While I have plenty of things to say on this topic, I (a.) have no time to read through it all, and (b.) don't really want to express my opinion directly.
I will say, however, this is oddly the most radioactive thread on this forum and for that I give you a thumbs up, Proletaria!
While I have plenty of things to say on this topic, I (a.) have no time to read through it all, and (b.) don't really want to express my opinion directly.
I'm willing to discuss the topic through private messages if you like. =)
While I have plenty of things to say on this topic, I (a.) have no time to read through it all, and (b.) don't really want to express my opinion directly.
I'm willing to discuss the topic through private messages if you like. =)
hope im not off topic and so i dare to say that i agree. the universe seems to work without God. tis true it does. but it deosnt mean that he didnt create the universe. it just means that it works perfectly, as far as we kno.
I wouldn't say we know it works -perfectly- because that implies we have a point of comparison. We don't have any other universe to look at and really tell how perfect the universe is.
The reason to think a higher power is at work is not found in physics or theories of how the universe works etc. it is found in our lives.
Sorry, I don't follow that line of reasoning. We exist, we have lives, and we live them evidently. We know the universe exists evidently. I don't know what reason we have to make a cognitive leap to a higher power through these evident things that, as you agreed, could exist independent of a god/higher power assumption.
if god created gravity the universe, physics, etc, all these complicated things why does that imply that we can prove the existance of God through those things, all we will find as we further explore those areas is how those areas work, kinda like the movie The Time Machine, the man created the machine because of his wife's death so how could he use it to safe his wife. God wont be found through some super complicated formula or physics or super intellectual conversations. hope i made sense and stayed on topic, lol.
I don't know if god did create the universe or not and I am not going to assume what science will or will not be able to tell us in the future either. Hence I retain my position of doubt and lack of an assumption either way.
hope im not off topic and so i dare to say that i agree. the universe seems to work without God. tis true it does. but it deosnt mean that he didnt create the universe. it just means that it works perfectly, as far as we kno.
I wouldn't say we know it works -perfectly- because that implies we have a point of comparison. We don't have any other universe to look at and really tell how perfect the universe is.
The reason to think a higher power is at work is not found in physics or theories of how the universe works etc. it is found in our lives.
Sorry, I don't follow that line of reasoning. We exist, we have lives, and we live them evidently. We know the universe exists evidently. I don't know what reason we have to make a cognitive leap to a higher power through these evident things that, as you agreed, could exist independent of a god/higher power assumption.
if god created gravity the universe, physics, etc, all these complicated things why does that imply that we can prove the existance of God through those things, all we will find as we further explore those areas is how those areas work, kinda like the movie The Time Machine, the man created the machine because of his wife's death so how could he use it to safe his wife. God wont be found through some super complicated formula or physics or super intellectual conversations. hope i made sense and stayed on topic, lol.
I don't know if god did create the universe or not and I am not going to assume what science will or will not be able to tell us in the future either. Hence I retain my position of doubt and lack of an assumption either way.
this is where it gets confusing because there seems to be the assumption that the proof of Gods existance lies in some comological truth or something. the problem here is, for example, the Christian God is also referred to as the God of history because he acts in our history and thru events. so in order to proof this God's existance thats where u would look not in science or phsyics or the universe. I have already shared events where i strongly believe God has acted in pple's lives and these events have been responded to as simply coincidenc or mistake. this was the answer i expected to recieve from someone who hasnt lived that event. So when u say,"proof to me your god exists" the issue is what god r u referring to because depending on the God the evidence or proof would be found in a certain place, not just anywhere. if u want proof of the existance of birds u dont go looking underwater. hope i stayed on topic and shed some light on the complication of answering this question. its true that i believe god created the universe and everythin within but the God i believe in shows himself in our history, so the place to find proof of him would be there. it would be a different kind of proof, not scientific.
okay well i...i...i disagree too, YEA take that, one for the team :)no sriously i dont really trust scientists, for instance if i get depressed they tell me to take some drugs instead of facing, understanding, and solving my depression. and then maybe theyd ask me to go to therapy and that never solves anything for any of the pple i kno have gone, at least not permanently.
There is a difference between scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking who are trying to advance the knowledge base of Humanity, and hackjob doctors that shove pills down your throat.
I also agree that shoving pills down people's throats is not the answer, but that doesn't mean science is wrong. Sometimes pills is the only way to help, and other times it's not. Don't misjudge Science because of a few bad eggs.
if i remember correctly, it's also an abomination to eat shrimp, pork etc. and ejaculating outside the vagina. so technically it would be abomination to use condom and such too.
I just wanna share that it's also an abomination to wear polyester and tattoos too.
Ah, western law. So the whole world should be handled in the same way. That's very ignorant to think everything all across the world will function in the same way, now isn't it.
And while you are on the subject. Western civilization is very keen on capitalism, and one of the way capitalism functions at its best is to grow and stamp out the competition. But that would mean closing down smaller businesses, leading to people losing jobs. Doesn't that mean people will be harmed? Just a thought.
I am not talking economics or politics in this thread. There is already a thread about politics if you want to head over there. As for economics, the Ultimate Random Chat Thread sometimes has discussions about economics if you would like to go there.
As for the idea that it's only a western idea that it's good not to go around hurting and killing each other just to get our jollies off, I must ask what nation you live in and why you think that it would be a grand idea for people to go around randomly slaying each other for the lulz.
The guy who killed my aunt used the following defense in the court case, 'she was fat, and had a weak heart' and that justified murdering her. Go to her grave and tell her she'll never be avenged. The guy got off after 7 years.
So you want him to get away almost scott free?
Hell, if somebody killed my beloved aunt (The kind one, not the evil one, if somebody killed the evil one, I'd take him out to dinner) then I'd want him to work hard labor for the rest of his life, and every time he almost dies, bring him back.
Death is 1, too easy for them and 2, too final for the courts.
Programs to help people? Are you serious? What fun it must be to live in the safety of a first world country.
And if you read what I wrote, then you'd know, stealing a loaf of bread wouldn't cover hospital costs. That is why I referred to a TV set (or you can use any other electronic product if you'd like). And he only stole so, I never said he placed your family in danger, unless your livelihoods are somehow connected to a television set.
So he is going to enter my house and say to me "Hello good sir, I wish to steal this television set, but I do not wish to harm you. Please stand back while I break the law and take your property. Thankyou good sir."
I hardly think that's going to be the exchange we would have.
So, you think during civil rights movements nobody got hurt? Everyone shook hands with Colgate smiles and the world was right as rain. No, many people have shed blood for freedoms that we enjoy today, and it's nonsensical to think otherwise. If you don't agree, then go tell a black man or a woman that they deserve to still be slaves today.
Because the whole "Government harmed us, so they gave up their right to not be harmed." thing didn't come into play?
And I'm not religious, so I don't have to follow the Bible and still believe that slavery, as Jesus says, is good.
Oh yes, I'm referring to war. It's not quite in your comfort zone I see, because not everything happens in such a clean way as you're expressing, but this to show you an extreme grey area.
No, it wouldn't be my comfort zone, and I'd hope it's not your comfort zone either. The whole two nations trying to kill each other thing.
And if you are not a soldier, then you are protected under international law as a non-combatant citizen.
But let me use another example. A mafia child is brought up with 'family values'. His family teaches him of loyalty and that outsiders are not to be trusted. They tell him that this is especially true of the law enforcement, they are dirty, corrupt bastards who do whatever they want their way, and they are the scum of the Earth. This is his truth.
One day the police makes a bust on his home. He tries to defend it with force, firing on the police.
I feel sorry for the child, as the child was brought up in a way not befitting a civilized world. That being said, if the police were in the right with warrants and everything, and the child fired upon the police, the police have the right to take him down, preferably with non-lethal force, but with lethal force if required.
Actually, I just referred to a single case, but this happened a lot. And it disgusts me just talking about it, but it is a good example since it's such an extreme case. It opened my eyes how vast the schism between cultures can be. And in my country the vast variety of cultures makes for a lot of conflict. But please, go and try, go to those men, and go to that sangoma and you try your heart out explaining to them how wrong they are. You'll have better luck convincing a wall-street broker of how pointless money actually is.
And if they do something wrong and disgusting, then they should be punished. Simple as that. This is how the law works.
However, I am glad you brought up the Aztecs. You know, there are still extreme cultures like that, and they are brought up that way, believing what they are doing their way is their right. How do you have the right to tell them their spiritual way of life is wrong.
In effect you are trying to harm their culture by imposing your own way of living.
