Gunny's Thread on Religion

[JBeukema]

No, they are not theist talking points, they are anthropological talking points,

True anthropologists would't have talking points,. They'd actually have points

It is the science that determined the question of "why" is what made us exceed our limitations and learn to form societies more complex.

not 'why'- 'HOW'

'Why are we here' has never improved the human condition- it has only brought us religion, ignorance, anti-intellectualism, wars, competition, and 'theology'. HOW the universe works, HOW we came to be as we are- those are the questions that fuel science.

However there is something far more humorous in your replies now, seeing the pattern just now, you have nothing, no ideas, logic, or even science to counter anything except "talking points" ... thus why you wrongly asserted my scientific statements as such.

I have dismantled all of your assertions, and those of others. All you do is repeat your assertions.

A true scientist does not discount anything,

Wrong. A true scientist understands that some models are known to be wrong and casts them aside as such.

absolutely everything is valid

If that were true, we would make no progress

Now here's something to ponder, would people have gathered as they did without some form of religious ceremony?

Yes, for social interaction and for mutual interest.

The answer is simply, no

Wrong. Humans are social creatures, and they congregate around more than just religion- everything from shared interest tot he exchange of information to simple curiosity (let alone mating) drives the human species to congregate. If you were correct in your foolish assertion, we would expect to see no family units or 'societies' in nature. My model predicts that other species should also congregate when it is beneficial- and they do. Your foolish assertions and fallacious models fail to explain the worlds around us. You are wrong, the facts demonstrate that, and there is no room for argument on that subject.

Though the primitive religion was worshiping of animals and forces of nature, it was still religion that drove them together

As humanity progressed beyond the caves and grass huts they had to recreate their gods, into those we are more familiar with now.

I'm familiar with the rule of three,though i forget the name of the man to whom it is attributed.

In the first cultures religion was the law, even the Pharaohs, as powerful as they were, could not undermine the priests(esses) of the temples where the first laws were created for all of humanity, well, the first truly moral laws. Even the tribal laws in early North America were formed by the religious elders, not the chiefs.

The laws arose from social contract. Shared religion was and is but one of the unifying factors by which people organize themselves, and one of the motivations that factor into what laws become codified or otherwise widely recognized.

The laws were not enforced just because either, they were enforced because the "gods said so" and people who obeyed them were promised a better afterlife than those who did not, with some room for error tossed in

In other words, religion was and remains a means of controlling the ignorant masses- just as I said earlier.

Aztecs used sacrifice to frighten their people into obeying the laws, and look what happened to them.

They sacrificed people to the gods

You have provided evidence of one case where religion directly contributed to the downfall of a civilization, and you're too dense to even realize it.

 

[KittenKoder]

I have dismantled all of your assertions, and those of others.

I am taking only this point you made, because the rest is nothing more than proof of what I am about to say ...

No, you have not.

All you have done is blindly follow a faith that is different from others, blindly due to the simple fact that you are ignoring most of what is said unless it agrees with you or you have some bone to pick about it. The reality, something you are having a hard time grasping, is that humanity needs to have the religious aspects as well, it is in its purest form another science, though primitive compared to some branches this is because of people unwilling to explore religion, from all walks of life, and accept that religion is not only necessary but that all religions are valid and have valid points to offer. The only true reason the science of theology has not progressed is because those who practice it do not collaborate like other branches do. You are just like they are, unwilling to bend or even consider the possibility of being wrong, though the fact remains your way of thinking is wrong even for science. There are no absolutes in the universe, and that is not a new concept in scientific method, it is a law which has allowed us to progress much of our science since it's understanding. However, when people ignore one part of the universe they are limiting themselves, such as ignoring the religious aspect. It was religion that aided in science in Ancient Egypt, without the religious teachings medicine would not have gotten anywhere, and construction would have been centuries behind, the pyramids were not just religious, they are also the most sound construction form possible, thus why they appeared in so many places. The religious use of them allowed the architects to perfect them. But you don't care to acknowledge all these benefits of religion. Nor do you acknowledge the simple fact that without purpose and meaning, there is no reason to live, or at least no reason to listen to your conscience. People did not start off in large cities like we have now, they had very small groups scattered widely. If not for the thought of a reward, what would have stopped them from destroying themselves?

