79 replies to this topic

[Golan]

You don´t find it suspect that it´s humans presenting "his" words?

[General]

What should it be ? God should talk with each of us when sending His words down to us ?!

[Golan]

Well, he´s omnipotent and omnipresent, so... yes.
As soon as there´s another human involved as a medium, there´s no way to verify those words´ source and the possibility of the medium to alter the message to his advantage. Also, no human should be capable of understanding more than those words of god specifically meant for him. After all, God is supposed to be perfect so his complete message would have to be all-embracing; as a human is defenitely not perfect, there´s no hope for him to grasp it as a whole.

[General]

We believers also believe God have capacity to improve the brain of which human He wants , so God should make prophet's brain perfect for understand and not forget His words so humans will get the truest message .

[Commander Abs]

General, on 31 May 2007, 23:34, said:

We believers also believe God have capacity to improve the brain of which human He wants , so God should make prophet's brain perfect for understand and not forget His words so humans will get the truest message .

Hmm,, interesting. How does such a person prove their brain has been improved by God? Especially in a realm where 'human sciences' may not be able to prove such a thing?

I'd be intrigued to know how the determination is made, because I'm 99% sure that if I went up to the University during lunch and claimed to speak Gods word and that my mind had been touched by God, while a large amount of people would probably laugh at or dismiss me, a very small number of people, even just one or two, would believe me.

I make no such real claim that I am such a person, so the discrepency in judgement is something to be concerned about.

I suppose my point being, while Prophets and Gods may exist, by what reasoning do you determine someone to be a Prophet, if there is no human way to tell?

(completely off-topic, your avvy is so cute General! I'm a cat lover for the record,,,)

[General]

My conclusion actually a theory but same time I find it with some evidences , Example : Our prophet Muhammed wasn't know reading or writing until God teach Him . Surely God shouldn't do this within years , its something momentarily , He will learn reading and writing in a moment . Evidence ? I can't give any concrete one .

( completely off-topic : So I am also a big cat lover aswell )

Edited by General, 01 June 2007 - 05:47.

[Dr. Strangelove]

To put it bluntly:

The world would be better if everyone was an atheist HOWEVER, it would probably be worse if everyone was an atheist because they had it forced on them, not because they came to the conclusion themselves.

[Golan]

What makes you think that? An atheist can have as much reasons to kill another man as a religious person can; an unreligious organisation can be corrupted/utilized to forment hatred aswell.

Edited by Golan, 04 June 2007 - 08:03.

[General]

maybe not killing but world will probably turn into an adultery nest .

[Dauth]

Oh yes because i am atheist i am bound to start sleeping around with everyone.

At the age of 21 i have been in a relationship for 6 years, thats over half the length of the average marraige.

[Rayburn]

One can be moral without being religious.

That's what came to my mind when I read the last few posts. Moral doesn't require you to be religious.
Religion can convey certain moral values, but it sure is not the only way. When I was young, religion didn't play any part in my education. I'm a baptised protestant but that's pretty much all I ever had to do with religion besides random church visits in elementary. Still I developped a personal understanding of moral, so I doubt that an atheist is necessarily less moral than a religious person. Moral can be acquired by religion but also by something simple as common sense.

Edited by Rayburn, 04 June 2007 - 19:23.

[Commander Abs]

The Outsider, on 4 Jun 2007, 16:37, said:

The world would be better if everyone was an atheist HOWEVER, it would probably be worse if everyone was an atheist because they had it forced on them, not because they came to the conclusion themselves.

No,, the world would be a worse place if everyone was an atheist, for the simple fact a great deal of the worlds population would probably commit suicide because there's nothing to live for, because religion is a very powerful societal guiding force. I know many friends who would have no self confidence, and would probably have committed suicide if it weren't for religion, in fact religion was the last thing they had left because they kept saying to themselves 'My life really sucks, but God must have something planned for me'. Religion is very important, just like:
- parents when you're a newborn and don't know how to walk
- you're first friend at a new school
- The first person you meet who shows you round a foreign, unfamiliar country, showing you where things are and what to do.

