It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 51
7
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
As ive not posted on this thread as of now i thought i`d best add my oppion and weight to the subject,Christ is really really really really really really .............................powerful!!!!.

Oh and wanted to be the 1000th poster.

Congrates on making the BIG K JungleJake



Edit to add
Damn i though streamers were going to fall and what not.


[edit on 10-9-2005 by gps777]




posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
some questions:

1) if you grow up and believe in what you believe in because it's all you know, then that doesn't make it true. i don't know of anyone that was brought up with a scientific background and taught to believe in evolution. i do however, know many people brought up with a religious 'namely christian' background. the problem is that young children are influenced very easily, hell some of us believed mosters lived under our beds, the tooth fairy came and left money when a tooth fell out, santa climbed down our chimneys and left presents, and after watching toy story that our toys might come alive when we weren't watching. why then, if we know all those myths and stories not to be true, would you carry on believing in other collective works of myths and stories, hence the bible?

2) no matter what arguement is put forth to debunk christianity, christians somehow find a loop hole and add it to the pile of their beliefs.

evolution once was a controversial, blasphemous theory, however now some christians actually accept this process is true, but are still christian. the same goes for the earth being billions of years old, of which some christians now accept, even thought literally the bible shows it to be 6000 years old. if the bible literally states in one way or another that the earth is 6000 years old, how the hell can christians say it's billions of years old...does that mean the bible is wrong?

3) when arguements are streched, christians use the unexplainable to explain, why their beliefs are true.

i.e. faith healing, some sort of posession of your body by the holy spirit, speaking in tongues etc.

faith healing is nothing but absolute nonsense. if anyone believes in it, perhaps you didn't hear about the part where parents don't let their kids have normal medication or the chance to see a doctor, even though they have diabeties. what happens to these kids...they die. faith healing is nothing but a scam.

posession by the holy spirit...even though posession is usually attributed to the devil, this one's the good type of posession. visions are thought to be trigered by some sort of epilepsy, 'frontal-lope epilepsy'. the same can be said for these so-called 'posessions', there's more proof to suggest it was more psychological and you mind playing tricks that it actually being what you say it was.

speaking in tounges...yet, people can't actually understand what you're saying, can't really prove it. yet, there's more to suggest it's brought on by the person themselves often to try and prove it. the same as you might let you mind take over your body, let it take over your speech too.

pretty much some of my thoughts...



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I was`nt raised a Christian and my parents were`nt religious or went to church though they did have slight christian beleifs.Though now that i`m 41 can see it would have been in my best interests if they were.Now you wont understand that with being one.

Its impossible to debunk God so it stands to reason you can not debunk christianity

Why do you feel as though you need to attack christians?do you feel threaten by them or someone?

I`ve said it before in another thread i dont want to sound as if i just repeat myself but imagine you were privy to the fact that you know aliens exist because you had an encounter with them but no one believed you how can you prove it?,it is equally impossible for a christian to prove God exists except through his life as a follower of Christ.Now thats probably not good enough for you but thats about as much as you`ll get without seeking God yourself.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gps777
Its impossible to debunk God so it stands to reason you can not debunk christianity


debunk the bible = debunk god



Why do you feel as though you need to attack christians?do you feel threaten by them or someone?


you're not the first one to say this and you won't be the last. also by you saying that it doesn't make your beliefs any more true. i don't feel threatened by christians, i think their whole belief system if flawed and illogical. i just want to show this in any way possible.



imagine you were privy to the fact that you know aliens exist because you had an encounter with them but no one believed you how can you prove it?,it is equally impossible for a christian to prove God exists except through his life as a follower of Christ.Now thats probably not good enough for you but thats about as much as you`ll get without seeking God yourself.


an eye witness statement is not 'proof'. just because 'someone says so' doesn't make it true. and why is it equally impossible?...maybe because the person never had an encounter with aliens, the same as there is no god. you can tell me you've heard god talk to you in prayer, you can tell me you've been healed by faith alone, you can tell me you were posessed by the holy spirit...but that doesn't change anything. just because you think or say they happened, doesn't mean they did. people are so caught up in this faith and religion, mainly because they can't accept death and demise, they need something like heaven to hold on to.


three words: 'temporal lobe epilepsy'. that'll explain the experiences with aliens, devine encounters etc.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   


you're not the first one to say this and you won't be the last. also by you saying that it doesn't make your beliefs any more true. i don't feel threatened by christians, i think their whole belief system if flawed and illogical. i just want to show this in any way possible.


you know, it is interesting to notice that you have to believe that there is no god, there is no way to know that. you cant disprove God and you cant disprove the bible, the only thing you can say about it is that you think that it is not true. thats all.