 

[JBeukema]

you are ignoring most of what is said unless it agrees with you or you have some bone to pick about it.

Demonstrate how I 'ignore' so much

The reality, something you are having a hard time grasping, is that humanity needs to have the religious aspects as well,

You mean that humanity is comprised primarily of the weak persons whop need blind faith and ignorance in their lives? You really do have a dim view of humanity.

it is in its purest form another science,

No, it is is not. It does not make real predictions- and when it tires, it fails. It does not set up or perform experiments. It declares itself unfalsifiable and set in stone. In no way is religion science and no reasonable, thinking human being will buy into viewing religion as following anything remotely resembling the scientific method.

You expect me to respect something so inherently dishonest? Just admit that it's 'faith' and ignorance that provides personal comfort and has historically served a central sociological function, get it out of the secular State and the public school system, keep it in our personal lives where it belongs, and move on.

though primitive compared to some branches this is because of people unwilling to explore religion, from all walks of life, and accept that religion is not only necessary

needed only by weak hearts and feeble minds.

but that all religions are valid

You're just being stupid again, in your attempts to remain PC. Many religions are mutually exclusive- therefore they can be all valid as models of the universe.

and have valid points to offer. The only true reason the science of theology has not progressed is because those who practice it do not collaborate like other branches do.

Theology is not a science. It is bastardized philosophy with no interests in truth or real knowledge or learning.

You are just like they are, unwilling to bend or even consider the possibility of being wrong,

I have said many times: present the evidence for examination and I will consider any model or theory. Laughing at contradictory hypothesis that accept ignorance as an axiom is called being reasonable.

However, when people ignore one part of the universe they are limiting themselves, such as ignoring the religious aspect

First off, mythologies and ideologies are not 'part of the universe'

Secondly, somehtyings should be rejected

. It was religion that aided in science in Ancient Egypt, without the religious teachings medicine would not have gotten anywhere,

religion has oft proved the greatest roadblack to science and medicine

and construction would have been centuries behind, the pyramids were not just religious, they are also the most sound construction form possible

This was nto a product of religion, it was a product of scientific inquiry, mathematics, and trial-and-error. Regardless of their motivations, which very well have been religious in nature, the processes that brought these innovations were rooted in science and not in religion itself.

\

Nor do you acknowledge the simple fact that without purpose and meaning, there is no reason to live, or at least no reason to listen to your conscience

That has been debunked repeatedly, yet you still repeat it like a broken record. Actualyl, religion gives more reason to reject morality, should one reject the religion or realize that it is false. Many philosophies codiffy the moral instince and give rise to law without religious delusion

People did not start off in large cities like we have now, they had very small groups scattered widely. If not for the thought of a reward, what would have stopped them from destroying themselves?

Instinct and reason.

 

[KittenKoder]

You mean that humanity is comprised primarily of the weak persons whop need blind faith and ignorance in their lives? You really do have a dim view of humanity.

There's why you sound just like the religious zealots, and you both have a point, the problem is that the point is for both of you. Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith, many test themselves, others just watch and learn. Some, like me, explore the world and adapt. Faith is blind only when you ignore the other side. I always use the rainbow to describe the world, and it's a fitting description. Science is one of those colors, and religion is another, along those lines, art is yet another color, technology is yet another color, music, literature, love, friends, etc. are all colors in that rainbow. Your life must be a rainbow and a rainbow cannot exist without all the colors. Even if your god is some unemotional force in the universe, you have one, you just deny it for fear that you may look weak. But it's not weak to admit we are not all powerful, it's strength to do so actually. Recognizing the fact that we are not the most powerful and intelligent beings in existence is what drives us to find out what is. That is religion, whether you want to admit it or not, it is. That is a god, and even if you don't admit it, it's there. Whether it's a living thing or some force, it's what created everything. What you miss is that people need a reason, that's the flaw of being intelligent, for every strength has a drawback, every power has a weakness, especially in science. Science has proven there is balance, and without that balance nothing can exist. Intelligence's balance is purpose, without purpose we cannot have intelligence, and with intelligence we are forced to seek purpose. You are a perfect example of unbalance, you have given up your seeking of purpose, and have therefore lost you ability to learn. How is it that I can see this? Simple, in your posts, I offered several pieces of information that you completely ignored, then when I said that you ignored them, you actually had to ask what you ignored. That is not learning, that is a lack of learning.