In another world with a different environment, I may have been religious, but I've taken faith in myself, my family and my friends, because during my upbringing, religion was used as a justification to make racist comments about my mother, disrespect the marriage of my mother and father and even justify the 'goodness' of an attempted affair by a woman with my father, which thankfully failed miserably. In the face of this, regardless of whether any 'God' exists or not (to which, the existance of God i never deny, but thats off topic), I'll never have respect for a Religion because it does not respect the here and now.

Perhaps religion is supposed to respect the here and now, and it's merely people who cause the warping of it's intent,, but remember: A weapon of mass destruction in the hands of the right person *may* be a good thing, but by and large the worlds population cannot be trusted with such things.

As more of a man of science than anything, I dont *not* think god exists, since things like Uncertainty Priniciple rule out proving that Divine Intervention *doesnt* exist (although it doesnt prove it exists either). However, religion is an important part of human lifestyle, because it's fundamental basis is identical to the same reasoning I use when I flip a coin and always guess it'll land heads-up

[Whitey]

Atheism is religion. It is faith in science which relies on unproven theories as much as any other religion.

Atheism is believing there is no God. Thus "A", "Theo", and "Ism". Therefore, it is believing the completely unproven idea that everything came from nothing (or something without traced roots).

Agnosticism is the only lack of religion. It is being usure of what to believe.

Because Atheism is a religion, it has as much proof as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. And thus, it is pathetic to say that Atheism is more factual than say Hinduism.

I am a Christian as that is how I was raised. Not a Catholic or Protestant, just generic. But upon studying the Bible to an extent, I have also concluded that its lessons hold true and its stories, though often ficticious, bear moral truths that are present today, perhaps moreso than than yesterday. As I have interpreted, the pieces (although small) of the Bible that I have seen fit life as a whole, and that is all the proof I need.

[Commander Abs]

Quote

Atheism is believing there is no God. Thus "A", "Theo", and "Ism". Therefore, it is believing the completely unproven idea that everything came from nothing.

Exactly why a world full of Atheists would not be a better place, it's a belief in nothing, which therefore amounts to a future of nothing, while humans are pre-disposed (warning: I could be misusing that word ) to having to believe in something, otherwise humans would have no will to live.

Religion (or more importantly, Faith in general) is the guidance which leads people on to doing great things, and also terrible things.

[Whitey]

Yes, faith. That is something that has helped humanity achieve its best and its worst. We believe, and thus we attempt to achieve, for better or worse.

[General]

Without religion whats the meaning of moral since there will be noone judge you after your death , do what you want ( all those sins except killing ) at this life and nobody will judge you in here aswell since everyone will be almost same .

[Whitey]

No, there are personal values as well that do not pertain to religion. You don't have to believe you will be judged on it to believe it is right or wrong.

[Golan]

Commander Abs, on 5 Jun 2007, 02:38, said:

Exactly why a world full of Atheists would not be a better place, it's a belief in nothing, which therefore amounts to a future of nothing, while humans are pre-disposed (warning: I could be misusing that word ) to having to believe in something, otherwise humans would have no will to live.

Atheism means believing in humanity to be able to get along without God. This can be much more motivating and morally determing than a believe in a transendent Mr. Fixit (no offense meant).

[CodeCat]

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 03:08, said:

Atheism is religion. It is faith in science which relies on unproven theories as much as any other religion.

Atheism is believing there is no God. Thus "A", "Theo", and "Ism". Therefore, it is believing the completely unproven idea that everything came from nothing (or something without traced roots).

Calling atheism a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour. You can't call lack of X a form of X.

