1340 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

I couldn't care less about Christianity in particular. All religion, all theists, rely on purposeful ignorance to support their claims, and when someone comes close to refuting these claims, they generally kill the person.

[Skywaters]

Ignorance MSpencer?

By wordly standards i'm a great deal smarter than the rest of the world, smart enough that I managed to start speaking Mandarin in 3 weeks. Enough to pass off more or less as someone who can speak it fairly well. No, I am far from ignorant and in fact would be considered quite educated to worldly standards.

The last time I checked, the last person I debated Christianity with is still alive and for you to state such a thing is quite ignorant in general, to take just one person or situation and to apply a global stereotype to that person. It is infact your ignorance that causes you to make statements like you did, ignorant to the fact that not all people are the same.

I am capable of sitting here and saying that everyone is like you and ignorant of the concept of faith, but choose not to. I instead believe that everyone is unique in both knowledge and understanding and the fundamental wisdom to execute both of the above to a standard of feasability.

99% of the world would happily believe in ignorance that the sun will rise and set again tomorrow, the day after that and the day after that. You would say that that is a stupid and worthless statement to make because the sun has set and risen everyday without fail for the melenia. However, history has proven that never can we base things on experience on anything from rain to global shifts in world powers and ideals. Is it therefore ignorant to believe that the sun will always do what it's supposed to?

[Blodo]

If you believe what you think is god, you are probably listening to what your right brain hemisphere has to say in something that I call a defense mechanism of the brain. The human psyche is rather fragile due to our intellect, and since other humans arent 100% dependable when it comes to keeping ones psyche intact, the individuals who rely more on their emotions to guide them rather than logic have to believe in something - in most cases that is religion. A simple illusion to keep us from turning insane. As I said it's actually pretty logical since rarely is there a logically thinking individual who believes that religion is part of his life - and vice versa.

I'd like to see you bringing me proof that an entity such as "God" really exists beyond the scope of our subconscious brain mechanisms.

[Skywaters]

I'm as anayltical and as straight as nails approach to many of the things I do, not to mention I find logic a useful and helpful function of the brain to have. However, just because I am logical doesn't mean I can't be a christian either.

If you follow the story of creation to the end of revelation we do encounter that God is different to us. God is God and we are His children. If you take this into account then surely what would appear logical to us is totally and utterly irrational to others. Utilitarianism can often be seen as illogical by a minority because while it seeks to have the majority of people happy, it won't always achieve that standard and then you'll encounter problems with what is logical and what is fair.

I assume that you wouldn't but if you believe in God/Christ/Christianity then you have to be aware that certain things require faith and a belief in things we can't explain through emperical analysis. Show me where someone has solidly disproven God as much as they have proven Him. The problem is that God can't be either proven or disproven by emperical analysis (or the scientific method), he just simply doesn't work that way.

Edited by Skywaters, 24 October 2006 - 10:50 PM.

[MSpencer]

The reason why it's impossible to disprove any sort of supernatural being is because it's made up, and whenever someone makes the attempt, a good portion of the population goes up in arms and says that it's impossible, mostly because they're still clinging to lost hopes of salvation.
Sorry, life after death, not happening unless you're caught in a bad horror film.

[Cossack]

The problem is that God can't be either proven or disproven by emperical analysis (or the scientific method), he just simply doesn't work that way.

Using this logic, you are basically admitting that everyone should be agnostic (which is, in fact, a very logcal notion) because you are admitting that God cannot be proven or disproven.

Why should I believe in God when He cannot be proven..... because an old book tells me to?

And why should I firmly believe there is no God, when that cannot be proven either...... because logic tells me too?

Neither logic, nor the bible can completely disprove or prove that God exists, and therefore I see no reason why everybody should not be agnostic.

[cdmtx(YR)]

I'm pretty certain that Jesus did exist... I wouldn't go saying that's made up.. as full of crap as the Bible is, I doubt Jesus is an entirely fictional individual...

Now... what are our options cdmtx(YR)? I will never, ever accept God into my heart, as I've said before, I want to keep my ventricles full of blood and blood alone. So what are my options? From what I can see, your "all-loving" God is just going to send me right down to his ol' buddy Satan. No love there.

Reason has been a huge part of religion ever since two nudists took dieting advice from a snake.
My advice: Don't invest too heavily in chanting and superstition.

My advice: Don't take advice from bloody snakes!

kill the filthy mud-bloods!

"Um... did you hear anything?"
"No... you on smack again Harry? I thought you had gone clean..."