 

[JBeukema]

Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith

Really, now? then why have they still yet to produce any real caseon reasonable and logical ground?

. I always use the rainbow to describe the world, and it's a fitting description. Science is one of those colors, and religion is another, along those lines, art is yet another color, technology is yet another color, music, literature, love, friends, etc. are all colors in that rainbow. Your life must be a rainbow and a rainbow cannot exist without all the colors

I can't believe I just read that...

. Even if your god is some unemotional force in the universe, you have one, you just deny it for fear that you may look weak.

\


Oh, so now it's back to the old 'atheism is a religion' bullshit

any last semblance of reason is now totally absent from your words

But it's not weak to admit we are not all powerful, it's strength to do so actually.

It is inner strength to admit that you don't know and move on. It is weakness to cling to myth and fairy tales and pretend as though you know- which is exactly what religion does.

. What you miss is that people need a reason, that's the flaw of being intelligent, for every strength has a drawback, every power has a weakness, especially in science.

One finds one's own reasons in what brings true joy in life. To simply join the crowd in singing hymns and delude yourself into believing things that have no supporting evidence and, in some cases, are demonstratively false (I noticed you never addressed Agna's examples regarding the logical impossibility of God; since you attempt no refutation, I'll take that as agreement with his assertion-and that goes for everyone else ion this thread)

Science has proven there is balance, and without that balance nothing can exist. Intelligence's balance is purpose, without purpose we cannot have intelligence, and with intelligence we are forced to seek purpose.

You make less sense the longer to babble on

Y

ou are a perfect example of unbalance, you have given up your seeking of purpose, and have therefore lost you ability to learn. How is it that I can see this?

Now you assume to know my purpose and project your own meaningless existence ontop me

Simple, in your posts, I offered several pieces of information that you completely ignored, then when I said that you ignored them, you actually had to ask what you ignored

I ignored nothing intelligent,. That is why I challenged you to present evidence of your assertion and you were able to produce none

 

[KittenKoder]

Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith

Really, now? then why have they still yet to produce any real caseon reasonable and logical ground?

I am very religious.

 

[JBeukema]

Not all who follow religion do so out of blind faith

Really, now? then why have they still yet to produce any real caseon reasonable and logical ground?

I am very religious.

And you have presented no evidence to support your model


or to refute my points

or agna's examples demonstrating deity to be logically impossible

or anything I have said (hippie ramblings excluded)

 

[KittenKoder]

Really, now? then why have they still yet to produce any real caseon reasonable and logical ground?

I am very religious.

And you have presented no evidence to support your model


or to refute my points

or agna's examples demonstrating deity to be logically impossible

or anything I have said (hippie ramblings excluded)

Um ... yes I have, you just chose to ignore them, much like when some people ignore evidence that denies their creation myths, same thing, just a different side to the coin. The truly amazing thing is that you have not yet seen that you are looking into a mirror when you argue with those who think that their religion is the only truth, and yet that's exactly what you are doing. Ever notice that most people do not debate me on religion, it's because as religious as I am, I don't normally take sides, however in this instance I have chosen a side, since clearly you are the loudest voice opposing religion another who has actually studied the sciences you are claiming to use must stand up for religion. Yes, I have studied all the sciences, and no, there is no evidence to support any theories of the absence of a higher being than ourselves. Nor is there any proof that nothing bigger than our small understand could have created it all. To the contrary, within the realms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that something created the universe we exist in, and that something also created the universe that our creator exists in, and on and on ...

Physics demonstrates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that the two can change form and even become the other. The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created, only how it all got into the places it's at now, however, due to a better understanding of the "expansion" we see, it's not really expanding but it's more of a spinning which appears as an expansion to our older technology, newer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water. We have also seen a star born, which by calculations happened a few billion years ago, but that makes it very new compared to the rest of the universe. So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born. This could have been going on longer than we had thought, which means our perception of time is wrong as well. But, back to the creator. One science that has shown that a creator is possible is computers. Cyber space to be more precise. We know we can create what we see as illusion realities within the digital world, using our primitive computers we have managed to actually create civilizations mimicking humanity quite accurately, but when allowed to exist without our influence they do not follow the same patterns, almost always resulting in their own destruction unless they form some theological belief system. So even computer science shows that religion is needed and that it is very plausible we were created by something much bigger than we understand.