In the same way as the Tibetan monks were harming the Tibetan people? I honestly don't care where you are from, if you are harming somebody and they are not threatening you, then your "spiritual way of life" is wrong. It's the same as if we were to look at a place that had slavery. I hardly think you could defend a culture that still believed slavery was a blessing from the gods.
You're wrong, actually. All of science is an act of faith. You yourself have said that theories are just that. They are what we currently believe to be true with regards the the laws of the Universe. They key difference, I think, between science and religion is that when science proves a theory to be false, science subsequently adjusts its beliefs to fall in line with the newly discovered facts. But science, even 99.99999999% certain science, still functions on a basis of belief.
Do I have to quote what a Theory is for the third time in this thread?
Seriously, you guys make it sound like some scientist got drunk one night and made the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravity, while binge drinking with his homies.
But a belief in mathematics does make algebra possible. You can't reach out and touch the number i, or even -1; you can't point to something and say, "see that? That thing right there is the square root of negative one apples. And that thing next to it, that's exactly one less than zero apples." But the existence of those concepts - the belief that they are logical and sound, makes many mathematic problems possible to solve and that does have a tangible effect on the universe we live in.
Dismissing both faith and belief out of hand as irrelevant to the discussion does an injustice to the debate as a whole.
This also irritates me. I don't have faith or have a belief in science. No Atheist does. That is the realm of religion. I don't have to believe science or math because the proof is given to me willingly why something is how it is.
Pretending faith and belief is something other then what it is is the actual injustice to the debate.
You're making a gross assumption that belief in God is inherently at odds with science and the laws of physics. In fact, Einstein said:
I cannot even bring myself to quote you trying to quote Einstein. It is a well known fact that Einstein's use of the word "god" is more akin to what we might call Nature.
Curiosity is one thing and something I would dare not tread upon. Religious explanations; however, are something else entirely. If you are to make a case that religion hasn't hindered our rational understanding, good luck to you. The burning of Alexandria alone likely set us back a few hundred years. To say nothing of the number of scientific and philsophical minds put to noose, crucifix, and fire over the centuries.
I think I had a tear thinking back about Alexandria. All that glorious information...
i have to give thumbs up as well, never expected a thread like this to last this long not to mention outpost the Beta Contest at times.
Indeed. I've made mental notes about this person or that person who actually joined and are posting in this thread as opposed to just the beta thread to get the beta.
I don't like people who just sign up to get free stuff. It annoys me.
Also, this thread started on, what? Saturday? Sunday? I think it was Sunday, and it's already at 30+ pages.
I am not talking economics or politics in this thread. There is already a thread about politics if you want to head over there. As for economics, the Ultimate Random Chat Thread sometimes has discussions about economics if you would like to go there.
As for the idea that it's only a western idea that it's good not to go around hurting and killing each other just to get our jollies off, I must ask what nation you live in and why you think that it would be a grand idea for people to go around randomly slaying each other for the lulz.
I wasn't really trying to talk economics, it was just an example, which you missed, so never mind.
You know, in my country they've released a book about the farm murders over 20 years. It's only got names, dates and places, but it's about 350 pages thick. And those killings are all for sports.
My girlfriend's dad is a doctor and the stories he's told about what the rurals are capable of is sickening and shocking, to say the least. It makes you feel dead inside. I can tell you stories that you wouldn't believe. Here people get killed, while their valuables remain untouched.
You should seriously come live in a screwed up third world country, it'll really give you some perspective on life.
So you want him to get away almost scott free?
Hell, if somebody killed my beloved aunt (The kind one, not the evil one, if somebody killed the evil one, I'd take him out to dinner) then I'd want him to work hard labor for the rest of his life, and every time he almost dies, bring him back.
Death is 1, too easy for them and 2, too final for the courts.
No, actually I'd like to torture him, and see the fear drain from his deadening eyes, and I feel every murderer deserves as much. Life is sacred, and if you kill someone, then your's should be void.
So he is going to enter my house and say to me "Hello good sir, I wish to steal this television set, but I do not wish to harm you. Please stand back while I break the law and take your property. Thankyou good sir."
I hardly think that's going to be the exchange we would have.
Are you trying to be thick on purpose now. When your family leaves on holiday or just to go get something to eat, he quickly breaks in. There, he's not trying to harm your family or place them in danger.
Because the whole "Government harmed us, so they gave up their right to not be harmed." thing didn't come into play?
And I'm not religious, so I don't have to follow the Bible and still believe that slavery, as Jesus says, is good.
So, the law and the government is infallible. That's a very blind thing to say, especially since laws change all the time. Especially since there were laws that harmed people. Want proof. Long ago woman didn't have the same right as men, they fought like hell and today they've earned that right.
The point I initially tried to make with all of this was, the world has grey moral zones. We can debate this until the thread gets locked, and probably still not agree. But I stand firm, in a world with vastly different cultures, religions and points of view, you can't enforce your own morals onto others.
No, it wouldn't be my comfort zone, and I'd hope it's not your comfort zone either. The whole two nations trying to kill each other thing.
And if you are not a soldier, then you are protected under international law as a non-combatant citizen.
Wow, you've got a good way of seeing the wrong part, and turning the conversation on its head. I meant it's a comfort zone, watching wars unfold on tv and throwing in your opinion. It's a different matter being there. It's like fat people at home screaming at the tv how their sports team is doing it wrong. If you're in a situation it plays out a whole lot differently than you'd expect, knowing that and trying to understand that is called empathy. But I digress, back on the topic...
I feel sorry for the child, as the child was brought up in a way not befitting a civilized world. That being said, if the police were in the right with warrants and everything, and the child fired upon the police, the police have the right to take him down, preferably with non-lethal force, but with lethal force if required.
Actually, I meant he was raised in USA, so it's funny that you pointed it out as a non civilized environment. I used an extreme example, but I wonder if you knew that not everyone sees the world in the same way. Even the law knows that, to an extent, which is why they do court hearings to see every angle of a situation.
Also, this is a discussion about morals and whether or not a God exists. So, the matter is not what the police may or may not do according to law, but how a God can judge a soul for living 100% according to what he saw as right.
And if they do something wrong and disgusting, then they should be punished. Simple as that. This is how the law works.
So, do you want to come over here and enforce your law onto them. Come give it a shot and don't be surprised if you're killed in the process. You know, it's very American of you to think you have the right to go around the world and impose your way of thinking on others. My personal view is to each his own. Don't impose your crap on me, because I don't intend to do so with mine.
If a nation intends to live in a certain way, let them. It's their right to do so, and it's your right to choose the way you want to live. If they choose to force their way of thinking onto you, then it's your right to oppose them, just as I believe it's their right to oppose your way of thinking.
In the same way as the Tibetan monks were harming the Tibetan people? I honestly don't care where you are from, if you are harming somebody and they are not threatening you, then your "spiritual way of life" is wrong. It's the same as if we were to look at a place that had slavery. I hardly think you could defend a culture that still believed slavery was a blessing from the gods.
Defend them? Sigh... you are exasperating. Look at my previous statement. I'm not defending them, in fact, I couldn't care less if they decide to massacre themselves. It's their right way of living, and your wrong way. As long as they don't decide to do the same to you, then why stop them. Who'se to say their gods don't exists. Do you have proof that they don't? Then let them be.
No religion does that? Have you looked at the Abrahamic traditions?
I know all too well that the first third of the Bible happens to be filled with bloodlust. And so are most of the history books, in fact. If you read one of my earlier posts I said that the Bible is good to be read for its knowledge, but shouldn't be outright followed. Actually those early parts are filled with their laws, something we hold so dearly today, and in their limited understanding it was right.
They killed gays because to them it was as morally destructive as rape is considered today. Times have changed and the world has moved on. Nonetheless, to them in their minds at the time it made sense. Perhaps in two thousand years humans will look at us in disdain and wonder why we abide by such bloodthirsty laws. What works in one period wont work in another, and what works in one part of the world wont work somewhere else.
Basic western ideal is that you do not harm somebody unless your health and safety or the health and safety of your family is in jeopardy.
So, do you feel western ideals are the cornerstone of rational society, that without them a society will fall apart. Let me ask you a sickening question. Would you have sex with a 13 year old? Of course not! She would be under aged! I agree, the thought is horrible, children should be kept away from things like that, and protected.
However, did you know in some countries the age of consent is 13, even 12 in others? So, by your law they are full of pedophiles, but according to theirs it's alright. Who is right then? You are both right in your own views. What works for you doesn't work for everyone, and that's the way the world works.
I wasn't really trying to talk economics, it was just an example, which you missed, so never mind.