From what I can see, your "all-loving" God is just going to send me right down to his ol' buddy Satan. No love there

At first, it would seem like that. But there is love and there grace in exceedingly generous amounts. God gave all humanity a second chance. He sent his one and only son, who was sinless and took our sins upon Him and took our punishment. So that we can have the chance to be in Heaven with Him. And He is giving you a chance right now, if you accept it or decline it. He is still giving you a chance and that shows love and grace.

If God exists, it would not care what religion you follow or worship, only of what you have learnt here and what actions you did. Thats why I don't tend to argue against religions, because i care not which ones people believe and who is right and who is wrong. Its only more illusions humanity creates itself to manipulate religion into a right/wrong debate rather than into a personal spiritual development or set of personal guidelines.

There has to be one truth, correct? You cannot have multiple truths. For example, if I say birds can't fly and you say birds can fly. There is only one truth, and that is birds can fly, correct?

Edited by cdmtx(YR), 25 October 2006 - 03:00 AM.

[plod2]

I'm atheist because I think god and the bible were just used to control the people like:
Don't break the law or you be tortued in hell or put up with the crap in this life and hope for the better life after death.
Not much of that would work now but I think most people belivied it in the middle ages.

[Pastinator]

Using the logic that everyone should be agnostic is stupid, we can't prove that bunny rabbits aren't trying to conquer the worl, but have been given technology by space aleins that means no-one can evr detect any evedience of that happening. It's just very unlikely so we don't beleive it.

[Cossack]

Ok, ill restate my opinion. Using the laws of logic, we should all be agnostics or atheists.

[Drewry]

Why is believing in god illogical?

[Banshee]

the word 'believe' answers your question. Read its meaning in the dictionary and you'll understand.

[Cossack]

If I found a 2000 year old book while digging somewhere in the middle east, and it said that 10000 years ago, the flying spaghetti monster created the earth and all thats in it, would it be logical to believe that?

[Hostile]

That's a rhetorical question. If I nailed 4 wheels to a board, is it a car? Those kinda of questions don't get anyone anywhere...

[Drewry]

Exactly Hostile! We could sit here all day asking ridiculous questions like that.

[MSpencer]

We could sit around having ridiculous beliefs in something with the same amount of credibility, but that wouldn't make a difference either.

[AOWR-Theoo Stratiotes]

Don't know why I'm doing this, but oh well. I have time. Please pardon typoes; I just started a college typing course. Yes, I'm still in high-school, but I got this typing course from my brother.

Athiesm is the belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is the belief that we can't know whether He exists. Weaker forms of both views exist, but I'm only interested in the more strict, dogmatic versions, because only they can refute monotheism; I may also deal with other forms of deity belief. However, in their strong versions, both athiesm and agnostiscism are self-refuting, and the weaker leave open the possibility of God. In order to prove that God doesn't exist in any form,you wouls have to be all knowing, possessing ll lnowledge of both the physical and spiritual realms. And in order to have this knowledge, you would need to be poweful enough to see all places in all realms, so that nothing could hide from you. In other words, you would have to be God to prove he doesn'y exist. Of course, that's an absurd thought.

Agnosticism also kills itself in basic apologetics; in order to know that you can't know whether God exists, you have to know about Him the fact that you can't know anything about Him. Which is something you know about Him. Which is self-contradicting (that you know the fact about Him that you can't know any fact about Him). That's nearly as apologetically absurd, though not quite. By the way, Apologetics is the scientific and philisophical proving or defense of monothiesm (also the athiests failed attempts to disprove monotheism).

Macroevolution is also a failed attempt at disproving Monotheism. By the way, what we hear about Evolution actually means macroevolution. Macroevolution is the belief that creatures added information to their genetic code, in order to become new organisms, which violates the laws of biology. Mutations have been said to be able to do this, but mutations actually only scramble the existing genetic code, not add or remove information. That, and no positive mutation has ever been recorded. Please don't post about well this one mutation helps people not get these diseases, because 25% MORE of them die prematurely from other diseases they are more vulnerable to, or from not being able to live through their full "old-age" lifespan because of pysical weakness. Microevolution is the fact that an organism can become a more specialized version of the original organism by the abilities already in the genetic code, such as the finches Darwin tried to use to prove macroevolution, or the breeds of dogs, et al.

