It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
42
43
44
45
46
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If the Bible is true, then it is just as much of a fact. Being given dominion of the Earth is not the same as saying we have supremacy over it.
Whenever you need to use a conditional, you're talking about a belief, therefore not something objectively considered as truth :-P
Posted January 30, 2014
(edit: Damn, someone beat me to it...)
Post edited January 30, 2014 by MrAlphaNumeric
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
MrAlphaNumeric: (edit: Damn, someone beat me to it...)
Now that you happened around, I'm fairly sure god is a boolean.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Fenixp
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Wishbone: Did God not make man in His image? Therefore, must God not look like a man? To look like a man, must he not be made out of matter? Or are you suggesting he is a hologram, and if so, what projects it?
avatar
Soyeong: There are a few interpretations on what it means to be made in His image. I think it refers to the immaterial part of man that sets us apart from the animal world, gives us dominion of the Earth, and allows us to commune with Him. So we are in His likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
So, first you say that God has "necessary attributes", and then you say that his attributes are open to interpretation. Which is it then?
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
jamotide: I see, that is very smart! But it still does not stop me from making up gods like that. In fact, as it happens, team jamotide isn't contingent on anything. So you are saying your god is not a god because he is contingent on team jamotide which created him? Wow, what an admission!
avatar
Soyeong: If it is contingent on jamotide, then it is not God. If jamotide has all of the attributes of the classical God of theism, then perhaps we have the same concept of God, but are calling Him two different things.

avatar
Fenixp: Well at least we're not arrogant :-P
avatar
Soyeong: I don't think it would arrogant for the Queen of England to say she's the Queen of England. If we were not given dominion over the Earth by God, then it would be arrogant, but if we have, then it wouldn't be.
Except that we don't have dominion over the Earth. There's animals larger than us, stronger than us, faster than us, more numerous than us and more prosperous than us, the only thing that we stand out on is our brains.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
iippo: Existence of God - well that is of course hard one.
avatar
flashpulse: Actually it's not. Two very complexed human beings were created at the same exact time and have a invisible connection, a mans seed and a woman's egg, in order to create children. On top of that, there was fruit and vegetables that have the very vitamins and minerals we need in order for us to survive. There also happen to be air and water on this very planet that these two people were created on. These all had to happen in a small time frame. One small error and nothing would exist. As you can see, the list will just keep going and going.

This is a very intelligent design. I have study this for 20 years and any evolutionist who tries to state other wise is either blind or will just flat out not except there is a GOD because they have superior issues.

If evolution was true, the venomous snake would have died of its own venom when "evolving". The giraffe would have suffered a heart attack as the giraffes heart changes when it dips its head to drink water. Again, this can keep going on too.

Yes, I'm a Christian, so I'll leave you with a quote. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." - Psalm 14
Rubbish, the lot of it. Apologies for my abruptness but you haven't studied a damn thing if you honestly think any of what you've just mentioned.

First of all, it's not like it's any amazing coincidence that we live on a planet that can support life. If the planet couldn't support life, we wouldn't be here. There are uncounted billions of stars out there in the universe, each of which might have multiple planets orbiting it. If you play those sort of odds you're bound to end up with planets here and there with the right conditions to support life. It sounds like you think people were also popping into existence on other planets, briefly clutching their throats and gasping before dropping dead from asphyxiation...

Although, having said that - that's exactly what would have happened to Adam and Eve if they had popped into existence on Earth more than about 2.5 billion years ago. Before then there was no oxygen in the atmosphere to support life - it was created by photosynthesizing organisms over the preceding billion years or so.

(Useful diagram: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg[/url])

It only had to happen in a small time frame if you believe the literal word of the bible, that the earth was created about 6000 years ago. No-one with any credibility in this field of science thinks this.

As for the other bits...

Snake venom: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2276/

The giraffe's neck actually contains one of the classic examples of evolution, i.e. the detour taken by the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Surely an 'intelligent' designer wouldn't have made a cock-up like that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve#Evidence_of_evolution

If you (or anyone, for that matter) want a concise and readable explanation of evolution (I suspect you don't!), with many many specific examples, you could do a lot worse than read Richard Dawkins' book The Greatest Show On Earth - it is brilliant.

Your quote I'm afraid does nothing for me except highlight the insidious nature of religion - you're a fool if you don't believe in God. Afraid I believe the exact opposite.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: Now that you happened around, I'm fairly sure god is a boolean.
You can always cast into an int. Any square peg can fit in a round hole if the hole is big enough.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Lionel212008: Ever heard of the term 'confirmation bias' ?

Everything you say is just the same old, same old "god in the gaps' argument put together in a twisted, haphazard fashion.

We must draw inferences from observation and thus arrive at a logical conclusion. Such a process is called ratiocination. Thus to believe in something without confirming its veracity is to lend credence to a pre-conceived notion.

avatar
flashpulse: snip
avatar
Lionel212008:
i agree with you mostly. However, one of the bigger questions about God/religion to me is not only that whether there is one or not - but rather does he/it/whatever exist in form that i is within human comprehension.

Because if there would happen to be God of sorts, yet the God existed in say in totally different dimension than what we live in - then ofcourse it would be rather impossible(?) to reach God with our regular logical thinking.

Say if you were to see the world "through the eyes of normal earthworm" - the world would be very different to you simply because the senses you have are totally different than the human senses.

Now if there is God that created everything, then would that not imply God would have to be able to sense somehow everything? We humans certainly cannot do that. There are animals with better senses than we have - but even they are bound in the same three dimension + time as we are.

How about God if one exists? How God might sense the world if God existed?

