. He must not bend to it's limits which he put there.
He also made our brain, and how we think. God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.Why can't anything good come from an evil creator? Didn't God create everything, so evil as well? And if evil can come from a good creator, why won't an evil creator be able to create something good?
Also as far as I know nobody has ever seen evolution take place.And as far as I know, nobody has ever seen God create a species. But nobody having seen it take place doesn't nessicarely mean it didn't happen.
Also, if there is a God, then there is proof that he is a Christian God. He has to be omnipotent, He has to be all-merciful, and He has to be all-Good. Nothing good can come from an evil creator.Why can't anything good come from an evil creator? Didn't God create everything, so evil as well? And if evil can come from a good creator, why won't an evil creator be able to create something good?
God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).
I believe God created us so we could give Him praise and show His glory. By making us He shows how great He is. He is the definition of good.Why must something cause God to do something? He doesn't live in this world. He must not bend to it's limits which he put there.
He also made our brain, and how we think. God doesn't want to be so clear(I am who I am).
Because if there was no reason for god to create the universe then the universe as we know it and everything in it has no purpose and simply exists for the sake of existing.
Everyone has their own version of what is paradise in their heads.Some people don't have a version of paradise for one of the following reasons:
- They believe there's no paradise.
- They trust God and obey him to do good without thinking about a reward.
Because you are at perfection, because you cannot go higher, happiness ends. Change ends, motion stops. There is nowhere left to go because of that. To me, this is a really bad thing because ope itself comes from the prospect of achieving such a reality. But once you reach is, there's nowhere for hope to come from anymore since there is no imperfection to overcome.And what if there's no time in paradise? All the problems you reach here disappear.
There's also a few things I have with the idea of intelligent design. If nothing existed before God, and God created everything, what was God's reason/motivation to create anything and what was His point of reference for creation? Because nothing existed, there would be nothing that could cause God to begin His creation. Conventional concepts such as boredom and discontent would not exist because there counterparts such as excitement would not exist either because there was nothing that could elicit such emotion.What motivation? God doesn't need humans. But His infinite love created us. Though for humans it is really hard to understand that. When you talk about the beginning of creation, such concept doesn't exist because there was no time before.
*snip*Jesus.
Now, this is not the case if God exists in a Universe outside ours with a different ruleset. But when we are looking at different Universes, there are infinite Gods to be had anyways. If it is the case that God exists outside our Universe, we can still say that within ours, He doesn't exist, though actions of his might. They would still be subject to the rules of this Universe, however.
*snip*Jesus.
Now, this is not the case if God exists in a Universe outside ours with a different ruleset. But when we are looking at different Universes, there are infinite Gods to be had anyways. If it is the case that God exists outside our Universe, we can still say that within ours, He doesn't exist, though actions of his might. They would still be subject to the rules of this Universe, however.
Also as far as I know nobody has ever seen evolution take place.
Ok, this is pretty ridiculous statement imo. Just because something isn't a religion doesn't mean you can't believe in it.Ok, it's a problem of vacabulary then, since english isn't my first language.
I can just as easily say that religion is ridiculous because there is no evidence for (the need of) a deity. For this point, I take my stand with what ben_g posted earlier in the thread.>:( >:( I remind that the goal of the topic is to share our opinions without criticise other people ones. For you it could be ridiculous to believe in a God that "wouldn't be necessary", but for some other people, it could be ridiculous not to believe in a religion because then the life would not have sense and humans wouldn't be superior than mineral.
Yet you still claim that God didn't have an origin and just was there all the time. That sounds a bit contradictionary.What is contradictionary? "All the time" is a way to say it because there's no time for God.
Don't you think that's a little false argumentation?... ? ???
@mdr1: The point I was trying to make was that you said everything must have an origin. I was wondering with you making that statement how you could choose to exclude god in that.Sorry. Everything having a beginning must have an origin.
If you think about it, It's possible that the conditions required for the big bang and the forces behind the big bang always existed. When the universe was created, something caused those conditions to occur.Those conditions required for the big-bang are an origin.