Also, the holes in the fossil record kill evolution. According to macroevolutionay theory, there should be more transitional forms than there would be completed forms. No transitional forms have been found. Neanderthal and Croagnon man both had the features of modern man. Colorado man was a horse. Java man
(pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelburg man was the lower jaw, and that jaw could have been caused by thousands of diseases, or have been another monkey, not a human and/or link, and you can only guess about the rest of the skeleton. The Piltdown man was proven to be a clever hoax. The Peking man is a large monkey or baboon. The Australopithecus, Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus are all extinct apes. Zinjanthropus was an ape. The Nebraska man was the tooth of an extinct pig. Archaeopterix was a fully developed bird. Eohippus is an extiinct hyrax, not a horse anscestor.
No Transitional form between verterbraes and inverterbraes has ever been found. Reptiles can't become birds because of the differences in the heart, that would kill it if it was to morph. Best of all, the layers of rock that took millions of years to form have formed multiple layers over a tree, in many cases. And guess what, trees can't live millions of years. A T-Rex (which was not dangerous unless it stepped on you, by the way) that was dated at 68,000,000 years old had lasting bone-marrow in it, and bone-marrow won't last more that a few hundred or thousand years, at the most. Also, the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1,400 years, and at that rate, between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago it wouldn't have been able to support life. And back at dating methods, did you know that the people killed at Mt. St. Helens in 1986 died 2.8 million years ago? That's what radiometric dating says. And the Halolou explosian was more than one-and-a-half years ago by radiometric dating (it was going off from 1800-1801). The explosian over in sicily that flash-fossilized an entire town mas 300,000 years ago, and the Arizona Crater explosian from about 1076 275,000 years ago. It seem to be going backwards! The explosians from the past are switching places! Oh no, what happens when one from the future gets to the present! No!!! We'll all be killed!!!!

And they have the gall to say their dating methods are accurate.

Pantheism is the belief that all life and all the universe is one being, so every one is God, because God is everything, and that life is an illusion since we're all one being. That's the stupidist thing (next to macroevolution) that I've ever heard. First problem: there's more than one being, and we all say and believe differently. Now, by pantheism, no-one really exists. But if I were to argue that I don't exist, I must first exist to say that I don't exist! Only some thing that exists can deny that it exists. Therefore I am the only existant being since I'm here to deny my existence, and only one being exists. And if I try to convince others that they don't exist, all they have to do is agree and we start all over again (only an existant being can deny its existence).

Panentheism is the belief that the universe is God's body. It states that God has two poles; His eternal, infinite side; or His potential pole; and His termporal, finite pole; His actual pole. Well, which is it? In one, He is finite, temporary, and changing, and in the other, He is infinite, immutable (unchanging), and eternal. Well, that's self-contradictory, in that something can really only be one or the other. Panentheism also teaches that God brought Himself into existence. But something have to pre-exist the other thing to bring it into existence, and something can't pre-exist itself, since the first moment you exist is when you are brought into existence.

Deism believes that God brought the universe into existence, but won't touch it anymore. First problem: Deists say God can't perform any miracles, but didn't he perform one of his greatest when he made the universe? And second, it says that God stays out because He doesn't care. But He cared enough to create us, so why won't he care enough to remain involved in it? And third, the deist says that God can't intercede against natural laws. Well He made the laws of nature, He can break the laws of nature.

Finite godism says that God exists, and made the world, but no longer has the power to intercede. Adherents differ as to how He is limited; some say in power, some in knowledge and/or goddnes, some say both. This is mainly adopted by people to solve the problem of evil, in that God does not have the power to intercede. First problem: all finite beings need a reason for continuing existence, e.g. humans need air, light, water, and food. So this finite God has to depend on something for continuing existence. An infinite God, maybe? Second, an finite God deserves no worship; only an infinite, all-powerful being deserves worship. Third, evil doesn't prove God to be limited; evil is not something in itself, but more it is the lack of goodnes, just as dark is absence of photonic light. God made the world with free choice; we can either do what is right, or not do what is right. God didn't create evil, for an all-good God can't. But he can make the possibility of evil; free-choice.

Polytheism is an almost non-existent view nowadays, but once upon a time... But polytheism is holed in that there can't be more than one infinte being, or they limit each others power, and are not infinite; thus they are finite, and have to be kept in continuing existence by an infinite Being: God. Christianity states that God is one infinite being, just in three persons. Modern Judaism and Islam state that there is one infinite being, period.

The big bang is holed scientifically in that it states that the universe was once all in one point of infinite density; but it is scientific fact that a point can only be so dense. It says that the universe began with that explosian, but that explosian had to come from somewhere, for from nothing nothing comes. First law of Thermodyamics; matter and energy cannot be destroyed or created, but can be converted from one to the other. From nothing, nothing comes. So the big bang needs something to create it: God.