Now, your next post is vital, because this is the sum of what I had said in one solid cohesive thought, not just countering points but a full on explanation of why I know for a fact that there is more in the universe than what science has or will ever discover. Counter if you must, but I promise, no matter how much you may think you have countered it, you really haven't scratched the surface of scientific exploration.

 

[Kalam]

As a subscriber to the Big Bang/expanding universe theory I feel compelled to respond...

To the contrary, within the realms of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, it is not only possible, but extremely plausible that something created the universe we exist in, and that something also created the universe that our creator exists in, and on and on ...

A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. That is what you're implying here, isn't it?

Physics demonstrates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but that the two can change form and even become the other.

The amount of energy, including matter, in an isolated system does not change. This law could not conceivably be applied where no isolated system existed, could it?

The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created, only how it all got into the places it's at now, however, due to a better understanding of the "expansion" we see, it's not really expanding but it's more of a spinning

"Spinning" with reference to what?

which appears as an expansion to our older technology, newer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water.

Source...

We have also seen a star born, which by calculations happened a few billion years ago, but that makes it very new compared to the rest of the universe. So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born. This could have been going on longer than we had thought, which means our perception of time is wrong as well.

How does the birth of a star confound our perceptions of time? I'm confused. It isn't as if that's a recently discovered phenomenon.

But, back to the creator. One science that has shown that a creator is possible is computers. Cyber space to be more precise. We know we can create what we see as illusion realities within the digital world, using our primitive computers we have managed to actually create civilizations mimicking humanity quite accurately, but when allowed to exist without our influence they do not follow the same patterns, almost always resulting in their own destruction unless they form some theological belief system. So even computer science shows that religion is needed and that it is very plausible we were created by something much bigger than we understand.

This is genuinely interesting; feel free to go into further detail. Are you suggesting that humanity will destroy itself in the absence of a supernatural creator's influence, or am I misunderstanding you? What led you to believe that humanity necessarily won't destroy itself?

 

[JBeukema]

The big bang theory that you are thinking of does not explain how it was created,

You're presupposing creation without evidence

ewer technology has however shown that there may even be an imperceivable "edge" to the universe we know, which blows the whole big bang and expansion theory out of the water.

How so? BBT would lead one to expect just such an 'edge' or limit to the 'size' of the physical universe

So we also know matter is still forming new systems, when old ones die, new ones are born.

Stars are not enclosed systems and noone ever said star formation had ceased

you really haven't scratched the surface of scientific exploration. __________________

You just said that nearly all our questions were being answered. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself


-and still you refuse to refute or state any disagreement with Agna's proofs...

 

[Dirk the Daring]

I'm reposting this from the "logical, rational, and reasonable debate" thread:

I think this might be a good place to pose a few questions to the religious people who are participating in this discussion.

So, for Christians, it's a given that those who do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah and died for their sins (meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity (although there are some Biblical scholars who believe that the Bible actually teaches that nonbelievers will be completely destroyed, but that's a whole other discussion). Please correct me if any of that is wrong.

It is also a given that God created man in his own image, and loves and takes a special interest in each and every one of the people he created. God's love for man is emphasized throughout Christianity.

Now, the word of God is revealed to us through the Bible. As God no longer makes his presence known the way he did in Biblical days, the Bible is the only direct communication we have from God. It is his word, written by him through man, and contains all the information we need in order to know what it takes to be saved. (Again, please correct me if any of this is wrong)

Here are some facts about the Bible and about the world today, from my understanding: the Bible was written (in installments) about two millenia ago, in a particular language (Hebrew) to a particular group of people. There is a story in the Bible about the Tower of Babel, in which God punishes mankind for trying to build a tower tall enough to reach Heaven by scattering them across the earth and splitting their languages. So, according to the Bible, the reason that we have about 7,000 different languages spoken on the planet today is because God made it so as a punishment. Because the Bible must be translated into so many different languages from its original Hebrew, and since the Hebrew language has changed and evolved so much in the last two thousand years, as all languages do, many things in the Bible are lost, confused, or the meaning changed in translation.