Just as in Christian faith, something had to cause god to create the universe.Nope, God isn't in time. He invented it. So he didn't create universe "at a certain time".
And what if there is no paradise ? Even more problems disappear :PIf there was no paradise? Didn't you understand that we were talking about how it would be if it existed?
And as merthsoft said, ok, there might be a God or more, there might be a paradise or more, but heck, we are just at the "there might be" point, where those "there might be" are described by existing religions and "there might be" other possibilities that we haven't taken in account yet, and maybe the truth is among them.There is no "there might be" here, this proposition takes place on the philosophy debate. Do you think it is only a "there might be" when you think about Jesus, about what apostles did, about marvelous lands on Earth, about the fact you are you and not only material?
I believe God created us so we could give Him praise and show His glory. By making us He shows how great He is.I don't agree. On the creation on the bible, we can read "Et Dieu vit que cela était bon", not "Et Dieu vit qu'il était bon". Christians' God isn't an egoistic or a proud one.
The standard response to this is that we've also never seen Pluto make a full revolution around the sun.I agree. So let's apply this to God? :p
All of this depends though on what you consider evidence, and that varies from person to person.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.
I would like to throw in a very awesome saying I leant today:With that said, there is a neat thing called burden of proof (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof).
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Goes for both the existence of God and evolution.
Iirc it never really came from Jesus's own mouth who he was. But by His works it was seen.
Sorry. Everything having a beginning must have an origin.Ok, fair enough.
Just as in Christian faith, something had to cause god to create the universe.
Nope, God isn't in time. He invented it. So he didn't create universe "at a certain time".
There is no "there might be" here, this proposition takes place on the philosophy debate. Do you think it is only a "there might be" when you think about Jesus, about what apostles did, about marvelous lands on Earth, about the fact you are you and not only material?
Well, God didn't create the world in 7 days so its quite possible. God is not bound by time, so 10 billion years to us could seem like 1 day to God. Of course we will never know or be able to understand this.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.
Well, God didn't create the world in 7 days so its quite possible. God is not bound by time, so 10 billion years to us could seem like 1 day to God. Of course we will never know or be able to understand this.
When it comes to souls, perhaps we are flashed like EEPROM chips??? We will never know, if someone has died and asked him, they haven't come back yet.
You're right. According to Genesis, god created not only the world, but everything in 6 days. On the seventh day he rested and saw that it was good. Regardless of whether or not you believe gods existence to be infinite or not, 6 days is pretty clear. This suggest that the act of god creating the universe began time and his work took a measure of six days. Even if a being exists outside of the existence of the universe as we know it I find it extremely difficult to believe the that being would not be able to grasp a concept like the measure of time, and that furthermore it would be reported incorrectly.
First off, forgive me if I seem offensive in any way. I hope that doesn't make you hate me or anything. With that being said, I think, and maybe it may be due to the fact that this is what I'm exposed and have witnessed as an African-American, Catholics are excluded from my perception of Christians. My opinion of a Christian is your streotypical white American Protestant who is completely intolerant to all other religions including Catholics and especially Muslims, and is somewhat racist. That's a generalization and I don't mean that all Christians are like that. This opinion is also partially due to the influence of my history teacher who is a great teacher and his ideas are interesting and he portrays America in an interesting way.As a generalization, Christians believe that they are the only religion and that all other religions are completely false. They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks. Zero tolerance...It is a real generalization. And I don't know where you find your statistics, but it is completely false. Catholics really respect other religions. And when you speak about "They feel they will be the ones to live while everyone else suffers in H E double hockey sticks", I think you're confounding christians with some sects that use bible to have some credibility.
At Muslims have some sort of respect for Christianity because of the same sort of belief in one supreme being.
I would like to throw in a very awesome saying I leant today:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Goes for both the existence of God and evolution.