As per, where did God come from? Well, physics states that time is a dimension, made at the same time as the dimensions of the x axis, y axis, and z axis. PS: if the big bang happened, then they had to pre-exist it; how could that be, since the big-bang was supposedly the start of everything? Well, God made time, so nothing could pre-exist Him to make Him, so that explains that there is no time outside of the world; or that God just is. Hence the name YHVH (or Yahweh; which is not derived from Jeh-havah, by the way), which means "I AM THAT I AM". Jehovah is the Name when translated into Greek, not the derivative of some name of whoever like the Da Vinci code says. Did you know that the Da Vinci code could be sued by whoever wants to, because of its false claim to be historically, linguistically, and artistically correct?

God is, for time only exists in our world and whatever other worlds He has made, was, for time doesn't exist for Him, and go on forever, for He doesn't have time, so He can't end.

[Tom]

Time is as human perception of past and future, but all that exists is the eternal moment. All that exists is NOW.

It isn't illogical to believe in God. God can exist regardless of logic because there is logical explainations for God's existence which i believe i've argued or attempted to argue before. God did not come into existence because of a 2000 year old book, there were beliefs and worship long before then. I do not believe in such books, but i still use them symbolically. Literal use of the religious books is dangerous because it leads to closemindedness and sometimes extremism.

[CodeCat]

Atheism isn't about disproving the existance of god. It's about denying his existance.

[MSpencer]

Also, the holes in the fossil record kill evolution. According to macroevolutionay theory, there should be more transitional forms than there would be completed forms. No transitional forms have been found. Neanderthal and Croagnon man both had the features of modern man. Colorado man was a horse. Java man
(pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelburg man was the lower jaw, and that jaw could have been caused by thousands of diseases, or have been another monkey, not a human and/or link, and you can only guess about the rest of the skeleton. The Piltdown man was proven to be a clever hoax. The Peking man is a large monkey or baboon. The Australopithecus, Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus are all extinct apes. Zinjanthropus was an ape. The Nebraska man lol.gif was the tooth of an extinct pig. Archaeopterix was a fully developed bird. Eohippus is an extiinct hyrax, not a horse anscestor.
No Transitional form between verterbraes and inverterbraes has ever been found. Reptiles can't become birds because of the differences in the heart, that would kill it if it was to morph. Best of all, the layers of rock that took millions of years to form have formed multiple layers over a tree, in many cases. And guess what, trees can't live millions of years. A T-Rex (which was not dangerous unless it stepped on you, by the way) that was dated at 68,000,000 years old had lasting bone-marrow in it, and bone-marrow won't last more that a few hundred or thousand years, at the most. Also, the earth's magnetic field has a half-life of 1,400 years, and at that rate, between 7,000 and 10,000 years ago it wouldn't have been able to support life. And back at dating methods, did you know that the people killed at Mt. St. Helens in 1986 died 2.8 million years ago? That's what radiometric dating says. And the Halolou explosian was more than one-and-a-half years ago by radiometric dating (it was going off from 1800-1801). The explosian over in sicily that flash-fossilized an entire town mas 300,000 years ago, and the Arizona Crater explosian from about 1076 275,000 years ago. It seem to be going backwards! The explosians from the past are switching places! Oh no, what happens when one from the future gets to the present! ohmy.gif No!!! We'll all be killed!!!! lol.gif

Unless you went off and got a degree in the last two months, you just copied and pasted this entire paragraph from someone else.
You still don't know what you're talking about, you know nothing about physics or biology, and you need to provide sources. It doesn't even make any coherent sense either...

Java man
(pithecanthropus) was shown to be the remains of a large gibbon. Heidelburg man was the lower jaw, and that jaw could have been caused by thousands of diseases, or have been another monkey, not a human and/or link, and you can only guess about the rest of the skeleton. The Piltdown man was proven to be a clever hoax. The Peking man is a large monkey or baboon. The Australopithecus, Dryopithecus, and Ramapithecus are all extinct apes. Zinjanthropus was an ape. The Nebraska man lol.gif was the tooth of an extinct pig. Archaeopterix was a fully developed bird. Eohippus is an extiinct hyrax, not a horse anscestor.

And with regards to this, either cite your sources, or shut up. Uncited, specific statements are ridiculous, and you can't tell me you know what any of those words mean.
You don't know anything about evolution to begin with. You've already shown that before. Don't show your ignorance for anthropology and anatomy at the same time.
Grow a brain, get educated, then come back.
And while you're at it, stop copying webpages.