You know, in my country they've released a book about the farm murders over 20 years. It's only got names, dates and places, but it's about 350 pages thick. And those killings are all for sports.
My girlfriend's dad is a doctor and the stories he's told about what the rurals are capable of is sickening and shocking, to say the least. It makes you feel dead inside. I can tell you stories that you wouldn't believe. Here people get killed, while their valuables remain untouched.
You should seriously come live in a screwed up third world country, it'll really give you some perspective on life.
That's not what I would want people to do, and I am glad you agree that it's messed up. The world isn't perfect, and this is a good example.
No, actually I'd like to torture him, and see the fear drain from his deadening eyes, and I feel every murderer deserves as much. Life is sacred, and if you kill someone, then your's should be void.
Well there is so much more that can be done then just killing him. And if you keep them alive and make them do hard labor for the rest of their miserable life, if new information comes to light and it turns out they are innocent, then they are not dead, and if they are actually guilty, then they spent 20, 30, or 40 years doing back breaking labor for 12 to 14 hours a day.
Are you trying to be thick on purpose now. When your family leaves on holiday or just to go get something to eat, he quickly breaks in. There, he's not trying to harm your family or place them in danger.
If my child is sick, I'm not going to scout around for the biggest, nicest television I can find, then wait for them to go to vacation, if it got to that point, I'd rob a a store if it came to it.
Ahh...no? If you have seen half the threads I've made, you would know I am very much against this government. But that doesn't mean I have the right to walk up to a police officer and blow his brains out for looking at me funny. Nor does he have the right to walk up to me and blow my brains out for looking at him funny.
Wow, you've got a good way of seeing the wrong part, and turning the conversation on its head. I meant it's a comfort zone, watching wars unfold on tv and throwing in your opinion. It's a different matter being there. It's like fat people at home screaming at the tv how their sports team is doing it wrong. If you're in a situation it plays out a whole lot differently than you'd expect, knowing that and trying to understand that is called empathy. But I digress, back on the topic...
I'm not going to respond to this, because I don't think I'd be able to control what I'd say.
Actually, I meant he was raised in USA, so it's funny that you pointed it out as a non civilized environment. I used an extreme example, but I wonder if you knew that not everyone sees the world in the same way. Even the law knows that, to an extent, which is why they do court hearings to see every angle of a situation.
Yes, I know you said it was the USA, and I still do not believe he was brought up in a civilized world. Just because you are in a civilized nation doesn't mean you are in a civilized world.
Also, this is a discussion about morals and whether or not a God exists. So, the matter is not what the police may or may not do according to law, but how a God can judge a soul for living 100% according to what he saw as right.
The problem, as I see it, is that if a god sends a child to hell for not knowing his law (ie the bible) when the child never has a chance to learn the law, that god is sick and twisted. Morals are not wholly owned by religion.
So, do you want to come over here and enforce your law onto them. Come give it a shot and don't be surprised if you're killed in the process. You know, it's very American of you to think you have the right to go around the world and impose your way of thinking on others. My personal view is to each his own. Don't impose your crap on me, because I don't intend to do so with mine.
You know, I gotta say, I laugh when people say this is very American or that is very American. Where do we come from? England? France? Spain? Who came to the new world and told everyone how to live? England? France? Spain? I'm not saying America is not to blame, but it agitates me when people, especially in Europe, look down their noses at America. (I don't know if you are European or American or Russian or Chineese or what you are, I just had to get that off my chest.
If a nation intends to live in a certain way, let them. It's their right to do so, and it's your right to choose the way you want to live. If they choose to force their way of thinking onto you, then it's your right to oppose them, just as I believe it's their right to oppose your way of thinking.
So we of the international community should just sit back while, say, Iran beats and kills a teacher for allowing her student to name a teddy bear Mohamed?
I find that almost as sick and twisted as the religion itself.
Defend them? Sigh... you are exasperating. Look at my previous statement. I'm not defending them, in fact, I couldn't care less if they decide to massacre themselves. It's their right way of living, and your wrong way. As long as they don't decide to do the same to you, then why stop them. Who'se to say their gods don't exists. Do you have proof that they don't? Then let them be.
So it's alright for people to kill each other as long as you are not affected, because it's the way they are raised?
Was it also alright for Nazi Germany to kill the Jews, because that's how the Nazi Youth were brought up and that's what they consider the "right way of living"?
And I don't care if the Buddhist or Christian god(s) exist, that doesn't make the murder of innocents any better. (Or would you rather I put it this way. What if the man who murdered your aunt was raised to believe it was acceptable to murder people, would you still be fine with it, as it's his "right way of life"? I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to show you that you need to put yourself in their shoes.)
They killed gays because to them it was as morally destructive as rape is considered today. Times have changed and the world has moved on. Nonetheless, to them in their minds at the time it made sense. Perhaps in two thousand years humans will look at us in disdain and wonder why we abide by such bloodthirsty laws. What works in one period wont work in another, and what works in one part of the world wont work somewhere else.
Gays are equal to rapists? Really? I hope I misunderstood you here, because that's pretty offensive to quite a number of members on this board, both religious and non-religious.
So, do you feel western ideals are the cornerstone of rational society, that without them a society will fall apart. Let me ask you a sickening question. Would you have sex with a 13 year old? Of course not! She would be under aged! I agree, the thought is horrible, children should be kept away from things like that, and protected.
However, did you know in some countries the age of consent is 13, even 12 in others? So, by your law they are full of pedophiles, but according to theirs it's alright. Who is right then? You are both right in your own views. What works for you doesn't work for everyone, and that's the way the world works.
Western ideals are the cornerstone of western society. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
I would like the ideals to be followed throughout the world, but we still have theocracies like Israel and Iran that make holy books into law.
As for the age of consent, again, theocracies make holy books into law.
Alright, this is going in circles, I see.
Basically we are talking about the same principle, but we are talking about two way different things. I'm trying to describe the principles of a window, while you're describing the way a door functions.
So, let's leave out odd examples and strange metaphors for now, cause it's creating a lot of confusion between us...
The problem, as I see it, is that if a god sends a child to hell for not knowing his law (ie the bible) when the child never has a chance to learn the law, that god is sick and twisted. Morals are not wholly owned by religion.
Well, this thread was mainly about a god, which is why I said what I said way back.
There cannot whatsoever be a God that punishes everyone equally according to a single, strict measuring. It makes no sense and there simply cannot, which is why I brought up different cultures and religions, though for some reason you brought in western civilization. It's just too bad there is still a whole world out there full of people who don't care about western culture, so how can that god judge them all according to one standard, and I didn't want to focus on the minor details there. That was why I turned the conversation in that way, to show that.
You know, I gotta say, I laugh when people say this is very American or that is very American. Where do we come from? England? France? Spain? Who came to the new world and told everyone how to live? England? France? Spain? I'm not saying America is not to blame, but it agitates me when people, especially in Europe, look down their noses at America. (I don't know if you are European or American or Russian or Chineese or what you are, I just had to get that off my chest.
Europe? I sure as hell am not from Europe. I said a third world country, and you eluded to Europe, China, and Russia. You know, I gotta say, that's odd. You know what I hate? African Americans who grew up in the Bronx who come to Africa and say it feels like they're coming home. I'm white, was born in Africa, just like my grandfather, and his grandfather, and so on. I'm more African than they ever would like to imagine to be, they don't even know what it's like to be African, and I assure you it's a whole lot different than growing up in an American city. I say to them, go back to the where you came from, my grandfather fought the English to save us from slavery. So no, I'm not from freaking Europe.
So we of the international community should just sit back while, say, Iran beats and kills a teacher for allowing her student to name a teddy bear Mohamed?
I find that almost as sick and twisted as the religion itself.
You, of the international community, are making matters worse. Iran was and is in chaos, long before you, of the international community, got there, and it will remain as such. Do you want to know why, because they choose to be, and guess what, they sure as hell don't want your help. Are you going to beat that into them? Why not leave them be. Just by being there, you are aggravating them. They live out their ways in the only way they know how, as sickening as it may seem, but if you jump on your high horse and race in there, all you'll cause will be more bloodshed, yours and theirs.
And it's very shortsighted saying their religion is twisted. You know, the Spanish attacked the Azteca, to make them catholic. How is that different from what is happening in the Middle East. 'Look at those religious fanatics. What savages. Let's take our democracy and Christianity over there and beat it into them.' It's an over simplification, though that is exactly what is happening. And I'm sorry, but I don't want the US to rule the world, they nearly wiped out a civilization, just because those natives happened to be there first.