"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"
There no evidence that flying spaghetti monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) exist. But they probably don't.Quote from: Justin Pope"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"
Since radioactive dating has proven the earth older than any religion with a definitive age, and that it has a finite age (disproving religions in which the earth has already existed)
Why is the Bible infallible?http://lifeshandbook.wikidot.com/why-believe
@Pimathbrainiac I agree that the catholic church(and probably other churches as well) have made big mistakes in history. And they were definitely wrong.That makes no sense at all. In fact the opposite of what you say is true. People are living longer today than they were say 50 years ago due to advances in science and knowledge. This is why many things are happening like retirement ages being continually pushed back. In Japan people aged 65 and over account for 22% of the population and are expected to account for ~40% of the population by 2050. People are continuing to get stronger and smarter. World records for physical feats are constantly being shattered and science is advancing at crazy rates. I have no idea where you would get the idea that people and other animals are devolving, and if you could believe that why believing evolution exists is so difficult to you.
I myself am not Catholic, just a Christian who bases himself on the Bible. However, it doesn't mean that if a leader of a group does something bad that the whole thing is corrupt...
The Bible is infallible: It has NOT been proven wrong. There may be translation that are wrong though.
Evolution has flaws, so according to you I may call it all wrong?
Trust me, science isn't as accurate as it may seem. It is many times flawed.(For example, putting an age on a piece of stone/other thing).
I believe in de-evolution, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Say you have a superdog, and then it's descendants have little changes and they devolve to different kinds of dogs. However, they'll never be as perfect as their ancestor was. Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
Devolution is happening, and has been witnessed, not the opposite.
@Pimathbrainiac I agree that the catholic church(and probably other churches as well) have made big mistakes in history. And they were definitely wrong.
I myself am not Catholic, just a Christian who bases himself on the Bible. However, it doesn't mean that if a leader of a group does something bad that the whole thing is corrupt...
The Bible is infallible: It has NOT been proven wrong. There may be translation that are wrong though.
Evolution has flaws, so according to you I may call it all wrong?
Trust me, science isn't as accurate as it may seem. It is many times flawed.(For example, putting an age on a piece of stone/other thing).
I believe in de-evolution, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Say you have a superdog, and then it's descendants have little changes and they devolve to different kinds of dogs. However, they'll never be as perfect as their ancestor was. Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.
Devolution is happening, and has been witnessed, not the opposite.
Yes, that may be because of science(medicines, etc). But if we had this science back then(and less hard work), they would live longer.
The reason why retirement age is getting extended is just because there are always getting less land less children and the older people will have to work longer.
Every mutation usually is downhill and happens by an error. Sometimes these mutations can have beneficial effects, but it's still less than it was.
Same with humans, are age is always getting shorter, and it's not only because of all the sicknesses.I have no idea why you would even begin to think that. The life expectancy has exploded upward in the past century.
Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.This "this argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why" argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why :P
I guess I can't prove it, no. (Unless I take that article under hands, but I don't wanna waste my time)Those arguments are kinda flawed(in the link you gave) and I probably could discuss everyone, but I will not waste my time on doing so. I also can see that the author has little understanding of interpreting the Bible and is not reading but looking for things that look like contradictions.This "this argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why" argument is kinda flawed but I won't say why :P
You are right when you say that the author found contradictions because he looked for them, and that could apply to anything. But on the other hand, maybe you only see the truth in that book because you were told beforehand that it was the truth so you believed it and only saw truth in it. So yeah, I can't prove you are wrong, neither can I prove the author of the list of contradictions is right, but same, you can't say you are right and the author is wrong ;)
how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?No, that's not it. It would be a waste of time defending, and proving that guy wrong since it's just a lot of work that most likely nobody will care about anyway. I've fallen into those "traps" before, and when I'm done they just ignore it or something.
how would it be a waste of your time to study the book that you believe holds the world's ultimate truths?
as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.
When you consider the amount of time and other resources spent on religion and how it directly (and indirectly) influences the lives of billions of people through its influence on political ideology, then yes I say it's very important to decide whether He exists or not. (Although I guess it's more important to decide whether the holy scripts are true or not)
It is obvious what hell is, from even what is described there in the passages that you provided. Also I believe there are references to hell in the old testament, but I would rather not look those up right now, as it is late.