As engineer, when i contemplate about philosophy and religions concerning God - i do often have to ask myself if we are looking for God from the right place to begin with? Could it be said that God might be found outside "the container" we ourselves are?

Well, suppose this is the very reason religions are matters of "faith".
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Fenixp: Now that you happened around, I'm fairly sure god is a boolean.
avatar
MrAlphaNumeric: You can always cast into an int. Any square peg can fit in a round hole if the hole is big enough.
One day, you'll come to realize that integers are not the answer to everything. You religious nut.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If it is contingent on jamotide, then it is not God. If jamotide has all of the attributes of the classical God of theism, then perhaps we have the same concept of God, but are calling Him two different things.
What? I believe you misunderstood the concept of jamotide. It is a team of gods that created everything. It is not contigent on me, I simply named myself in their honor. Your god was created by them as well. But you say that makes your god not a god, I find that admission amazing.


avatar
flashpulse: Ok, so not only was all the old prophecies in the Bible come true, but an old prophecy has come to pass that you can see. Look at Israel, the Jews have gone back home. The one and only time something like this has ever happened in history. What are the odds of even just that one?
Oh boy, so I assume you believe in all the Nostradamus end of the world BS,too because with lots of imagination some of his predictions can be interpreted as having come true. Is there anything you don't believe? What about team jamotide?
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
MrAlphaNumeric: You can always cast into an int. Any square peg can fit in a round hole if the hole is big enough.
avatar
Fenixp: One day, you'll come to realize that integers are not the answer to everything. You religious nut.
LOL......
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: It is a team of gods that created everything.
avatar
jamotide:
It's official, Wadjet Eye Games, Daedalic, Big Finish Games, inXile, and Atlus co-created the universe. :D
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
flashpulse: Ok, so not only was all the old prophecies in the Bible come true, but an old prophecy has come to pass that you can see. Look at Israel, the Jews have gone back home. The one and only time something like this has ever happened in history. What are the odds of even just that one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy

So it is not (only) about odds. It is a bit like if I say "Tomorrow I will eat fish!", it doesn't make me a great prophet if I indeed eat fish tomorrow, because it may be I'll simply strive to do that tomorrow because I said so the day before.

It makes sense that jews tried their best to get back to middle east, because the bible told them that is what they are going to (and should) do. So, a self-fulfillling prophecy. If it wasn't for bible, they might have gone to north pole instead, having regional disputes with eskimos.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by timppu
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I don't need to give it too much though, there's no proof in a religion. So there's no reason to believe it.
avatar
Soyeong: Saying there is no proof of something is not the same a saying there is no evidence for it, or there is no reason to believe it. For instance, you can't prove that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, yet there is good historical evidence that gives us reason to believe that it happened. If a friend asks to borrow money, you can't prove that he will pay you back, but you can still have reason based on the evidence of you past experience with him to believe that he will pay you back.

It is in fact humanly impossible to form the belief that something is true without any evidence indicating that to be the case. If there was nothing indicating something to be true, then no one would form the belief that it was in the first place, so every belief, religious or not, has reason to believe it. Whether it is good reason is a different story.

Speaking as a Christian, I happen to think there are good reasons to believe it is true, otherwise I wouldn't still be a Christian. There are also a number of proofs out there for the existence of God, such as Aquinas's Five Ways. It's fine if you think my reasons are poor or the proofs are flawed, but to say there is no reason to believe it is incorrect.
Religion doesn't even have that going for it. It's an invisible product that you can't prove, or have evidence for until you die. Therefore for me it is illogical to believe it. And I won't believe after thousands of years, in the last 2 thousand that some god decided it's time to get involved.
Posted January 30, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If the Bible is true, then it is just as much of a fact. Being given dominion of the Earth is not the same as saying we have supremacy over it.
avatar
Fenixp: Whenever you need to use a conditional, you're talking about a belief, therefore not something objectively considered as truth :-P
Belief is having confidence in knowledge. For instance, if trustworthy friend tells you that they've done tests on an old bridge and that it is safe, then you have knowledge that it is safe. However, you don't actually believe it is safe unless you are willing to cross it, and you don't actually have faith that it is safe until you have crossed it.

Everyone considers everything that they subjectively believe to be true to correspond to objective truths of reality, because if they didn't then they would have never formed those believes in the first place. So a belief has absolutely nothing to do with something that is not objectively considered as true.
avatar
Soyeong: There are a few interpretations on what it means to be made in His image. I think it refers to the immaterial part of man that sets us apart from the animal world, gives us dominion of the Earth, and allows us to commune with Him. So we are in His likeness mentally, morally, and socially.
avatar
Wishbone: So, first you say that God has "necessary attributes", and then you say that his attributes are open to interpretation. Which is it then?
When it is said that man is made in the image of God, what is open to interpretation is not which attributes God has, but which attributes of God are reflected in that image.


avatar
Cormoran: Except that we don't have dominion over the Earth. There's animals larger than us, stronger than us, faster than us, more numerous than us and more prosperous than us, the only thing that we stand out on is our brains.
(www.dictionary.com)
do·min·ion [duh-min-yuhn]
noun
1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.
2. rule; control; domination.
3. a territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single rulership holds sway.
4. lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.
5. Government . a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire: formerly applied to self-governing divisions of the British Empire, as Canada and New Zealand.

Dominion does not refer to being supreme beings or to being the largest, strongest, fastest, or more numerous. It refers to being given authority over the Earth.
Post edited January 30, 2014 by Soyeong
Pages:
1
25
42
43
44
45
46
75
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)