1) if you grow up and believe in what you believe in because it's all you know, then that doesn't make it true.

this also applies to the evolution theory too. just because its all you know and its what everyone agrees with, it doesnt make it true.

EC

[edit on 10-9-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Shauny alot of people myself included did not study the bible to find God i had not picked one up before i asked God into my life so if it amuses you to think your debunking the Bible and God have fun.The only people you may affect is a weak faithed person who knows?There is a description in the Bible for your type of actions i say this because of your quote stating "any way possible".

Matt.13
[4] And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

If you believe your so called inflawable logic will affect a strong Christians faith to waver in the slightest i suggest move on to something achievable in your life.

Also with the alien analogy i gave i did`nt state it as proof for you i gave it as an analogy as in its a personal thing that the individual has to experience to understand,your personal belief system is strong but on the opposite side of the fence,i dont pretend to convince you or anybody else and its not a Christians purpose to do so, why do you think you can to me?i respect you for your belief, as a Christian i dont expect the same respect in return but it would give me a warm fuzzy feelin if you did,no biggy.

A Christian HAS accepted death thats what makes them a Christian otherwise they would`nt be one in the first place and live.I dont expect you to understand that though.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   


There is a description in the Bible for your type of actions i say this because of your quote stating "any way possible".


GPS777
I like the answer you gave but I like to use thise verse instead.

II Peter 3:3-8 "knowing this first there shall come in the last days scoffers...for this they are willingly ignorant of..."

People are just willingly ignorant = dumb on purpose

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
i was just outside doing some work and i thought of exactly the same thing Cruncher


Their is a huge difference between disbelief and refusal to believe.
Yours said it better though

Must be our flawed logic that finding Christ caused



[edit on 11-9-2005 by gps777]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I am likely going to jump around and address many things in this thread, so please bear with me. I am new, so first I give my greetings.

My own faith is as complex as the subject itself, and while you may over the course of my time on these boards feel that I have contradicted myself, I am always willing to clarify and explicate my words to those who may not view the world through as fine a sieve as I tend to do. My faith is a subtle and nuanced one, but strengthened due to years of self-demolition and construction.

Of which, I have learned much in the realms of faith.

Firstly, it is considerate to note that prior to the consolidation of the official bible, the religious texts which were attributed to god/Christ were far more than one book. It could fill shelves. At some point, the religious leaders of the time decided to consolidate and expediate the “Word of God”, and put only the most relevant of passages into the official Holy Book. Thusly, we have the bible, which itself has gone through various edits and adjustments (Some for the sake of a king divorcing his wife).

However, let us address only the book which we are all familiar with, rather than the lores of the past which have been forgotten, destroyed, or secreted away by collectors.

There are those that claim that many of the parables of Christ are borrowed from past faiths such as the instance of Horus' resurrection. Perhaps it has been. It is a fair conclusion to draw, however it ignores any alternate conclusions. It is also very possible that resurrections require a three day grace period between death and rebirth. *Laughs*

It is always possible that miracles are not decidedly a singular Christian origination, and perhaps other gods (Lesser in the eyes of Christians, or idols, I should say) must function along similar principles to “The Almighty”.

A subject for another time, in continuation with the parables being originated from others…

I myself do not deny that much of the bible may have, in fact, been borrowed from other cultures. The Greek parable of Zeus and Apollo destroying a town for improper piety, but sparing an old couple does resemble the story of Soddom and Gammorha. Of course, this may have preceded the Christian story or perhaps the Christian parable was first.

On the subject of the destroyed cities and concerning the bible, I have never believed that this particular parable (Or any, for that matter) condemned homosexuality. In fact, I feel that the cities were destroyed for, lacking a more precise term of describing it, losing any appreciation or care for humanity in general. Being Godless, as it were.

Moving on, there are also many celebrated holidays which may not have initially belonged to the Christians. Christ was born near harvest season, which most certainly is not December, even for the section of the world Bethlehem is. However, many faiths celebrated the winter solstice, and in order to fit into society’s (As well as perhaps garner more followers), it would be in the Christian’s best interest to celebrate a like holiday around the same time.

Same goes for Easter. While I am unsure of the time of year which the resurrection took place, I am certain that many of the wares of Easter are more pagan/Wicca in rite than Christian. Eggs, bunnies, maypoles are all outside the realm of Christian doctrine… now, whether these elements were associated with the Christian holiday or vice versa is an interesting question for later.