I'm not sure where you are going with Jesus and his apostles.Très bien, je n'ai pas réussi à m'exprimer en anglais, alors je vais le faire en français en espérant que tu connaisses cette langue et que cela te permette de mieux comprendre. Le cas non échéant, cela aidera peut-être d'autres personnes.
as for myself, it was studying the bible that led me to stop believing in it. i started out reading it believing exactly as you do, but, the more i read, the more obvious it seemed that it was not a contiguous whole but rather a big jumble of contradictory writings from hundreds of different authors. the jesus portrayed in the gospels is completely unlike the jesus described by his self-proclaimed disciple, paul. similarly, the world described in the old testament (complete with the Hades like She'ol etcetera) is completely unlike the one described by jesus, which, in turn is completely unlike the one described by paul, which, in turn, is completely unlike the one described by the catholic church and so on. there are little things all throughout as well, like jesus claiming that he would return before the last of his 12 disciples had died, that just don't work.
what Hell actually isEarth? :P
there are people who still believes that the Earth is flat. There's even a community website of people who think like that.There no evidence that flying spaghetti monsters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) exist. But they probably don't.Quote from: Justin Pope"there's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe"
A joke response I've seen to this one is, "Then why are all the planets spherical and meatball-shaped?" :P
there is actually a fairly strong argument for the existence of religion being a positive influence on the world. yes, you can say whatever you like about crusades etc, but the primary driving factor behind those is always humans desiring for power or being bigotted against others, with their religions being used as a convenient excuse to continue acting that way. they would act out against their fellow humans regardless. yes, it may be true that it exacerbates it in some situations, but it's also true that religion is a calming, comforting influence in the lives of billions. studies have consistently shown that people who are able to convince themselves of the validity of some religion that offers a promise of an "ultimate purpose" for their lives are, on average, happier people than those who cannot.
There are people who still believes that the Earth is flat. There's even a community website of people who think like that.
But then, how do you know that this we are in is real life, maybe there is some greater AssemblyBandit messing with us and we are just a computer simulation.
ElementCoder: If we were created on purpose, then everything would be going pretty good. When you create something, you generally take care of it. When you buy a pet, you don't just let the thing sit there and starve to death or let it go out into the street! If this is the way god takes care of his children, I want to move out now!
I'm not going to take any approach on telling you which I am for, but one thing you need to understand is that everything we think is morally right or wrong, is just our perspective of it. Some other people/things/beings. Could find think of morals in an entirely different way, and it would be "right" for them, including letting people die. No one idea/perspective could or is right or wrong, and nothing/no one has the authority to make that choice. ;)
Hm, I might post a whole rant on religion here. Here we go.
I have a pretty good theory about religion, I believe early civilisations made that up to answer unanswered questions. Science weren't there yet, and people couldn't really imagine something else than some guy creating everything, so better worship him. But, by nature, some people hated change, so when someone came up with science, people had difficulty accepting it... It got better in the recent history though. But nevertheless, I think religion is still part of everyday's life, like place names or funerals. The afterlife is not quite understood, what happens after death? Nothing? Pretty sure many would prefer believing there's something, that the soul of your loved one is at a better place, even if you know there's nothing. The memory of the dead lives as long as someone remembers them, after all.
Reminds me, almost two years ago, I got hospitalized for lung problems, I stayed there for 167 hours. Yeah, that was boring, but I had visits. And one of them was a priest. The hospital has a service where once a week, a priest would visit all the patients. He discussed with me, that was kinda cool. I realized, even though we are in a lay state here, they would still hire a priest, because people would find a priest very reconforting, especially when you're approaching death. Actually, it's pretty nice the hospital would send someone to visit you just for talking about stuff. They're there just for you.
Today, I would say I believe in God as much as I would believe in Princess Celestia or Madoka Kaname, all of them can teach you valuable life lessons you can follow. (Yes I'm comparing religion with fictional shows lol. If they weren't characters of TV shows I think they would make pretty good gods of some religion.) Just be careful in what you believe. It's up to you to decide what is right or wrong. Yes, the Bible may be full of contradictions, but it actually laid out the basis of modern civilisation and what we collectively assume as right or wrong, like killing people and stuff like that. We all agree killing people is bad, right? Or else maybe everyone would have guns and would liberally kill everyone else? I dunno, the impact religion had might be deeper than we thought.