So it's alright for people to kill each other as long as you are not affected, because it's the way they are raised?
Was it also alright for Nazi Germany to kill the Jews, because that's how the Nazi Youth were brought up and that's what they consider the "right way of living"?
And I don't care if the Buddhist or Christian god(s) exist, that doesn't make the murder of innocents any better. (Or would you rather I put it this way. What if the man who murdered your aunt was raised to believe it was acceptable to murder people, would you still be fine with it, as it's his "right way of life"? I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to show you that you need to put yourself in their shoes.)
Oh, LinkX. No, clearly you didn't understand what I wrote. I said nothing where if I'm not affected, then it is alright, as long as I'm fine, everything's fine. I didn't say that. Clearly you misunderstood me.
A nation abides by their own rules. If an Aztec believed his deity ordained his sacrifice and they all participate willingly, then that is their problem and their solution. If Middle Eastern fighters believe they need to fight one another for their holy war, then that is their way of doing what they do. However, they aren't attacking you, or anyone not part of it. They aren't exactly invading your country and imposing their will upon you, now are they? How would the Americans have felt if other countries jumped in to stop their Civil War.
Let me explain it this way. Some cultures have rules where they commit strange and odd rituals, but it's their way of life, not yours, you are already living your way of life. How would you feel if they force you to do so. Here's an example, people die during the running of the bulls (even animals gets harmed), but the people do it willingly, because it's a part of their culture. Will you try to stop that?
Gays are equal to rapists? Really? I hope I misunderstood you here, because that's pretty offensive to quite a number of members on this board, both religious and non-religious.
What? No, I'm not saying it's equal. I find it odd that you're turning it around on me, because your not understanding it's meaning. I'm saying it was punishable by death long ago, and was outlawed, even until recently. I'm trying to show you how we change with the times and the world... You know what, never mind, the next example was better...
Western ideals are the cornerstone of western society. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
I would like the ideals to be followed throughout the world, but we still have theocracies like Israel and Iran that make holy books into law.
As for the age of consent, again, theocracies make holy books into law.
...But you call it theocracy... Really? In Spain the age is 13, in Italy it's 14, and they are both Catholic, but your calling them theocracies... Actually, there are many countries with many different ages of consent that are democracies and republics, first world countries with strong economies and perfectly well laid out western ideologies, they are not theocracies. I'm trying to show you how vastly cultures differ and how their religions are different as such, but instead you grab at straws.
Clearly I'm getting nowhere here.
And also, why are you then promoting western ideals as if it can save the whole world, because honestly, it still has a lot of maturing to do before it can help anyone.
Go back to the "hood"? You might want to consider rephrasing that one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at here. I'm going to move on.
You accused me of missquoting and of being dishonest in the end, I'm just defending myself, and showing that you were the one contradicting yourself. Move on.
Answering this with "we don't know what science will discover" solves experimental problems, but not logic problems (yeah logics again)
---
BTW Don't ignore or bash an argument as you been doing without saying what you want. This is the best way to not be proven wrong. This is dishonest.
State your premises and your goal so people can talk. If not, ask a Mod to lock it.
You seem to have a tenuous-at-best grasp on the word "logic," and what it means. If you want my premise, read the OP. Sorry to be terse, but you're literally not making sense.
The same OP that resulted in 30 pages of nothing cause it lacked solid premises and objectives, that even a Mod had to tell you to be more specific. Don't know what you edited in the OP, but now it says that (1) you don't have enough evidences, (2) books are not science- agreed, (3) agnostic x atheist, and (4) "Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause [...] do not provide proof either". 2 and 3 adds little but are ok, but 1 and 4 in conjuction with your agreement (as proved above) that we can't give a solid evidence and your refuse in taking this discussion to the only field that could be used do defend the god thesis, still make impossible to defend any point of view contrary to yours.
Again... state your premises the most objectively way you can: like 1- we don't have evidences for god, 2- only type X of evidence is accpetable, 3-books/myths are historycal not scientific, 4- .... just make sure give us a room for answer.
this is where it gets confusing because there seems to be the assumption that the proof of Gods existance lies in some comological truth or something.
No, i'm not assuming anything about god, nor about what science might uncover about cosmology. I've plainly stated over and over that since I cannot assume to know what science will tell us, then I must allow for the possibility it might or might not find evidence for god (or not god). Simply put, I refrain from saying one way or the other because I leave all, equally likely given my information, possibilities open.
the problem here is, for example, the Christian God is also referred to as the God of history because he acts in our history and thru events. so in order to proof this God's existance thats where u would look not in science or phsyics or the universe.
Except we have no more evidence that the christian god acted in history than zeus did. In-fact there are more wide-spread attributions to the works of zeus than the works of the christian god. I don't deny there are historical tidbits in the bible and in a lot of greek mythologies, legends, etc. but I have not been made aware of the evidence that suggests any of the fantastic/miraculous events there-in are non-fiction. As I said, my fellow historians and anthropologists/archeologists have uncovered compelling evidence that even many of the non-miraculous events of the bible and other ancient religious texts are not accurate. The amount of doubt I apply to using that text as evidence is equal to the doubt I would give to the Illiad when trying to discover the semi-divinity of Achillies.
I have already shared events where i strongly believe God has acted in pple's lives and these events have been responded to as simply coincidenc or mistake. this was the answer i expected to recieve from someone who hasnt lived that event.
Well there is an entire subset of sociologists, psycologists, and other scientiest who go about studying the perception of miracles. I've read a number of their essays on the topic and have yet to come across one where the miracle in question wasn't either confronted as a hoax or explained in an empirical way that was not miraculous. If such miracles have occured which are flawless and absolute equivocations of the existence of a particular god then I would imagine the scientific community would have picked up on that. Such a confounding case would be something we'd study a lot. We like a challenge.
So when u say,"proof to me your god exists" the issue is what god r u referring to because depending on the God the evidence or proof would be found in a certain place, not just anywhere.
And when I say, no miracles have been substantiated, I mean, none of them. Not a one. Regardless of which God supposedly caused them.
if u want proof of the existance of birds u dont go looking underwater.
And if you don't know anything about the concept of "bird," then you really don't know where to look, do you? If there was an ancient book telling you birds were invisible and unknowable and you simply had to believe they existed, well, you would have to assume the birds might or might not exist because there isn't an empirical method of proving or disproving the invisible birds.
hope i stayed on topic and shed some light on the complication of answering this question. its true that i believe god created the universe and everythin within but the God i believe in shows himself in our history, so the place to find proof of him would be there. it would be a different kind of proof, not scientific.
I don't know wether to be insulted, as a historian, by this or not. Our profession seeks to make our knowledge of the past as accurate as possible, but we don't have a lower standard of evidence than a scientist. We refuse to make incredible claims without incredible evidence too, and we also spend a lot of time laboring over the work of other academics to hone our understanding of the past in a more scientific manner. Ultiimately, if you are looking for proof of a god, any god, in history I don't think you've got it yet. There may be some incredible discovery in the future, I cannot forsee all that we might one-day know, but I maintain no assumptions. As of yet, we have refuted and found lacking evidence far more often than we corroborated the religious texts, so I would think those interested in basing their faith on historical records would share my doubt.
The same OP that resulted in 30 pages of nothing cause it lacked solid premises and objectives, that even a Mod had to tell you to be more specific. Don't know what you edited in the OP, but now it says that (1) you don't have enough evidences, (2) books are not science- agreed, (3) agnostic x atheist, and (4) "Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause [...] do not provide proof either". 2 and 3 adds little but are ok, but 1 and 4 in conjuction with your agreement (as proved above) that we can't give a solid evidence and your refuse in taking this discussion to the only field that could be used do defend the god thesis, still make impossible to defend any point of view contrary to yours.
Again... state your premises the most objectively way you can: like 1- we don't have evidences for god, 2- only type X of evidence is accpetable, 3-books/myths are historycal not scientific, 4- .... just make sure give us a room for answer.
I took -one word- out of the OP. Everyone but you seems to have been able to grasp the premise. Stop trolling.