Getting back on topic, The Gnostics believed that the parables of Christ served as a pathway, or an example, towards enlightenment and the spiritual self. This doesn’t mean that they considered merely the face of things. Dwelling on the words of Christ was enough to start ones self on a path of righteousness towards enlightenment. However, the Gnostic faith was multi-layered and there was a tradition of circles. In spiritual teachings, some are not prepared for the next step until they are able to grasp certain fundamental concepts to the state they exist in NOW. This is how the Gnostics perceived spirituality.

The Gnostics also believed that there was a male and female aspect which was equal in both men and women, and that one of the primary focuses was to reconcile ones self with this the male and female self so that one might function as a whole being rather than divided. The two Mary’s of the bible as well as Christ play a large role in Gnostic mysticism and spiritual thought, at least on the path to enlightenment.

They were one of the primary reasons the Inquisition occurred, as their methodology involved, nay, REQUIRED that a person question their own faith and the faiths of others in a pursuit of truths inside themselves and others. It was a religion of debate and seeking, unlike most faiths nowadays.

The Gnostics shared much in common with the Socratics, of which I also identify heavily with. Socrates believed there was one absolute truth which belonged to the gods, and that humanity being flawed could never grasp it. However, he felt that the pursuit was perhaps MORE important due to the elusiveness of this divine truth.

Socrates taught that the unexamined life is not worth living, and lived his life in pursuit of “A wiser man than he”, for surely he could not be “The wisest of all men,” as the Sybil of Pythia had said unto him. In his pursuit of a wiser one than he, he found that many people deceived themselves of their own wisdom, believing out of fear of what they did not know or base pride that they knew what they did not. He found himself amidst fools and fools only.

I would ask those who hold fast to their faith this… consider what you fear. Perhaps you are afraid that in the end, there truly is nothing. If this were true, it would invalidate all you have thought. Fear, itself, clouds and deceives us more than any thing a person might do unto us. Ignorance is the twin threat of fear, for we often turn our minds from things which scare us so that we might not face them. Consider, if there wasn’t a god, would you live your life differently? If so, are you being true to the God that IS?

I would ask of those who hold fast to NO faith this… consider what you fear. Perhaps you are afraid that death is NOT the end to judgment. If this were true, it would invalidate all that you have thought. Fear and ignorance serve to lead a person astray, and perhaps fear of living life only out of desire for a reward in some afterlife invalidates your actions.

We all need to look at our fears and our own shames and to never forget them. Through conquering our own fear we step closer to our final destination, whatever that is. I do not believe the atheist or the holy man would argue we must live our lives poorly, for this I think we can all agree we must be what we can be.

Perhaps people of no god wish to supplant him, to prove mankinds superiority through the ages by fashioning man itself into a god. Those of faith need to question whether god truly does not wish this.

People of faith wish to preserve god, feeling that mankind should recognize the contributions that faith has provided for man. Some find comfort that when all else fails, turning to god and believing in “His” love can serve as enough to move on.

In the end, we are all afraid to change… I embrace that which can destroy me, for in that destruction is resurrection of my faith. Nothing can break what cannot be broken, and that which does never touches the truth, for I have never found it and perhaps never shall, but in my effort I shall come closer to it.

Whether sinner or saint, we are all on the same path… some of us may fall, but it isn’t reliant upon what we do… it’s upon what we learn and how we grow through our actions.

Make whatever choices you feel, and if they lead you to the divine truth, that is one step ahead of most.

But always be aware of fear and ignorance… and ever exploring of what you are “CERTAIN” of, because chances are, you have no real “Gnosis”.

But then, I am only a fool, and I know nothing.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you know, it is interesting to notice that you have to believe that there is no god, there is no way to know that. you cant disprove God and you cant disprove the bible, the only thing you can say about it is that you think that it is not true. thats all.


you say i can't disprove it, like you can 'prove' it, which you can't.

in this day and age, sure you might get some english people that try other religions, but on the whole if you're english you're going to most likely be christian...70% in fact consider themselves to be so in the uk. why then, is 70% of Iraq not christian? Why is 70% of india not christian? why is 70% of china not christian? do you ever ask yourself these questions? surely if the bible has this awesome power and god, why do these people in iraq, india or china not believe in it...

that fact is there is a really simple answer... 'they are not brought up with that religion'. an iraqi with islamic beliefs will swear blind his religion and faith is true, just as you do with your christian beliefs. matter of fact most people in the western world will be christian as it's built in to their society.



this also applies to the evolution theory too. just because its all you know and its what everyone agrees with, it doesnt make it true.


problem with your logic is that hardly anyone actually grows up as an evolutionist. in fact i don't know anyone that actually grew up with an evolutionist background. you don't even begin to learn about evolution untill you're doing GCSE's, so about 13 years old. yet, christians are taught about their beliefs from a much younger age, to build in these thoughts. two christian parents would almost never wait until the child was 16, to make his own decision about his faith, they want to take him there early and make sure it's really inbuilt to lessen the chance of him turning away.

i didn't even grow up with an 'evolutionist' background. i went to a primary school where we would always say the lord's prayer (i knew it off by heart), sing hyms, go to a youth group at church etc. however, it wasn't until i was about 17 that i picked up the bible just to read parts of it for myself, to make my own decisions. i didn't go out to prove it was wrong, i just wanted to read about this 'devinity' people had told me about. the problem was...i didn't find any.