And this is why, my friends, I still consider myself Catholic. I grew up Catholic and I understood what it meant to me.
I'm not going to take any approach on telling you which I am for, but one thing you need to understand is that everything we think is morally right or wrong, is just our perspective of it. Some other people/things/beings. Could find think of morals in an entirely different way, and it would be "right" for them, including letting people die. No one idea/perspective could or is right or wrong, and nothing/no one has the authority to make that choice. ;)
I understand morals are relative but people don't have to die. The only one thing death is good for is evolution. If we were created by a god, death wouldn't exist.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.I'd have to argue on this point, though, considering that the muslim world, at large, is responsible for keepsafing pretty much all of what we know of ancient greece/rome today, and, of course, for algebra and arabic numerals.
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself.
...
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Another thing : the Hamas's slogan (one of many pro islamisation groups) is "We love death more than you love life". I think this is pretty much self explanatory.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.
There are also atheist extremists. They exist in every category of groups (even TI-8x ASM and BASIC coders in the late 90's).Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.Christianity used to be like that too. Also the groups you're talking about are extremists. I guess you could argue about how Muslims are the most extremist, but I believe Christianity also had its fair share of extremists. There's lots of examples of Christian terrorists as much as good Muslim people.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
That said, in the Koran, it DOES endorse a holy war, or Jihad, but this has already happened, as in the Crusades.
Well, I don't hate Muslims, but Islam has violent precepts at it's core. The reason why it's progressing so fast is because of that : Islam encourages the use of violence to spread itself. BTW if you look at terrorists then most of them are Islam fanatics.
Another thing is how they treat women. They consider that women are inferior to men and are here only for sex, reproduction and home tasks. While I don't consider women nor anybody else equal to me (we are all different and one of a kind), I believe that no hierarchy exists between human beings.
Another thing : the Hamas's slogan (one of many pro islamisation groups) is "We love death more than you love life". I think this is pretty much self explanatory.
One last thing : there are only a couple Nobel prices won by muslims. So the proportion of intelligent people adept of this religion is ridiculously low.
Now I hope that these arguments make you reconsider your opinion a bit and realize that Islam is not only good. There are good muslims but not all of them are and the Coran has two halves : the beginning of Mohammed's life which was good and the second part which was only war and blood.
Also, is it true that years ago in some of those countries, there were no such restriction as forcing women to cover their face and that this was later instated by radical islamist groups?
I believe in evolution, and am christian. There is quite a bit of evidence for it, and no evidence for a literally instantaneous creation.
I also believe that God is our father, and we all have the potential to become gods.
Can anyone guess what religion I am?
As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.
I also do not believe in evolution, and that's because I've done a ton of study on it. ;)
[...]
As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.
That said, in the Koran, it DOES endorse a holy war, or Jihad, but this has already happened, as in the Crusades.
I'm not going to get into this discussion, just a quick remark about the statement above: "Jihad" does not mean "holy war", even if that's what most western mainstream media as well as some deranged clerics from the Muslim world want you to believe. The word actually translates as "effort". In Qur'an it refers to the fact that Muslims should work hard to make a better person out of themselves.
I believe that this is a form of de-evolution, which makes a ton more sense.As much as people will deny it, evolution is basically a religion on it's own, with all the poor evidence it has.
I would ask how this is that Evolution has such poor evidence? I can think of several very good examples within relatively recent timeframes.
The most popular example is Human breeding of dogs from wolves. However, Humans have also done the same with Horses. Horses as recent as the Roman eras were little more than ponies barely suitable for riding. That's why in early Bronze Age history, horses were used for chariots, they couldn't support the weight of Humans. True war horses weren't available until around the 18th century, iirc.