@Proletaria you said earlier that ppl on spirit quest or whatever had evidence for their belief, cause they saw something.
well then i'd like to present proof of conscious creative universe. (laws of creation that i mentioned earlier)
No I said they "claimed," evidence. Not that it was valid. Claiming evidence negates belief just as much as actual evidence. In both cases you're not actually beliving something, to your mind, you have a reason. It may be a bogus reason and objectively, you might not have evidence at all, but that never seems to stop young-eath creationsists from showing me million year old rocks and claiming that they're 6000 years old due to their bad evidence.
in through the wormhole, season2, ep1. there's a scientist that was brain dead for 2 weeks, cause bacterial infection on the brain or something.
when he woke up he remembers living as an earthworm, he describes how it is to crawl through the dirtt, and that there's no thought process, just instinctive digging.
he tells how he's a speck of dust on the wing of a butterfly.
and he describes how he travels *outside* the universe, looking in at the *core* i suppose where the galaxies are. from the view outside the universe he can see other universes close to ours.
he tells how he feels this presence of great love (in laws of creation it always states that love is the feeling that you're one with everything around us, not this feeling that we humans feel towards each other, so dont remember which he meant), which i suppose is the conscious creation/universe.
Now as you know, when you're brain dead, you couldnt experience this from the point of your brain. since it's not active.
That's a really cool story, I will admit, but it doesn't substantiate anything. Our evidence is his word. Unless he wants to give a lot of people bacterial infections of the brain to induce similar effects, so that they might be studied in detail. I don't think there is any way to prove what he experienced wasn't a natural reaction or simply a story that he made up, or some combination of the two. I don't, as usual, remove any possibility that it was a godly experience or whatever you want to call it, but I have no grounds on which to judge his account empirically sound.
In laws of creation we humans have a spirit, it sits in the brain. we can say it's a quantum particle, or singularity. doesnt really matter what it is, its just an example. so when he's brain dead, the spirit leaves the body. in quantum physics a quantum particle can exist in different places at the same time. so he experiences his mind, outside himself. namely in the mind of a worm, spec of dust, and i suppose in spirit form outside the universe.
We have no more proof for a spirit than we do for god, so we can't rightly use that to explain god. That would be like using faires to explain unicorns.
i dont think you'll get any closer evidence, unless you have a near death experience yourself, and experience these things yourself
Well, that is the point I made above. Unless any of us has the exact same experience we're in no way confronted with even coincidence, much less evidence, that the person is relaying somehing evident. We might like to wish that it was evidence, but it is not.
Of course a Christian would say they met god. some other religious person would say it was something else. so i cant prove *what* it is. but the experience shows it is *something*
Well sure, it shows something, but you're ruling out all of the known and unknown physical phenomena that might have propagated the experience off-hand. I'm simply not doing that. I make no assumptions without evidence.
The scientist says that love seems to be a huge part of what the universe/creation is.
Honestly, the moment he makes far-fetched claims without any more evidence than his personal experience, he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a mystic. I think he should know better.
which if you look at the explanation in laws of creation
I'm still wondering where you are getting this "laws of creation," stuff. Depac Choprah? It sounds all kinds of new-age and pseudo-scientific. I really wish you would just identify the laws of physics or scientific theories you want to discuss.
i think you're very much fooling yourself, if you think all these countless pieces just happened by...coincidence. sure, we're looking at billions of years of time, but it's still waaaay to much coincidence.
it's like saying: lets take a graphic engine, and maybe in time Diablo 3 will spontaneously self-assemble.
I'm very much refuding to do just that. If you think you KNOW that things happened by something other that coincidence, then you're claiming to know much more than our evidence allows. Your analogy is a nonsense argument for design, which you haven't even tried to assert prior to this moment.
the reason i got there was cause i somehow read about Talmud Jmmanuel, which supposedly is the real story of Jesus. So Jmmanuel is Jesus' real name. i thought the story was so ironic, and awesome, so i looked up Billy Meier, and found the site, and all that about creation.
In short it says that Jmmanuel (J=E) was against god, and denied the existence of any god. he got angry at his disciples anytime they tried make him *son of god* etc.
the angels were just very advanced Extraterrestrials. that the ppl thought were gods messengers.
the *star* that guided the 3 wise men was a UFO.
Jmmanuel didnt die on the cross, but was just near death. the 3 wise men from India used a secret back entrance to the tomb where Jmmanuel was placed, to treat him in there. after 3 days he exit. and ppl thought he had resurrected.
He then left for India, where he lived the rest of his life.
He crossed the Himalayas, and along the path, you can find monasteries, that he visited. there's stories about him, and pictures, that suggest he did go that way. his mother Mary also went on the journey, but died before Himalayas. and her grave is somewhere there. or so the locals insist. and Jmmanuels grave can be found in India.
Anyways, i think it's more likely that extraterrestrials where involved rather than angels. UFOs rather than stars guiding ppl from India to Jerusalem a UFO picking him up, rather than him magically ascending to heaven.
The *God* that destroyed sodom and all that, was also an Extraterrestrial, quite the unpleasant fellah...
Soooo, the god in the Bible died 2000 years ago actually.
Jmmanuel predicted that his teachings would be falsified by his disciples. and it would turn into an evil cult, with much bloodshed. though ofc they didnt really *lie* they were just to stupid to understand the truth.
If you like the Bible as a moral guide book, or the story of Jesus. have a look at Talmud Jmmanuel, it's pretty much the same. It's all about his story, his teachings and nothing else.
"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
programming D3 would require a lot of details to fit.
if you consider every single little law of physic and otherwise that we know, there's a huge pile of rules for EVERYTHING.
i dont think its a nonsense argument to claim that it's as likely for D3 to spontaneously self-assemble, as the universe self-assembling into all these countless rules, that just makes EVERYTHING fit so PERFECTLY.
I said that creation is a conscious universe, that made big bang. created humans to evolve itself. that's not intelligent design? i think i posted this at some earlier page, i might be wrong. so i did assert it prior to this moment.
You're making it hard for me to avoid the word "nonsense," and I desperately desire to remain civil here. Look, the big-bang didn't create humans any more than it created satellite television. We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them. That much is evident to us. That isn't intelligent design, no. Intelligent design is the vogue word for creationism, which entails a creator designed all things with intimate detail. Look it up on their wacky fundie websites.
Furthermore, the suggestion that it is so amazing that we evolved at all from this universe begs the quesiton: What other universe do we have to compare to? If we had that vantage point, perhaps we might see a hundred other universes where life never came up, but we might also see a hundred universes where life was far more wide-spread and successfully evolved. We simply don't get to play the "oh it's so darn amazing we're even here, how unlikely is that?" You have to understand we have NO IDEA how likely it is. None. We might some day learn how likely it is. I don't get to rule that out either, but presently it's a faux question. A useless rhetorical tool. And more often than not: an il-concieved promo one-liner for creationist trolls. (Note: i'm not accusing you of being one)
I'm more than willing to wax endlessly about the finer points of our univeral laws with you, but drop this intelligent design stuff, it is nonsense.
well Jmmanuels teachings was falsified, so what Jesus says is also false. Jmmanuel taught something else.
If you wish to know what it is, read Talmud Jmmanuel, and/or the spirit teachings from Billy.
Either way, Both of them (bad description cause they are the same person) lived at the same time, and were limited by that times world view. so Jmmanuel would say that homosexuality is wrong too. now the modern version in the spirit teachings says it's perfectly fine. it's unnatural in that it cant make babies, but naturally occurring, and is therefore legitimate. etc.
I'm unclear on why we should care what either of these individuals might have had to say about how to live. I think i'll be the judge of how to live my life, thanks.
if there was no moon, there'd be no tides, and unlikely to be life on land.
most planets dont rotate around their own axis, so there's no day cycles. life would have been much different without the cycle.
there's seasons cause earth is tilted, without it there'd be just 1 season. which again would change everything.
if we're to near or to far from the sun, there could be no life.
if the star is to big or small, there cant be life.
if we're to near the center of the galaxy, there's to much radiation
and so on.
And that happens to be the case on billions of other planets. What kind of supposition are you making? This seems to detract from the idea that the universe is in any way ideal. Furthermore, as I said, we don't have a universe with diffirent physical laws with wich to juxtapose our situation so, we cannot even say what the odds are that an earth might exist more easily or with more difficulty elsewhere. We don't even know that earth is the sole paradigm for the fruition of life at all. Calling into question all the requisites for life on earth, as we know it, doesn't demand design or precognition at all.
i dont think earth is here directly cause of intelligent design. it happened by chance, provided by the laws of physics. but without creation, there'd be no universe to begin with.
well ofc creation had to come from somewhere too, in a natural way. we're conscious for various reasons, and it's the same for creation.
Again, we have no reason to suppose "creation," at all. We are not currently in the posession of evidence that asserts the universe had a creator or not. And yes, if you suppose a creator you must then ask where that creator came from, which is an infinite regression. As I said much earlier in this thread, supposing that "creator," always existed is the same as simply assuming the universe always existed. We don't have evidence to support or dispute either one of those claims, but the former demands that we arbitrarily include a creator. Occam's Razor would force us to consider the simplest solution the more likely of the two.