Originally posted by gps777
Shauny alot of people myself included did not study the bible to find God i had not picked one up before i asked God into my life so if it amuses you to think your debunking the Bible and God have fun.The only people you may affect is a weak faithed person who knows?There is a description in the Bible for your type of actions i say this because of your quote stating "any way possible".


i don't need to debunk the bible, it debunks itself. people tell me john, the disciple of jesus wrote 'john' one of the four gospels. however, in the bible is says he had no education, hence illiterate, which means he could not write. (acts 4:13). the same lie is used by christians when they say moses wrote the first five books of the old testament. so if they lie about these two things, however inconsiquential you might think they are...what else did they lie about?



If you believe your so called inflawable logic will affect a strong Christians faith to waver in the slightest i suggest move on to something achievable in your life.


i don't look at it as 'achieving' something in my life. that to me sounds like a frightened person...'asking me to move on to something more achievable'. although perhaps you're not worried in the slightest that i might affect your belief. i'd probably be worried if i did affect your belief, as it wouldn't have been strong in the first place.



Also with the alien analogy i gave i did`nt state it as proof for you i gave it as an analogy as in its a personal thing that the individual has to experience to understand,your personal belief system is strong but on the opposite side of the fence.


true. yet, you were trying to say even though no one who's had an encounter can 'prove' aliens exist, they still do exist...just like no one can 'prove' they had a devine experience, but god still exists. i was just giving a rational explanation, 'temporal lobe epilepsy' is attributed to devine experiences, posession etc. sleep paralyses is thought to cause the belief that a person was abducted by aliens. with everything there is always an explanation. however, it might not be the one you wanted.



A Christian HAS accepted death thats what makes them a Christian otherwise they would`nt be one in the first place and live.I dont expect you to understand that though.


yeah but death for a christian isn't really the same for an atheist. in your view i'm going to hell. you're going to heaven. heaven or hell you believe there is some sort of eternal life in either. so in death in your view there is life. so all you're accepting is 'eternal life'. i wonder how far christianity would have got without the promise of eternal life



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   
quote:
you say i can't disprove it, like you can 'prove' it, which you can't.

Begging your pardon, sir, but either way is no reason to discount the opposite argument. Lack of proof isn't proof of nonexistence just like lack of proof isn't proof of existence. If you came to the conclusion there wasn't a god based off of the lack of proof, it is an ignorant stance to take. I trust that there is more to it than just that.

quote:
in this day and age, sure you might get some english people that try other religions, but on the whole if you're english you're going to most likely be christian...70% in fact consider themselves to be so in the uk. why then, is 70% of Iraq not christian? Why is 70% of india not christian? why is 70% of china not christian? do you ever ask yourself these questions? surely if the bible has this awesome power and god, why do these people in iraq, india or china not believe in it...

Many different reasons. Lack of Exposure, lack of evidence, laziness, tradition, and free will of course. Nobody MUST believe in anything in particular. If "God" exists, I doubt he would force everyone to believe in him, everything would be pointless. If you could just make everything the way you want it to be and did so, the universe would quickly become boring.

quote:
that fact is there is a really simple answer... 'they are not brought up with that religion'. an iraqi with islamic beliefs will swear blind his religion and faith is true, just as you do with your christian beliefs. matter of fact most people in the western world will be christian as it's built in to their society.

The answer is not as simple as you make it, reductum ad absurdum. As stated, there are many factors as to "WHY". Concerning China/India/Japan, the Buddhists got there first and long before Christianity. Tradition in these regions counts for a good deal.

quote:
problem with your logic is that hardly anyone actually grows up as an evolutionist. in fact i don't know anyone that actually grew up with an evolutionist background. you don't even begin to learn about evolution untill you're doing GCSE's, so about 13 years old. yet, christians are taught about their beliefs from a much younger age, to build in these thoughts. two christian parents would almost never wait until the child was 16, to make his own decision about his faith, they want to take him there early and make sure it's really inbuilt to lessen the chance of him turning away.