So, these are the questions I have for you:

God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?

Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?

I am not asking these questions as some sort of challenge; these are legitimate questions I have about Christianity and they are some of the main reasons why I do not believe. My mind is open to the existence of a higher power...I just don't believe that the higher power in question is the one I desrcribed above. But my mind isn't even completely closed to THAT possibility, since I acknowledge it's possible that there are things I don't fully understand...which is why I'm posing these questions, in hopes that someone can give me a good explanation for the discrepancies I feel I'm seeing here.

And, again, if I am wrong in any of those above assertions, please correct me. If I'm going to believe or disbelieve in something, I want to know the absolute truth about that something first.

I've now read and re-read this post a number of times, and must say, this is an excellent post about religion, from an outsiders perspective. Not harsh in judgement, but legitimate questions asked, and I'll attempt my absolute best to answer in a clear and concise manner.

meaning: all those who are not Christian, even Jews and Muslims who believe in the same god) are going to hell, which is a place where they will be separated from God and be tortured with fire and brimstone for all of eternity

You state a belief that hell is where the separation from God is made evident, whereas, what I was taught was that hell is the consequence for an earthly separation of man and God. When you choose to NOT live in a christ-like manner, you condemn yourself to hell. Its not God saying "oh, you didn't do enough to enter heaven's gates," it is instead, "oh, you didn't do ANYTHING to justify entering heaven's gates."

The "sin" committed during the Tower of Babel saga wasn't that they wanted to be closer to God, but that they ignored his great commission, that being, 'go ye into the world and preach the gospel to all nations.' The people instead decided to stay in one place which in terms of spreading the gospel, was completely ineffective. I realize that this has, over time, been construed as 'punishment,' but the intended effect was, like I said, to spread God's word throughout the world.

This is another outstanding question;

God created us all and loves us all immensely. Any of us who do not believe in him will be doomed to suffer for all of eternity. Is there a way to reconcile those two ideas? Is eternal horrendous suffering a punishment that is fitting of the crime of not believing in the existence of God? Why would a loving God base the salvation of his creations on their belief in him, rather than their character or morality or some other criteria?

This is the fundamental difference between God and Man, see Hitler, see Stalin, see Casto, et al; man requires proof of worship, whereas God only requires belief. In my opinion, this stems moreso from man's inherent confidence issues than God's superiority. Whereas man needs affirmation for deeds performed, God is above such trivial nonsense. The bible says that, "whosoever believes in me shall not perish but have everlasting life." Nowhere does it say, "whosoever murders an abortion doctor shall not perish...." or whosoever commits the fewest sins..." etc. God requires only your faith, not your outward display. In terms of actual, determinable power, this makes perfect sense. If you are an all-powerful entity, then its EASY to 'force' someone to bend to your will; the REAL power lies in having people come to you based on their decisions. If you're a pet owner, think of it this way; its very easy to pick up your dog or cat and pet them, but its much more satisfying to simply sit down on the couch and see if they jump up in your lap. Not sure if I can explain any better than that.

Another great question;

Also: is it fair that since the punishment for nonbelief is eternal torment, God made it so difficult to come to believe in him? Would he not be morally obligated to make his existence painfully obvious to each and every one of us, if the consequences for not believing in him are so severe?

If there was PROOF of God's existence, then belief would not require faith. If God revealed himself to the world tomorrow, then everyone would believe, obviously, and the allure of faith would be destroyed. Salvation is a reward for faith AND living a christ-like life, meaning that it is YOUR choice to either a) live a christ-like life and be rewarded with eternal life or b) living a sinful life and condemning yourself to hell b/c of YOUR actions. Either way, it is YOUR choices that determine your fate. Much like the idea that, you can't sit back and do nothing at work and expect to be rewarded, however, if you work hard and do your job, then you're probably going to get that year-end-review raise/bonus.