"Look, the big-bang didn't create humans any more than it created satellite television. We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them. That much is evident to us."
You say this like it's a fact Proletaria. That seems like nonsense to me. We've been investigating "the big bang" for what, half a century? To say that we KNOW something about a time period we are so far removed from and so unfamiliar with seems a bit of a stretch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
"Look, the big-bang didn't create humans any more than it created satellite television. We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them. That much is evident to us."
You say this like it's a fact Proletaria. That seems like nonsense to me. We've been investigating "the big bang" for what, half a century? To say that we KNOW something about a time period we are so far removed from and so unfamiliar with seems a bit of a stretch.
Evolution is a well-established theory that is verified by evidence, observation, and has held up to scientific scrutiny. I say it like it's a fact, because it's as close to a fact as i'm likely to find on the topic of the development of humanity out of the cosmological epoch we refer to as the "big bang."
You may falsely accuse me of asserting that I KNOW exactly how things played out (far from it), but I can say without any uncertainty that what we understand makes evolution a matter both evident and explanatory, as far as we know, and creation a bygone and unlikely alternative which has absolutely no evidential backing of it's own. While i'm never willing to make assertions without evidence, I KNOW you're absolutely wrong if you're trying to assert that we have no evidence for the theory of evolution.
i did not falsely accuse you of anything. You stated this as fact: We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
i did not falsely accuse you of anything. You stated this as fact: We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them.
The bold is the important part and you left out my adjoining sentence: "That much is evident to us." If I wished to state an unequivocal truth, I don't think I would have included such a caveat. You're distressing over the percieved tone of my sentence when I have dually clarified that I derived that statement from the best of our emprical knowledge and out of the context of our present understanding. I need not make any absolute assertions to say that one idea is evidently probable to the point of wide-spread scientific support and another one is evidently improbable to the point of absurdity.
Non-assertion is prudent when it come to things about which we have no empirical evidence one way or the other, such as in our assertion of god or no god, but it is certainly not applicable when it comes to things about which we do have empirical evidence for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I will say, however, this is oddly the most radioactive thread on this forum and for that I give you a thumbs up, Proletaria!
I'm willing to discuss the topic through private messages if you like. =)
I appreciate the kind words.
I wouldn't say we know it works -perfectly- because that implies we have a point of comparison. We don't have any other universe to look at and really tell how perfect the universe is.
Sorry, I don't follow that line of reasoning. We exist, we have lives, and we live them evidently. We know the universe exists evidently. I don't know what reason we have to make a cognitive leap to a higher power through these evident things that, as you agreed, could exist independent of a god/higher power assumption.
I don't know if god did create the universe or not and I am not going to assume what science will or will not be able to tell us in the future either. Hence I retain my position of doubt and lack of an assumption either way.
There is a difference between scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking who are trying to advance the knowledge base of Humanity, and hackjob doctors that shove pills down your throat.
I also agree that shoving pills down people's throats is not the answer, but that doesn't mean science is wrong. Sometimes pills is the only way to help, and other times it's not. Don't misjudge Science because of a few bad eggs.
I just wanna share that it's also an abomination to wear polyester and tattoos too.
I am not talking economics or politics in this thread. There is already a thread about politics if you want to head over there. As for economics, the Ultimate Random Chat Thread sometimes has discussions about economics if you would like to go there.
As for the idea that it's only a western idea that it's good not to go around hurting and killing each other just to get our jollies off, I must ask what nation you live in and why you think that it would be a grand idea for people to go around randomly slaying each other for the lulz.
So you want him to get away almost scott free?
Hell, if somebody killed my beloved aunt (The kind one, not the evil one, if somebody killed the evil one, I'd take him out to dinner) then I'd want him to work hard labor for the rest of his life, and every time he almost dies, bring him back.
Death is 1, too easy for them and 2, too final for the courts.
So he is going to enter my house and say to me "Hello good sir, I wish to steal this television set, but I do not wish to harm you. Please stand back while I break the law and take your property. Thankyou good sir."
I hardly think that's going to be the exchange we would have.
Because the whole "Government harmed us, so they gave up their right to not be harmed." thing didn't come into play?
And I'm not religious, so I don't have to follow the Bible and still believe that slavery, as Jesus says, is good.
No, it wouldn't be my comfort zone, and I'd hope it's not your comfort zone either. The whole two nations trying to kill each other thing.
And if you are not a soldier, then you are protected under international law as a non-combatant citizen.
I feel sorry for the child, as the child was brought up in a way not befitting a civilized world. That being said, if the police were in the right with warrants and everything, and the child fired upon the police, the police have the right to take him down, preferably with non-lethal force, but with lethal force if required.
And if they do something wrong and disgusting, then they should be punished. Simple as that. This is how the law works.
In the same way as the Tibetan monks were harming the Tibetan people? I honestly don't care where you are from, if you are harming somebody and they are not threatening you, then your "spiritual way of life" is wrong. It's the same as if we were to look at a place that had slavery. I hardly think you could defend a culture that still believed slavery was a blessing from the gods.
No religion does that? Have you looked at the Abrahamic traditions?
Basic western ideal is that you do not harm somebody unless your health and safety or the health and safety of your family is in jeopardy.
I was tempted to just leave this thread alone and come back tomorrow after work, but I knew it would be about 40 pages by then. Lol.
Do I have to quote what a Theory is for the third time in this thread?
Seriously, you guys make it sound like some scientist got drunk one night and made the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution, or the theory of gravity, while binge drinking with his homies.
This gives Link a sad...
This also irritates me. I don't have faith or have a belief in science. No Atheist does. That is the realm of religion. I don't have to believe science or math because the proof is given to me willingly why something is how it is.
Pretending faith and belief is something other then what it is is the actual injustice to the debate.
I cannot even bring myself to quote you trying to quote Einstein. It is a well known fact that Einstein's use of the word "god" is more akin to what we might call Nature.
Quotemining should be against forum rules. <_<
I think I had a tear thinking back about Alexandria. All that glorious information...
Indeed. I've made mental notes about this person or that person who actually joined and are posting in this thread as opposed to just the beta thread to get the beta.
I don't like people who just sign up to get free stuff. It annoys me.
Also, this thread started on, what? Saturday? Sunday? I think it was Sunday, and it's already at 30+ pages.
Epicsauce. Lol.
You know, in my country they've released a book about the farm murders over 20 years. It's only got names, dates and places, but it's about 350 pages thick. And those killings are all for sports.
My girlfriend's dad is a doctor and the stories he's told about what the rurals are capable of is sickening and shocking, to say the least. It makes you feel dead inside. I can tell you stories that you wouldn't believe. Here people get killed, while their valuables remain untouched.
You should seriously come live in a screwed up third world country, it'll really give you some perspective on life.
No, actually I'd like to torture him, and see the fear drain from his deadening eyes, and I feel every murderer deserves as much. Life is sacred, and if you kill someone, then your's should be void.
Are you trying to be thick on purpose now. When your family leaves on holiday or just to go get something to eat, he quickly breaks in. There, he's not trying to harm your family or place them in danger.
So, the law and the government is infallible. That's a very blind thing to say, especially since laws change all the time. Especially since there were laws that harmed people. Want proof. Long ago woman didn't have the same right as men, they fought like hell and today they've earned that right.
The point I initially tried to make with all of this was, the world has grey moral zones. We can debate this until the thread gets locked, and probably still not agree. But I stand firm, in a world with vastly different cultures, religions and points of view, you can't enforce your own morals onto others.
Wow, you've got a good way of seeing the wrong part, and turning the conversation on its head. I meant it's a comfort zone, watching wars unfold on tv and throwing in your opinion. It's a different matter being there. It's like fat people at home screaming at the tv how their sports team is doing it wrong. If you're in a situation it plays out a whole lot differently than you'd expect, knowing that and trying to understand that is called empathy. But I digress, back on the topic...
Actually, I meant he was raised in USA, so it's funny that you pointed it out as a non civilized environment. I used an extreme example, but I wonder if you knew that not everyone sees the world in the same way. Even the law knows that, to an extent, which is why they do court hearings to see every angle of a situation.
Also, this is a discussion about morals and whether or not a God exists. So, the matter is not what the police may or may not do according to law, but how a God can judge a soul for living 100% according to what he saw as right.
So, do you want to come over here and enforce your law onto them. Come give it a shot and don't be surprised if you're killed in the process. You know, it's very American of you to think you have the right to go around the world and impose your way of thinking on others. My personal view is to each his own. Don't impose your crap on me, because I don't intend to do so with mine.