True, but then they aren't making a human being with this kind of behavior, they are merely making a puppet.

quote:
i didn't even grow up with an 'evolutionist' background. i went to a primary school where we would always say the lord's prayer (i knew it off by heart), sing hyms, go to a youth group at church etc. however, it wasn't until i was about 17 that i picked up the bible just to read parts of it for myself, to make my own decisions. i didn't go out to prove it was wrong, i just wanted to read about this 'devinity' people had told me about. the problem was...i didn't find any.

1. it is just a book, of course you wouldn't.
2. Not only is it a book, but it isn't the originator.
3. Most of the relevant information is "Apocryphal" or purposely forgotten.
4. You have summarily dismissed it because you didn't find what you were looking for? Such adroit decisions often exist in the realm of pride.


quote:
i don't need to debunk the bible, it debunks itself. people tell me john, the disciple of jesus wrote 'john' one of the four gospels. however, in the bible is says he had no education, hence illiterate, which means he could not write. (acts 4:13). the same lie is used by christians when they say moses wrote the first five books of the old testament. so if they lie about these two things, however inconsiquential you might think they are...what else did they lie about?

As I stated in another topic, the "Bible" is merely the compilation of accepted doctrinal teachings that "Best conveys the word of God". It was compiled a long, long time ago from mountains of related texts by the religious leaders of the time.

You focus on the inconsistencies as much as "Christians" focus on what they want to hear. Perhaps we could all serve to meditate on the MEANING and the possibility there is much we do not know.

quote:
i don't look at it as 'achieving' something in my life. that to me sounds like a frightened person...'asking me to move on to something more achievable'. although perhaps you're not worried in the slightest that i might affect your belief. i'd probably be worried if i did affect your belief, as it wouldn't have been strong in the first place.

You say that as if you might actually worry. If it were true, it is a sign of someone who is not completely lacking in faith or willing to abandon the idea.

quote:
true. yet, you were trying to say even though no one who's had an encounter can 'prove' aliens exist, they still do exist...just like no one can 'prove' they had a devine experience, but god still exists. i was just giving a rational explanation, 'temporal lobe epilepsy' is attributed to devine experiences, posession etc. sleep paralyses is thought to cause the belief that a person was abducted by aliens. with everything there is always an explanation. however, it might not be the one you wanted.

Many things in science are attributed to theories which remain, as yet, just theories. In fact, science in itself is a basis of belief, because we accept the reproducability and ignore the possibility of paradigm shift or a sudden change in the functionality of reality. It is because of these reasons, and esoteric fields of science, that I keep my mind open that EVERYTHING about science might be, in fact wrong.

As example, we surmise the reasons for gravity is due to how mass and energy interact. This is our reason because at current it is sound. There could be other sound reasons that science would not accept.

Perhaps the Stigmata is more than just epilepsy, do not discount something because you'd rather not believe in something. Likewise, don't accept something because it's preferable, it means you are only being ruled by fear or hatred.

quote:
yeah but death for a christian isn't really the same for an atheist. in your view i'm going to hell. you're going to heaven. heaven or hell you believe there is some sort of eternal life in either. so in death in your view there is life. so all you're accepting is 'eternal life'. i wonder how far christianity would have got without the promise of eternal life

I believe that one must assume nothing in order to act, otherwise, the action is insincere and based off of an assumption. Assuming sin exists, you behave in a way to avoid it because sin is harmful to the spirit. There is good possibility you avoid it only because you know this. I avoid sin because I choose to, or do not avoid it because I choose not to.

Likewise, being good... I find that assuming goodliness garnishes reward in an afterlife or during life itself makes people behave insincerely, and does not in fact bring enlightenment to the soul. A person who does such is not acting godly, they are acting like an animal because they are trying to avoid what they perceive as "NEGATIVE" and pursue what they perceive as "POSITIVE".

I view all things as "NO VALUE" and make my judgments based on that. If others feel it is "GOOD" or "EVIL" it is of no consequence to me. I feel that behaving as I will because it is how I CHOOSE to behave is more genuine than doing so in concern of sinning or saintliness.

It is a hard concept to relate with words.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Begging your pardon, sir, but either way is no reason to discount the opposite argument. Lack of proof isn't proof of nonexistence just like lack of proof isn't proof of existence. If you came to the conclusion there wasn't a god based off of the lack of proof, it is an ignorant stance to take.


Proofs are for the world of mathematics. In the real world we make judgements, not proofs. Lack of evidence is sufficient to make a judgement if evidence would be expected were a given premise true.

You perform a virus scan on your computer and find no viruses. Lack of finding a virus does not "prove" there are none, but it is enough to make a judgement that there are none.

The greater the number of claims, the more weight such a judgement has when they aren't witnessed.