The there's the conceptual side of things. DNA is like source code. We know DNA mutates (at it's core, it's point mutations that drive all of evolution). The only thing that separates life forms from one another is DNA. Since we know DNA defines the organism, and that changes in DNA can be passed down, as you change the DNA, you change the organism. Eventually you get to a point a group with such different DNA that it cannot reproduce with others of the same species, and thus it becomes their own species. Where's the hole in that?
I believe that this is a form of de-evolution, which makes a ton more sense.Definition of "evolution" in biology: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Also, not to be rude, but for me I believe Mormon is false religion because it contradicts things from the Bible.And everything is a false religion because it contradicts things from Lewis Caroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". Heh, it is a book like another, why not use that one as an argument in front of another book ? And don't tell me "because Bible comes from God", he didn't write it himself. And even if it is meant to be his "ideas" inside, the real people who wrote the book could have failed writing exactly what God wanted to be written.
And also because I am a programmer, it's even a stronger reason NOT to believe in Evolution.So all of your programs were perfectly perfect ? You never had any optimization fail that induced weird behaviours in some precise conditions (too precise for you to notice it when first testing) ? So maybe the main program we're in was not supposed to allow evolution but an exception makes it happen once every I-don't-know, which explains why we can't pop a third eye in a second but why monkeys can become humans in milleniums.
Just think about a little Hello World program and a simple calculator to run it. Be honest, such a thing will never occur from itself. Just as you can see on something so inferior to the human, that it was designed you should see it on the human as well. ;)
Hayleia, be careful to avoid insults and sarcasm. they are both disallowed and counter-productive to you getting your point across.I agree that I used a lot of sarcasm, but I didn't write any insult, did I ?
Where are the biblical contradictions for mormonism? I'm genuinely curious, considering I've read quite a bit of it and haven't noticed any.Here's a webpage that explains the contradictions quite well: http://carm.org/biblical-response-to-mormons
No one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.Ehm, this alone already contradicts the Bible:
The Great White Throne
20:11 Then1 I saw a large2 white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven3 fled4 from his presence, and no place was found for them. 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne. Then5 books were opened, and another book was opened – the book of life.6 So7 the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.8 20:13 The9 sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death10 and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. 20:14 Then11 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. 20:15 If12 anyone’s name13 was not found written in the book of life, that person14 was thrown into the lake of fire.
21:8 But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells,15 idol worshipers,16 and all those who lie, their place17 will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur.18 That19 is the second death.”
QuoteNo one goes to hell, unless they go through a fairly complex set of actions where they directly refute the savior's help, with a full knowledge of its truth. The three kingdoms often depicted are all sub-sections of a large "heaven", and even the lowest is described as wonderful.Ehm, this alone already contradicts the Bible:
Point 7: While Mormonism believes in plurality of gods, there is an important distinction to be made. The only god with authority over our world is our one God. All other gods are either his children, or (depending on whether you consider our God the first or not, I'm not sure which is correct) his relatives. Since, in order to become a god, you need to become one with the Father, there is no conflict between the gods.
Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.I don't know much about the mormonism but i think this is also the catholic image of hell.
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible:Hell isn't really a popular term in mormon sects. The general term used is Outer Darkness, described as being filled with weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth (from the other inhabitants of said place). This place is reserved for those who knowingly reject the atonement, e.g. participation is 100% voluntary.I don't know much about the mormonism but i think this is also the catholic image of hell.
Nobody has to go to hell because god want's to save everyone, but humans are created as free individuals.
So everybody can refuse God's love and can live without him in eternity.
This place without God and love is called the hell.
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible
:PThe majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible
Aren't we already in Hell? ??? (seeing in which state some parts of our world is)
Stefan, in Mormonism Eternal Life refers specifically to Godhood, ie the Celestial kingdom. This is why so many scriptures say "Immortality and Eternal Life" since they are not considered the same. The path to Eternal Life is quite small, and many won't make it, but those people won't necessarily go to hell.So, basically you say that Bible verse means that the narrow path goes to Eternal Life and part of the broad path(or even most?) receive immorality, while it says that it only leads to destruction...
The majority of people will go to Hell, based on the Bible:
Matthew 7:13-14
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.