If a nation intends to live in a certain way, let them. It's their right to do so, and it's your right to choose the way you want to live. If they choose to force their way of thinking onto you, then it's your right to oppose them, just as I believe it's their right to oppose your way of thinking.
Defend them? Sigh... you are exasperating. Look at my previous statement. I'm not defending them, in fact, I couldn't care less if they decide to massacre themselves. It's their right way of living, and your wrong way. As long as they don't decide to do the same to you, then why stop them. Who'se to say their gods don't exists. Do you have proof that they don't? Then let them be.
I know all too well that the first third of the Bible happens to be filled with bloodlust. And so are most of the history books, in fact. If you read one of my earlier posts I said that the Bible is good to be read for its knowledge, but shouldn't be outright followed. Actually those early parts are filled with their laws, something we hold so dearly today, and in their limited understanding it was right.
They killed gays because to them it was as morally destructive as rape is considered today. Times have changed and the world has moved on. Nonetheless, to them in their minds at the time it made sense. Perhaps in two thousand years humans will look at us in disdain and wonder why we abide by such bloodthirsty laws. What works in one period wont work in another, and what works in one part of the world wont work somewhere else.
So, do you feel western ideals are the cornerstone of rational society, that without them a society will fall apart. Let me ask you a sickening question. Would you have sex with a 13 year old? Of course not! She would be under aged! I agree, the thought is horrible, children should be kept away from things like that, and protected.
However, did you know in some countries the age of consent is 13, even 12 in others? So, by your law they are full of pedophiles, but according to theirs it's alright. Who is right then? You are both right in your own views. What works for you doesn't work for everyone, and that's the way the world works.
That's not what I would want people to do, and I am glad you agree that it's messed up. The world isn't perfect, and this is a good example.
Is that your point? The world isn't perfect?
Well there is so much more that can be done then just killing him. And if you keep them alive and make them do hard labor for the rest of their miserable life, if new information comes to light and it turns out they are innocent, then they are not dead, and if they are actually guilty, then they spent 20, 30, or 40 years doing back breaking labor for 12 to 14 hours a day.
If my child is sick, I'm not going to scout around for the biggest, nicest television I can find, then wait for them to go to vacation, if it got to that point, I'd rob a a store if it came to it.
Ahh...no? If you have seen half the threads I've made, you would know I am very much against this government. But that doesn't mean I have the right to walk up to a police officer and blow his brains out for looking at me funny. Nor does he have the right to walk up to me and blow my brains out for looking at him funny.
I'm not going to respond to this, because I don't think I'd be able to control what I'd say.
Yes, I know you said it was the USA, and I still do not believe he was brought up in a civilized world. Just because you are in a civilized nation doesn't mean you are in a civilized world.
The problem, as I see it, is that if a god sends a child to hell for not knowing his law (ie the bible) when the child never has a chance to learn the law, that god is sick and twisted. Morals are not wholly owned by religion.
You know, I gotta say, I laugh when people say this is very American or that is very American. Where do we come from? England? France? Spain? Who came to the new world and told everyone how to live? England? France? Spain? I'm not saying America is not to blame, but it agitates me when people, especially in Europe, look down their noses at America. (I don't know if you are European or American or Russian or Chineese or what you are, I just had to get that off my chest.
So we of the international community should just sit back while, say, Iran beats and kills a teacher for allowing her student to name a teddy bear Mohamed?
I find that almost as sick and twisted as the religion itself.
So it's alright for people to kill each other as long as you are not affected, because it's the way they are raised?
Was it also alright for Nazi Germany to kill the Jews, because that's how the Nazi Youth were brought up and that's what they consider the "right way of living"?
And I don't care if the Buddhist or Christian god(s) exist, that doesn't make the murder of innocents any better. (Or would you rather I put it this way. What if the man who murdered your aunt was raised to believe it was acceptable to murder people, would you still be fine with it, as it's his "right way of life"? I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to show you that you need to put yourself in their shoes.)
Gays are equal to rapists? Really? I hope I misunderstood you here, because that's pretty offensive to quite a number of members on this board, both religious and non-religious.
Western ideals are the cornerstone of western society. I don't know how much more clear I can make that.
I would like the ideals to be followed throughout the world, but we still have theocracies like Israel and Iran that make holy books into law.
As for the age of consent, again, theocracies make holy books into law.
Basically we are talking about the same principle, but we are talking about two way different things. I'm trying to describe the principles of a window, while you're describing the way a door functions.
So, let's leave out odd examples and strange metaphors for now, cause it's creating a lot of confusion between us...
Well, this thread was mainly about a god, which is why I said what I said way back.
There cannot whatsoever be a God that punishes everyone equally according to a single, strict measuring. It makes no sense and there simply cannot, which is why I brought up different cultures and religions, though for some reason you brought in western civilization. It's just too bad there is still a whole world out there full of people who don't care about western culture, so how can that god judge them all according to one standard, and I didn't want to focus on the minor details there. That was why I turned the conversation in that way, to show that.
Europe? I sure as hell am not from Europe. I said a third world country, and you eluded to Europe, China, and Russia. You know, I gotta say, that's odd. You know what I hate? African Americans who grew up in the Bronx who come to Africa and say it feels like they're coming home. I'm white, was born in Africa, just like my grandfather, and his grandfather, and so on. I'm more African than they ever would like to imagine to be, they don't even know what it's like to be African, and I assure you it's a whole lot different than growing up in an American city. I say to them, go back to the where you came from, my grandfather fought the English to save us from slavery. So no, I'm not from freaking Europe.
You, of the international community, are making matters worse. Iran was and is in chaos, long before you, of the international community, got there, and it will remain as such. Do you want to know why, because they choose to be, and guess what, they sure as hell don't want your help. Are you going to beat that into them? Why not leave them be. Just by being there, you are aggravating them. They live out their ways in the only way they know how, as sickening as it may seem, but if you jump on your high horse and race in there, all you'll cause will be more bloodshed, yours and theirs.
And it's very shortsighted saying their religion is twisted. You know, the Spanish attacked the Azteca, to make them catholic. How is that different from what is happening in the Middle East. 'Look at those religious fanatics. What savages. Let's take our democracy and Christianity over there and beat it into them.' It's an over simplification, though that is exactly what is happening. And I'm sorry, but I don't want the US to rule the world, they nearly wiped out a civilization, just because those natives happened to be there first.
Oh, LinkX. No, clearly you didn't understand what I wrote. I said nothing where if I'm not affected, then it is alright, as long as I'm fine, everything's fine. I didn't say that. Clearly you misunderstood me.
A nation abides by their own rules. If an Aztec believed his deity ordained his sacrifice and they all participate willingly, then that is their problem and their solution. If Middle Eastern fighters believe they need to fight one another for their holy war, then that is their way of doing what they do. However, they aren't attacking you, or anyone not part of it. They aren't exactly invading your country and imposing their will upon you, now are they? How would the Americans have felt if other countries jumped in to stop their Civil War.
Let me explain it this way. Some cultures have rules where they commit strange and odd rituals, but it's their way of life, not yours, you are already living your way of life. How would you feel if they force you to do so. Here's an example, people die during the running of the bulls (even animals gets harmed), but the people do it willingly, because it's a part of their culture. Will you try to stop that?
What? No, I'm not saying it's equal. I find it odd that you're turning it around on me, because your not understanding it's meaning. I'm saying it was punishable by death long ago, and was outlawed, even until recently. I'm trying to show you how we change with the times and the world... You know what, never mind, the next example was better...
...But you call it theocracy... Really? In Spain the age is 13, in Italy it's 14, and they are both Catholic, but your calling them theocracies... Actually, there are many countries with many different ages of consent that are democracies and republics, first world countries with strong economies and perfectly well laid out western ideologies, they are not theocracies. I'm trying to show you how vastly cultures differ and how their religions are different as such, but instead you grab at straws.
Clearly I'm getting nowhere here.
And also, why are you then promoting western ideals as if it can save the whole world, because honestly, it still has a lot of maturing to do before it can help anyone.
--Edited out the 'hood'.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The same OP that resulted in 30 pages of nothing cause it lacked solid premises and objectives, that even a Mod had to tell you to be more specific. Don't know what you edited in the OP, but now it says that (1) you don't have enough evidences, (2) books are not science- agreed, (3) agnostic x atheist, and (4) "Infinite-regression arguments for first-cause [...] do not provide proof either". 2 and 3 adds little but are ok, but 1 and 4 in conjuction with your agreement (as proved above) that we can't give a solid evidence and your refuse in taking this discussion to the only field that could be used do defend the god thesis, still make impossible to defend any point of view contrary to yours.