Of course, before it even makes sense to discuss the existence of god, a consistent definition must be supplied.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Begging your pardon, sir, but either way is no reason to discount the opposite argument. Lack of proof isn't proof of nonexistence just like lack of proof isn't proof of existence. If you came to the conclusion there wasn't a god based off of the lack of proof, it is an ignorant stance to take. I trust that there is more to it than just that.


i wasn't saying that the fact you can't 'prove' god means that it's false. i was saying that telling me i can't disprove god, doesn't automatically mean that god is real. so no i'm not taking an ignorant stance.



The answer is not as simple as you make it, reductum ad absurdum. As stated, there are many factors as to "WHY". Concerning China/India/Japan, the Buddhists got there first and long before Christianity. Tradition in these regions counts for a good deal.


exactly, so aren't most people who live in the uk ''just sticking to tradition''. i'm not religious and nor are my parents. my friend is religious, so are her two brothers, and so are her parents. is it not a coincidence that her whole close-family are religious? rather than religion actually having any truth to it, could it just be that some people are born in to that ''tradition''.



As example, we surmise the reasons for gravity is due to how mass and energy interact. This is our reason because at current it is sound. There could be other sound reasons that science would not accept.


well gravity is still a theory. no one has said this is it, this is how it works, end of. it is still open to new ideas and new studies and evidence to suggest that what they have sumerised gravity as being now, might not actually be right.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   


Of course, before it even makes sense to discuss the existence of god, a consistent definition must be supplied.


Let us call **IT** "Creator" as it is without humanification of it. Let us also say this; "Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent".

This is the definition I use.



i wasn't saying that the fact you can't 'prove' god means that it's false. i was saying that telling me i can't disprove god, doesn't automatically mean that god is real. so no i'm not taking an ignorant stance.


I think you are mistaken, sir; for I never said, alluded to, nor hinted that I believed such about your words.



exactly, so aren't most people who live in the uk ''just sticking to tradition''. i'm not religious and nor are my parents. my friend is religious, so are her two brothers, and so are her parents. is it not a coincidence that her whole close-family are religious? rather than religion actually having any truth to it, could it just be that some people are born in to that ''tradition''.


Firstly, do you have any faith? Hang-all religion.

Secondly, in the Asiatics, tradition has FAR more weight than in the west. If isn't broke and all that rot.

Thirdly, Traditional religion may in fact be how many people operate, but that does not have any weight when comparing it to having any truth. Just because any idiot believes something isn't proof that it has no truth to it.

Here's a question I would love an honest answer to, would you rather religion have no truth to it? Let me clarify; any religion, not the populist beliefs of Christianity, Buddhism, Muslim, etc.

Is it your preference?



well gravity is still a theory. no one has said this is it, this is how it works, end of. it is still open to new ideas and new studies and evidence to suggest that what they have sumerised gravity as being now, might not actually be right.


Sir, everything in science is a theory, if science somehow taught you that some things were "Truth", then you are amongst many scientists who have fallen for it. There is only incriminating evidence to support a theory, and there are many theories with so much evidence as to be accepted as "Truth".

Recall that Science' purpose is to "Bring understanding of causation and function to the universe". It is to explain the why-and-the-how of things. Merely because someone important wrote E=MC^2 doesn't mean that is the truth of things, only that it has been SHOWN to be how things work at this time, and nothing better has come along. That, my friend, is belief.

Functionally, we didn't require a better explanation than "God Did it" for countless centuries, because it was not relevant to us and nobody showed otherwise (Or even thought otherwise for that matter).

Science is as faith based as Christianity, and there are indeed Zealots amidst science just as there are amongst other worldly religions.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Firstly, do you have any faith? Hang-all religion.


no i don't. even though you think science is as faith based as christianity, i don't go to science lectures every sunday to learn about evolution.



Here's a question I would love an honest answer to, would you rather religion have no truth to it? Let me clarify; any religion, not the populist beliefs of Christianity, Buddhism, Muslim, etc.


the fact is that all these religions contradict each other on 'how we began', 'how it will all end' etc, so i don't believe they are in some way interconnected. what about the gods of ancient greece, was there any truth to them? because once upon a time millions believed in them, yet i'm sure no one takes that religion seriously now. the same as i believe in a few hundred (maybe longer) people living then (in the future) will look at the religions of today (christianity) in the same way as we look at ancient religions like the greek gods.

and in answer to your question 'would i rather religions had no truth to them'...did they have any truth to begin with? because i don't think there is any truth to them, let alone any truth to lose.



Sir, everything in science is a theory, if science somehow taught you that some things were "Truth", then you are amongst many scientists who have fallen for it. There is only incriminating evidence to support a theory, and there are many theories with so much evidence as to be accepted as "Truth".