Also, I'd like you to show me how science is unproven? Isn't the very computer you typed this on not a serious confirmation that science is close to the truth? I think it's very arrogant to dismiss science based on some as of now unexplained things like parts of evolution and the history of the universe. What you should judge it on is how much it already HAS correctly explained:

Newton's theories -> understanding of motion in everyday life, accurate prediction of planetary events
Theory of electromagnetism -> understanding of electricity and fields, lead to radio, television, telephone, and just about every other basic electric appliance
Quantum dynamics -> understanding of particles at the smallest level, leading to the use of integrated circuits, making small appliances like mobile phones etc. possible, and of course computers
General relativity -> understanding of time and space and motion within them, lead to the development of accurate positioning on earth (GPS), and explanation of observed phenomena in the universe, including gravity
Biochemistry -> understanding of interaction between various substances with living tissue, lead to major developments in medicine and increased the possibility of correctly countering disease drastically

If you dismiss science because it doesn't explain everything RIGHT NOW, I think you're asking too much. Science has been around for a few thousand years now, and it has come this far already. Just a century ago, people had no idea how a computer would have worked, because they hadn't discovered what was necessary to make one. Science is an ongoing process. It's never complete, because it always seeks to improve itself by its very nature. Judging science by how incomplete you feel it is, is like judging a program (i.e. Shockwave!) on how much is still missing from it. And if you're asking science to explain the yet unexplained, it's like asking a mod team to hurry up. You'll get scolded or ridiculed, I guarantee it.

[Dauth]

I would like to thank Codecat for posting what i would have said, however he was far more eloquent and probably a lot more polite with it.

The most valuable resource a human has is thier brain, their ability to learn something new, to find understanding. Religion says "Masses attract because God makes them", thats it, no explanation, its magic, cultism, or sheer bloody stupidity.

I will admit science isn't finished but, since we have only had the scientific method for 400 years and religion has been going for over 7000 years, can you at least give us a fucking chance to catch up?

@Solo wing, Science is accountable to anyone, you, me, HRH the Queen of England, a newborn child, a dying man. If they can provide evidence that a theory is wrong, we have to change our beliefs. you cannot say that about any religion.
A museum has opened with dinosaurs on 'the Ark' even though every half decent geologist can show that they were long dead before the first humans existed.

This applies to Christians, how many of you have read the Bible? I will over the summer as a research exercise and i expect it to be fantastic. Blood, guts, rape, sex, drugs, drink should be a gripping read.

[Commander Abs]

Hmm,,, there's a catch you're tripping on here.

Firstly, with that nice little list of scientific things you forget to mention two *very* important *proven* areas of science.

1. Uncertainty Principle
2. Calculus, specifically third order differential equations

You'll find that Uncertainty Principle puts limitations on the accuracy to which mathematics can solve *some* problems,, ergo you can't find an *exact* answer to some things. If there exists such problems, it all but rules out ever finding a Grand Unifying Theory (yes, they are actually called that too)

Further, non-trivial third order differential equations are, for the most part, unsolveable.

My point is while science is capable of doing a helluva lot of things, there's some fundamental things it is still incapable of solving,, and things like the Uncertainty Principle are not just "We haven't found out how to yet, it'll come". The errors of the uncertainty principle are *small enough* to be ignored in the macroscopic world, but the fact remains there are *unsolvable* things,,, and to contradict this you'd be uprooting the entire maths and physics knowledge base,, and thus,, tearing your own argument to shreds, because all scientific knowledge we have would be incorrect.

Moreover, if Uncertainty Principle IS correct, science *cannot* rule out divine intervention, magic, or that the only explanation is no explanation,,, but on the same token doesnt prove these things to exist. End of the day we can only be uncertain.

But back to religion.

Quote

Atheism means believing in humanity to be able to get along without God. This can be much more motivating and morally determing than a believe in a transendent Mr. Fixit (no offense meant).

Precisely, so what happens when someone loses faith in humanity? When someone is at the bottom of the barrel and can't live with such cruelty inherent in human behaviour? Religion offers faith in something apparently greater than humanity.

Belief in humanity begins with belief in yourself. If you proceed through a chain of events where nothing you do is ever good enough, where nothing goes right, where nobody appreciates you, and you cannot realise why, what do you turn to?

Quote

Calling atheism a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour. You can't call lack of X a form of X.

And what of Demigods, and the religions based off these REAL people who feature in REAL history and who apparently had divine powers? Whether divine or not, religion formed from them. A divine entity is not a pre-requisit for a religion. In fact, from www.dictionary.com:

Religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

And no mention of belief in a divine entity. Superhuman in this instance means homo-superior, superior to humans, while still being humanoid and *not* a divine entity.