I'm not going to tell you that your assertions are "wrong," as in all honesty, no man knows for sure. In that same vein, I cannot provide you with the "absolute truth" that you crave, I can only present you with evidence and then let you form your own conclusions. Bear in mind that I have been a believer for most of my life, but there are many aspects of christianity that I find as appalling as most non-believers; the finger pointers, the 'holier-than-thous,' those who believe in faith without knowing why; I believe that "faith" is the cause of the intellectual laziness surrounding christianity, as in, if you can lump all criticisms against your belief as a 'lack of faith,' then why would you ever need to defend those said beliefs? Christians nowadays no longer feel the need to justify their beliefs en masse, and in my mind have done a tremendous disservice to the idea of religious justification; 'this is what I believe and why.' (the answer that "the bible says so" isn't much of an answer at all, especially to someone who may not believe in the divine nature of the bible, for example)

Ultimately though, no matter what I say, the choice of belief is yours; if you look at the evidence and decide to believe, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise. Likewise, if you decide to not believe, then nothing that I say will convince you otherwise. My job as a christian is not to beat you over the head until you submit, but merely to plant the seed and move on.

I sincerely hope that this helps you in one way or the other, and by all means, feel free to engage me with any other questions regarding faith or christianity in general.

 

[JBeukema]

his is the fundamental difference between God and Man, see Hitler, see Stalin, see Casto, et al; man requires proof of worship, whereas God only requires belief

and sacrifice as proof or worship

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not all spiritual paths attempt to address the creation of the universe. How it is viewed in Buddhist philosophy, is that we all co create the world through our consciousness and perception.

The world exists, it appears but it is not as solid as we think it is. Science backs this up. Think of the truth of any form of matter, it is mostly empty space and minute particles in continuous motion.

The metaphor of the dream state is used to point to the truth of how things truly are.

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

You know less about christianity than muslims do. Learn about it, not recommending "joining up", but actually read their books. Their religion does not answer how, it does not even attempt to address it. Their key book gives a very vague outline that could fit any theory or eventually discovery of fact, without contradicting it or being contradicted. I have told many this same thing, even christianity (truly no religion) makes an attempt to replace science, only some of those who follow those religions try to, often because they want to justify their desire to avoid learning (nothing wrong with the desire to just live and let live, I love Amish people). They don't need to justify that, just as you don't need to force them to either.

 

[Gunny]

So, you deny the exapnding universe? Explain Red Shift, first off




and your religion is a mere hypothesis, inferior to either a rightful theory or a model.



Demonstrate.
All respected schools of science disagree with your assertion



Look into the relevant fields.

and BTW, teleportation isn't just scifi fantasy. You really should spend some time looking into the matter

The differnce is ... I don't claim my religion is anymore than what it is. You require faith to believe.

You on the other hand, are stretching. WAY out there. my entire point from the beginning is that it ALL requires faith. Your belief and mine. Yet you attempt to present theory as fact. The Big Bang and the "expanding universe are no more guesswork than intelligent design.

If I can get through to ONE MFer on this board, my point is that your shit stinks like everyone else's. There's no superiority. I can hang with you on any topic you so desire to bring up. This one included. I only ask that you THINK next time before you blindly attack anyone who believes in a God.

We don't differ much in that I can't stand people who try to shove their religion on others. We differ in the fact that don't conder attacking you whenever and wherever you can be found fr your religious beliefs.

It isn't necessary and only makes YOU look like an extremist for attacking others blindly.

Believe what you want. I'll answer to God, you can answer to whoever you so desire.

If I don't win, I'll know i. If you win you win or lose, you WILL know it.

I said that I disagree, but I was wrong. I actually agree exactly with what you said, it is your conclusion we will have to agree to disagree on.

-Joe

I actually come to no conclusion. That last sentence that would appear to be a conclusion is tongue-in-cheek. Obviously, the fear of not believing is not a means of gaining Salvation.

 

[Gunny]

If I don't win, I'll know

Actually, we established long ago that you refuse to admit when you're wrong- even when you're caught in a lie. Instead, you got angry, went on a tirade, and then used you powers as a mod to try to silence me and keep anyone elswe from seeing you exposed.

-or perhaps you've forgotten about that

Have forgotten nothing. You may want to re-read the first post in this thread.

As far as your allegations above are concerned, you have not caught me in a lie and you won't, because I have no need to do so. Nor did I get angry and go on an tirade nor did I use any power as an administrator to try and silence you.