1) the earth IS flat.
2) the earth IS the centre of the universe.
3) the earth DOESN'T orbit the sun, it's the other way around.

you, i gather from your comment of 'everything in science is theory', believe that those three statements could therefore be true?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   


no i don't. even though you think science is as faith based as christianity, i don't go to science lectures every sunday to learn about evolution.


I assume you sleep at night and plan for the future, as such, you have faith or take it on principal the future will be here tomorrow. If even not that, I would call it hope. Science *IS* faith based, its methodology may be unique, but it none-the-less serves exactly the same purpose as Religion.

Note that I do not comment on if science is "Better" than religion, in many ways it is a better explanation for things. But, just like other churches, it is blind to things it cannot accept.




the fact is that all these religions contradict each other on 'how we began', 'how it will all end' etc, so i don't believe they are in some way -interconnected.


Actually, no they don't. Most beginning mythos are very similar in many varying elements. The devil is in the details, my friend. Most religions have very similar origin myths, particularly when you break them down to origination.

As for ending myths, well, those religions which predict an end to things often predict similar things overall, but again the devil is in the details. What can be said of all religions which predict an end is that if you are properly versed in the literature, they are not speaking of "Universe Kaput", they are speaking of paradigm shift in planar phenomenon, whether they know it or not.

Exception; Fundamentalist Literalists.



what about the gods of ancient greece, was there any truth to them?


A good question. Lacking proof, I cannot say either way. However, Gnostic belief conjectures that they did, in fact, exist. Considering the enormous historical flubs that archaeology itself has made concerning the Greeks and their lore, I am not willing to discount the existence of god-like entities which may have passed away (Recall that the Olympians were just as killable as everything else, much like the Norse Pantheon).



because once upon a time millions believed in them, yet i'm sure no one takes that religion seriously now.


You would be entirely incorrect, but then, that's what prideful certainty usually results in.



the same as i believe in a few hundred (maybe longer) people living then (in the future) will look at the religions of today (christianity) in the same way as we look at ancient religions like the greek gods.


I am thinking you HOPE this, as it is evident you hold issue with religion. I am wagering you might also consider it to be a mental disease, as some do. Am I correct or incorrect?




1) the earth IS flat.
2) the earth IS the centre of the universe.
3) the earth DOESN'T orbit the sun, it's the other way around.


1) Perhaps it was.
2) Perhaps it Was.
3) Perhaps it didn't.

I argue that science relies upon the static nature of the universe, but the universe itself is not static. It is tractable, mutable, shifting and changing always. Consider String Theory and Quantum Physics, currently, as science that threatens to tear down what is "KNOWN" about the universe.

Science itself breaks down if it's fundamental base presumptions suddenly return a value of "FALSE".

If, for whatever reason, scientists found that Energy was being produced in quantities more than is being put into an effort, suddenly the Laws of Thermodynamics are out the window. If such an event were to occur, I am not certain most would grasp the horrifying significance to science as to what it actually means.

Personally, I find science to be quaintly childish in its notions of superiority and certainty that all answers shall be revealed unto it, given enough time and the right tools.



you, i gather from your comment of 'everything in science is theory', believe that those three statements could therefore be true?


What I believe is not the issue, for what I believe is mine and mine alone. I may or may not even be discussing what *I* believe. Of course, most human assumption is to draw that statements must correlate to personal beliefs, perhaps I am merely trying to flex your mental awareness of alternative possibilities.

One thing I do believe is that the Law of Change is the only immutable thing in the universe, and even this statement is untrue due to what the Law of Change states. "All things change, even change."

In the end, I only am speaking to myself. A person without the capacity to explore faith should not participate in conversations which do. If you have made up your mind, do not trouble others with your certainty, particularly under the guise of an open discussion. An OPEN discussion involves the ceding of points, and through my experience, those unwilling to entertain to themselves the notion of their own fallability are poor debaters.

My comment is harsh, admittedly. So thusly I entertain the notion that perhaps I am being rather judgmental and not quite giving you a fair shake at things.

Let me elaborate as to my response in kind; Do not categorize me, it is a fairly good way to earn my ire as I tend not to fit most models of "Religious Nut" or "Scientific Atheist". I am a socratic and a gnostic, and as such, I am not willing to obey a classification as "Some type of person". Your responses to this point have been knee-jerk reactions to what you expected of me, and I gather what you expected of me is quite a bit different than what I actually am.

Hence, your responses as if I am likened to those highly religious people who have firm, unyielding grasps upon their beliefs is personal affront. I am not one who entertains foolish notions of certainty on ANY side of a debate. I prefer open discussion.