And lastly

Quote

And if you're asking science to explain the yet unexplained, it's like asking a mod team to hurry up

Yes, but asking the mod team to code the uncodeable is like askintg science to explain the inexplicable.

[Golan]

Erp, you don´t need the uncertainity principle to find place for God. God, incase that he exists, is transcendent. End of story.
Damn, i still hope taht Einstein will be proven right one day...

Commander Abs, on 5 Jun 2007, 14:46, said:

Precisely, so what happens when someone loses faith in humanity? When someone is at the bottom of the barrel and can't live with such cruelty inherent in human behaviour? Religion offers faith in something apparently greater than humanity.

Belief in humanity begins with belief in yourself. If you proceed through a chain of events where nothing you do is ever good enough, where nothing goes right, where nobody appreciates you, and you cannot realise why, what do you turn to?

As faith in religion usually (there are other cases where this is different but comes down to the same principle) means faith in the projection of a divine pupeteer´s decissions on earth, ending up at the bottom of said barrel and not beeing able to live with such cruelty inherent to God´s creation is pretty much the same. Loosing faith in humanity is neither more difficult nor easier than loosing faith in what supposedly controls humanity.

Quote

And what of Demigods, and the religions based off these REAL people who feature in REAL history and who apparently had divine powers? Whether divine or not, religion formed from them.

Know any trustworthy ones? [Note: Oui mon capitaine, this is a serious question.]

[Dauth]

@Abs have you studied the uncertainty principle, yes it means finite measurement accuracy, but when time averaged over anything approaching macroscopics the results are predictable if singular events aren't.

As for third order differential equations, ive spent 3 years at university doing physics and have never needed/seen/even heard of a problem requiring one.

You say religion can bring out the best in people or stop them going over the edge, it sends people over the edge, ive never seen a suicide bomber do it becuase of atheistic beliefs.

[Whitey]

Bald is not a hair color, but it is a hair style. How do you get bald? You cut off your hair.

Religion: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" (Dictionary.com, Def 2)

Atheism is a belief in something yet unproven. While science does apply where we, as humans, stand right now, why does it work? Maybe it doesn't work elsewhere outside of our own fathomable universe? Would we ever know?

Both science and God (and all other religions, I guess) fail to answer "Why". Not the why as in why are we here, but the why as in why does this work? And as long as science cannot explain the very core of it all, there is as much chance a God exists as there is no God exists.

Let me reiterate, Atheism is but a belief. And while it has facts t oback it, so do all other beliefs.

Oh and at Dauth's last comment: That's because Atheistic beliefs don't follow a God. You'll never hear one yell "FOR ATHEISM" because Atheism is the belief in nothing to follow but the reproduction cycle and the production of things that help the next generation reproduce at an easier level. (Think about it before you go and say I'm calling you all sex addicts) Therefore, when an atheist suicide bomber kills himself and others, he is doing it for himself, and though not for Atheism, it is under the principles of Atheism.

[Golan]

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 19:41, said:

Atheism is a belief in something yet unproven. While science does apply where we, as humans, stand right now, why does it work? Maybe it doesn't work elsewhere outside of our own fathomable universe? Would we ever know?

It´s scientific laws that you are talking about, not science. A scientific law by itself doesn´t hold the claim to be right, just the most fitting modell of that time.

Solo Wing, on 5 Jun 2007, 19:41, said:

Oh and at Dauth's last comment: That's because Atheistic beliefs don't follow a God. You'll never hear one yell "FOR ATHEISM" because Atheism is the belief in nothing to follow but the reproduction cycle and the production of things that help the next generation reproduce at an easier level. (Think about it before you go and say I'm calling you all sex addicts) Therefore, when an atheist suicide bomber kills himself and others, he is doing it for himself, and though not for Atheism, it is under the principles of Atheism.

The Atheist´s Suicide Squad has made a rediculously small bodycount up to day.

I´d like to add that while Atheism usually is based on science, science in itself is not per se atheistic.

Edited by Golan, 05 June 2007 - 19:58.