Again... state your premises the most objectively way you can: like 1- we don't have evidences for god, 2- only type X of evidence is accpetable, 3-books/myths are historycal not scientific, 4- .... just make sure give us a room for answer.
lol, well played sir.
No, i'm not assuming anything about god, nor about what science might uncover about cosmology. I've plainly stated over and over that since I cannot assume to know what science will tell us, then I must allow for the possibility it might or might not find evidence for god (or not god). Simply put, I refrain from saying one way or the other because I leave all, equally likely given my information, possibilities open.
Except we have no more evidence that the christian god acted in history than zeus did. In-fact there are more wide-spread attributions to the works of zeus than the works of the christian god. I don't deny there are historical tidbits in the bible and in a lot of greek mythologies, legends, etc. but I have not been made aware of the evidence that suggests any of the fantastic/miraculous events there-in are non-fiction. As I said, my fellow historians and anthropologists/archeologists have uncovered compelling evidence that even many of the non-miraculous events of the bible and other ancient religious texts are not accurate. The amount of doubt I apply to using that text as evidence is equal to the doubt I would give to the Illiad when trying to discover the semi-divinity of Achillies.
Well there is an entire subset of sociologists, psycologists, and other scientiest who go about studying the perception of miracles. I've read a number of their essays on the topic and have yet to come across one where the miracle in question wasn't either confronted as a hoax or explained in an empirical way that was not miraculous. If such miracles have occured which are flawless and absolute equivocations of the existence of a particular god then I would imagine the scientific community would have picked up on that. Such a confounding case would be something we'd study a lot. We like a challenge.
And when I say, no miracles have been substantiated, I mean, none of them. Not a one. Regardless of which God supposedly caused them.
And if you don't know anything about the concept of "bird," then you really don't know where to look, do you? If there was an ancient book telling you birds were invisible and unknowable and you simply had to believe they existed, well, you would have to assume the birds might or might not exist because there isn't an empirical method of proving or disproving the invisible birds.
I don't know wether to be insulted, as a historian, by this or not. Our profession seeks to make our knowledge of the past as accurate as possible, but we don't have a lower standard of evidence than a scientist. We refuse to make incredible claims without incredible evidence too, and we also spend a lot of time laboring over the work of other academics to hone our understanding of the past in a more scientific manner. Ultiimately, if you are looking for proof of a god, any god, in history I don't think you've got it yet. There may be some incredible discovery in the future, I cannot forsee all that we might one-day know, but I maintain no assumptions. As of yet, we have refuted and found lacking evidence far more often than we corroborated the religious texts, so I would think those interested in basing their faith on historical records would share my doubt.
I took -one word- out of the OP. Everyone but you seems to have been able to grasp the premise. Stop trolling.
No I said they "claimed," evidence. Not that it was valid. Claiming evidence negates belief just as much as actual evidence. In both cases you're not actually beliving something, to your mind, you have a reason. It may be a bogus reason and objectively, you might not have evidence at all, but that never seems to stop young-eath creationsists from showing me million year old rocks and claiming that they're 6000 years old due to their bad evidence.
That's a really cool story, I will admit, but it doesn't substantiate anything. Our evidence is his word. Unless he wants to give a lot of people bacterial infections of the brain to induce similar effects, so that they might be studied in detail. I don't think there is any way to prove what he experienced wasn't a natural reaction or simply a story that he made up, or some combination of the two. I don't, as usual, remove any possibility that it was a godly experience or whatever you want to call it, but I have no grounds on which to judge his account empirically sound.
We have no more proof for a spirit than we do for god, so we can't rightly use that to explain god. That would be like using faires to explain unicorns.
Obviously not.
Well, that is the point I made above. Unless any of us has the exact same experience we're in no way confronted with even coincidence, much less evidence, that the person is relaying somehing evident. We might like to wish that it was evidence, but it is not.
Well sure, it shows something, but you're ruling out all of the known and unknown physical phenomena that might have propagated the experience off-hand. I'm simply not doing that. I make no assumptions without evidence.
Honestly, the moment he makes far-fetched claims without any more evidence than his personal experience, he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a mystic. I think he should know better.
I'm still wondering where you are getting this "laws of creation," stuff. Depac Choprah? It sounds all kinds of new-age and pseudo-scientific. I really wish you would just identify the laws of physics or scientific theories you want to discuss.
I'm very much refuding to do just that. If you think you KNOW that things happened by something other that coincidence, then you're claiming to know much more than our evidence allows. Your analogy is a nonsense argument for design, which you haven't even tried to assert prior to this moment.
Well, I wouldn't have been so frank, but those words do come to mind... now that you mention it.
Dan Brown should be jealous of this fellow.
"I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
-C.S. Lewis from: Mere Christianity
You're making it hard for me to avoid the word "nonsense," and I desperately desire to remain civil here. Look, the big-bang didn't create humans any more than it created satellite television. We evolved out of the universe and within the context of the laws as we understand them. That much is evident to us. That isn't intelligent design, no. Intelligent design is the vogue word for creationism, which entails a creator designed all things with intimate detail. Look it up on their wacky fundie websites.
Furthermore, the suggestion that it is so amazing that we evolved at all from this universe begs the quesiton: What other universe do we have to compare to? If we had that vantage point, perhaps we might see a hundred other universes where life never came up, but we might also see a hundred universes where life was far more wide-spread and successfully evolved. We simply don't get to play the "oh it's so darn amazing we're even here, how unlikely is that?" You have to understand we have NO IDEA how likely it is. None. We might some day learn how likely it is. I don't get to rule that out either, but presently it's a faux question. A useless rhetorical tool. And more often than not: an il-concieved promo one-liner for creationist trolls. (Note: i'm not accusing you of being one)
I'm more than willing to wax endlessly about the finer points of our univeral laws with you, but drop this intelligent design stuff, it is nonsense.
I'm unclear on why we should care what either of these individuals might have had to say about how to live. I think i'll be the judge of how to live my life, thanks.
You have no evidence upon which to claim the big bang was "intentially," created.
And that happens to be the case on billions of other planets. What kind of supposition are you making? This seems to detract from the idea that the universe is in any way ideal. Furthermore, as I said, we don't have a universe with diffirent physical laws with wich to juxtapose our situation so, we cannot even say what the odds are that an earth might exist more easily or with more difficulty elsewhere. We don't even know that earth is the sole paradigm for the fruition of life at all. Calling into question all the requisites for life on earth, as we know it, doesn't demand design or precognition at all.
Again, we have no reason to suppose "creation," at all. We are not currently in the posession of evidence that asserts the universe had a creator or not. And yes, if you suppose a creator you must then ask where that creator came from, which is an infinite regression. As I said much earlier in this thread, supposing that "creator," always existed is the same as simply assuming the universe always existed. We don't have evidence to support or dispute either one of those claims, but the former demands that we arbitrarily include a creator. Occam's Razor would force us to consider the simplest solution the more likely of the two.
You say this like it's a fact Proletaria. That seems like nonsense to me. We've been investigating "the big bang" for what, half a century? To say that we KNOW something about a time period we are so far removed from and so unfamiliar with seems a bit of a stretch.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
Evolution is a well-established theory that is verified by evidence, observation, and has held up to scientific scrutiny. I say it like it's a fact, because it's as close to a fact as i'm likely to find on the topic of the development of humanity out of the cosmological epoch we refer to as the "big bang."
You may falsely accuse me of asserting that I KNOW exactly how things played out (far from it), but I can say without any uncertainty that what we understand makes evolution a matter both evident and explanatory, as far as we know, and creation a bygone and unlikely alternative which has absolutely no evidential backing of it's own. While i'm never willing to make assertions without evidence, I KNOW you're absolutely wrong if you're trying to assert that we have no evidence for the theory of evolution.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
The bold is the important part and you left out my adjoining sentence: "That much is evident to us." If I wished to state an unequivocal truth, I don't think I would have included such a caveat. You're distressing over the percieved tone of my sentence when I have dually clarified that I derived that statement from the best of our emprical knowledge and out of the context of our present understanding. I need not make any absolute assertions to say that one idea is evidently probable to the point of wide-spread scientific support and another one is evidently improbable to the point of absurdity.
Non-assertion is prudent when it come to things about which we have no empirical evidence one way or the other, such as in our assertion of god or no god, but it is certainly not applicable when it comes to things about which we do have empirical evidence for.