Am I religious? Not in your regular definition. I think, perhaps, I would offend as many religious people as irreligious people.

Do I believe in a divine being? Yes. I can say that much. Though never for the same inane reasons as others, and I am required to give you no proof, mind you, of my belief. Regardless, I cite the law of improbabilities as evidence thereof.

Do I think you should? I don't see why it is any of my business. Whether you seek enlightenment or material satisfaction is none of my concern. Aside which, people tend to not learn if they do not learn the hard way.

Do I want you to? An entirely different question. I would like all people to explore every aspect of their existence, even the spiritual. I would also prefer it if people didn't make premature decisions on everything... premature meaning before death, as there are no certain things in life.

As stated before, My beliefs are nuanced and complex. I merely try to expediate things and, assuredly, I have fallen into reductum ad absurdum.

I accept the tractability of my own existence, the possibility that I am wrong about everything. As such, I am constantly seeking the truth, because I know not what I know.

I can honestly say that it is more foolish to assume knowledge about anything.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword

Let us call **IT** "Creator" as it is without humanification of it. Let us also say this; "Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent".

This is the definition I use.


1. Did it create spacetime?
2. Is it limited by logic, or it it capable of actual contradiction?


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
Science is as faith based as Christianity, and there are indeed Zealots amidst science just as there are amongst other worldly religions.


That depends on what you mean by "faith".

Science uses induction, yet induction is not proof, so we can never be completely certain that anything we learn from science is true. Our bets are always hedged. Is that what you mean by faith?



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   


1. Did it create spacetime?
2. Is it limited by logic, or it it capable of actual contradiction?


1. Absolutely Yes.
2. Absolutely Not. I would love to have a conversation about this, because the human mind isn't designed for this and this is where most of the trouble with these conversations arise out of.



That depends on what you mean by "faith".

Science uses induction, yet induction is not proof, so we can never be completely certain that anything we learn from science is true. Our bets are always hedged. Is that what you mean by faith?


Absolutely! At least you are garnering my meaning from this, I am delighted. Realize that most religions did not have the knowledge or utensils to prove their claims, and as such, they were merely making educated (For them) guesses as to occurrences of things.

A true scientist never assumes a value of true from any conclusions, which is why most people get into these immovable debates... they aren't aware that science is "Hedging it's bets". They want to believe in CERTAINTIES, just like the religious people want to believe in God.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Science - Knowledge gained by:

1. Observation
2. Study
3. Testing
4. Demonstration
5. Repeating steps 1-4
6. Drawing Conclusion.

Evolution (not including Micro Evolution) does not fit step 1,3,4.
its impossible conclude evolution as being fact when it doesnt even fit the definition of science.

EC



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
But, just like other churches, it is blind to things it cannot accept.


surely science is all about 'new ideas', hence acception new things and not being 'blind'. religion is more ''that's our belief, take it or leave it''.



I am thinking you HOPE this, as it is evident you hold issue with religion. I am wagering you might also consider it to be a mental disease, as some do. Am I correct or incorrect?


well, in a few hundred years i won't be around to witness. by all means don't get me wrong, i'd love for there to be a heaven, because quite frankly 70 or so years on this planet seems pretty lame, but i just don't 'logically' see it. i do think there is a certain aspect of mental disease attributed to believers. one in particular called 'temporal lobe epilepsy', something doctors thought i suffered from when i was younger, as i would collapse/have a fit, but i never attributed it to god.



I argue that science relies upon the static nature of the universe, but the universe itself is not static. It is tractable, mutable, shifting and changing always. Consider String Theory and Quantum Physics, currently, as science that threatens to tear down what is "KNOWN" about the universe.


tearing down what is known, but opening doors for what is not yet known. science is always happy to retest, retry, change theories and ideas. it's never shut to anything.



I accept the tractability of my own existence, the possibility that I am wrong about everything. As such, I am constantly seeking the truth, because I know not what I know.


that's all i'm looking for too. since i've read parts of the bible and found no devinity at all, never had an 'experience' that i can say 'hmmm perhaps there is some sort of devine creator', i have to come to the conclusion 'for now' that christianity holds no truth. what about other religions...well i guess i've not yet got that far.

in this day and age people are trying to seek out any form of religion, which is why we have those 'new-age' religions, something cool a hip for a new generation. certain aspects of religion can seem to help people, for example meditation is thought to reduce stress. does that therefore mean we need to believe in some sort of unique devine entity, or hold the bible to be the word of god...no certainly not.

i like reading your posts cystalsword, you seem to have a lot of knowledge, and i feel i can learn a lot from you.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join