You are a nasty piece of work when you want to be. I merely responded to you in kind in the Flame Zone. "Tirade" is what you call getting your ass torched by the flame YOU started?

It requires no special powers neg-rep you. I earned my rep as a member of the board and can give it out as a member of the board. It has nothing to do with my status as an administrator. You will note there are other members who have close to the same rep as I do who are in fact not staff members.

I'm not even certain what brought on this little rant of yours. The sentence you quoted and responded to in this post is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Salvation and nothing else. If you took it in any other context, then you misread.

If you took it in the context of thinking I was declaring victory, there is no victory in an argument like this. Unless it comes with understanding.

Again I don't care what you believe, nor will you find ANY instance of me preaching my religion to anyone. I offer explanations, nothing more. My argument on the topic centers around intolerance and/or blind hatred.

EVEN IF I could get you to see that your intolerance and hate toward religion is no different than the intolerance and hate of some religions, that STILL does not attempt to suck you into any religious beliefs.

Only the belief that others have a right to believe what they want, whether or not you agree with the belief itself.

 

[Gunny]

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

How do come to that conclusion. Judeo-Christianity holds the belief that God is always. He was not created.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory based on creating something from nothing.

A distinct difference between the two.

 

[Gunny]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

"Better"? A subjective word. I have never alleged there was a "better" explanation, only a more logical one, IMO. There is no theory that can be proven with factual evidence. That is why they are all called "theories." To suggest one is better than the other would require evidence.

If God drops by for a visit and we take a pic with the family, I'll be sure and post it for you. If you come by some factual evidence that proves any other theory, I would hope you will do the same.

Until then, we are each stuck with our own beliefs.

 

[Gunny]

The Big Bang is a so-called scientific theory (it really is not since it defies actual science) that is the scientific community's attempt to de-legitimize religion. It is in fact as provable as Genesis 1.

What scientific law is incongruous with the Big Bang theory? What better explanation exists for the origin of the physical universe?

What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science concurs with that assertion- they attack it

Incorrect. That would be the Big Bang theory in a nutshell. There is nothing Judeo-Christian about that which attempt to project onto it.

 

[Gunny]

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

You know less about christianity than muslims do. Learn about it, not recommending "joining up", but actually read their books. Their religion does not answer how, it does not even attempt to address it. Their key book gives a very vague outline that could fit any theory or eventually discovery of fact, without contradicting it or being contradicted. I have told many this same thing, even christianity (truly no religion) makes an attempt to replace science, only some of those who follow those religions try to, often because they want to justify their desire to avoid learning (nothing wrong with the desire to just live and let live, I love Amish people). They don't need to justify that, just as you don't need to force them to either.

I'm with JB on this one... you don't need to understand the theology of Christianity to know that it is founded on a story of origins, an explanation for the unexplainable and a "feeling" that you have met God in its stories and fellowship.

Please do not think that I scoff at the "feeling". I have felt it, I know it is powerful and I will be the first to admit that I miss its comfort.

That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.

Let's face it - we all have a set of beliefs and we all have faith in our beliefs, otherwise we would be foolish and weak. The trick is to demand respect for our own beliefs by respecting the right of everyone else to be wrong.

-Joe

That really is all I have been trying to say throughout the argument. I have never once insisted someone respect my religion. Only that they show me the same courtesy and respect to hold my beliefs I show them.

This isn't about not believing in God. It's about not believing in God and disrespecting those who do. IMO, there's a lack of reasoning there. If one doesn't believe in God, then why should that person spend so much time actively campaigning against God, and insulting those who do?

I will say the same thing the other way around. Those who DO follow a religion and insult others for not following that religion are no different.

IMO the louder one protests, the more fear of being wrong is held by that person doing the protesting. That's something that needs to be reconciled from within, not by shouting down others.

 

[Gunny]

I'm giving fair warning straight - up. Any flames, insults or derailments will be deleted and/or moved. Call it what you want, but there you have it. I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion.

Anyone who has a problem with that, tough.

Okay, discuss ....

Discuss what? If one posts a thread, does one not also necessarily include a position on the topic?

Which religion? All? Any? If? What is your position, what do you want to know about others positions?

My position is stated rather clearly, thanks. Because you were not privy to the lead-in for this thread does not mean others weren't.