Just in case you didn't see my message, I wanted to know if you could send me a
link to an article that you think does a good job at explaining why
homosexuality is immoral.
I don't think you mind me not replying to your other post as you said, "I
replied to you because you asked for it here ... I don't have any other
particular reason." I don't think the discussion was going anywhere and
since you don't seem to have much of an interest in me replying, I'm not going
to bother, unless you actually want me to.
It's interesting how much ignorance on this matter you display in a single
sentence. To be fair, ignorance itself isn't something to fault someone for, but
to confident enough to call someone else's words crap is another.
1. You seem to believe that Theists shouldn't supporting natural selection/that
supporting natural selection = supporting Darwinistic Evolution.
However this is untrue. Creationists also believe in natural selection, and so
Intelligent Design Theorists. The only difference between a Creationist and a
Darwinistic Evolutionist is what they believe natural selection is capable of
doing. Creationists can believe that natural selection eleminates homosexuals,
or can make bacteria more resistant to anti-biotics. They just don't believe
that it can create man out of mush. If you really want to know more about the
Creationist perspective on natural selection you can always visit
answersingenesis.org
Fair enough but my crap remark was centred around .Even so,if God created gays,then its just as effective as creating a
human who steals,swears,and lies and like humans,you may feel like your in love with the same gender,but you
must undertand that its just like a disorder,making your brain fall in love with
the same gender,other than the opposite. If you can explain why creating
a gay is as effective as creating a thief I'll take it back. That's not
ignorance, it's just crap. It's his perspective of gays that makes life
difficult for so many of them.
Evolution's come a long way since Darwin so I'll have to say I've never referred
to is at 'darwinistic evolution' before. I know theists can support natural
selection and even evolution as well, but either I've missed something or picked
up something he didn't say because I was under the impression he didn't believe
in evolution or it's mechanisms. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms
that assist evolution to occur and he himself said changing the population possibly. The many contradictions he
types makes it look like he's typing just for the sake of it sometimes.
I've visited a few of your links to answersingenesis. One issue I have with the
Christian religion and it's branches is the answers are always different, even
within what should be the same area. That confusion within is one of the main
reasons I became atheist. Also I find much of the evidence against evolution is
based on chance, stating that it's impossible to get from 'A' to 'B'....Although
this may be true I always thought that 'A' didn't become 'B'; 'A' randomly
became '?' that we later renamed 'B'. Of course 'A' became an in-effective and
soon to die '?' over and over, but with the scientific time spent on this planet
and the amount of generations possible, it's not hard to imagine that the
variation could lead to a new species. Yes, the numbers are incomprehensible and
always will be, but doesn't that increase the chances?
Do you know of any articles that you consider to do a good job at explaining why
homosexuality is wrong?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Our posts are kind of long and so I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep
replying to each other while talking about like eight different topics. Is there
any one thing you want to talk about specifically? I'll post what I had replied
to so far, just so you don't think you wasted your time replying to me only for
me to ask we try to shorten the discussion:
Quote by Persocom01CS Lewis does
explain why he thinks that morality is not a trait that arises from physical
factors. Take honor and integrity for example. The most beneficial choice for
the person offered 20 thousand for his car but has promised to sell it for 10
thousand, is of course to sell it for 20 thousand. However the moral law rebels
against that idea. Similarly when a person is drowning, and you're not the best
of swimmers, the most beneficial choice would be to let him drown. Yet the moral
law tells you to risk your life (at no gain whatsoever) to save the person.
Risking death is hardly a trait that natural selection is likely to select for.
In fact, the moral law more often makes the opposite true - it makes a person's
death more likely, his material resources smaller than it could have been,
(because he doesn't cheat) or even lowers his chances for landing a mate.
(because he doesn't lie about himself or go all out to
propagate)
I wasn't talking about natural selection, but I'll try my best to address that
based on my very limited knowledge of evolution later.
My point was that just because many cultures share similar values, such as honor
and integrity, does not imply there is an absolute morality and thus a God who
acts as the "law maker." Humans, being very similar creatures, are
bound to have similar views on morality. If a civilization is to survive, it
needs many people who are have a predisposition towards altruism. There are many
people who see nothing wrong with stealing, lying, killing, etc., but if a
society has too many of those people and they become too powerful, the society
will crumble.
Note, however, that many civilizations have drastically different views on
morality, which C.S. Lewis completely ignores in the first chapter (though he
may have attempted to address it later on). Nowadays, many people have strong
egalitarian views on ethnicity, sex, nationality, belief, etc. That isn't
exactly a natural tendency of humans, who have a much stronger tendency to be
intolerant of whatever qualities others have that they don't have or have a
variation of (e.g., Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland).
These drastically different views on morality, such as human sacrifice and
slavery, suggests relative morality, not absolute. Even if all views on morality
were similar, it could mean those views on morality are what is needed for a
society to exist.
As for what you said about natural selection, those groups full of animals that
self-sacrifice are going to be the ones to survive as opposed to groups full of
self-serving animals who act in ways that are not beneficial for the group and
instead hinder the groups' survival as a whole. The self-serving animals, I
would imagine, would be much less likely to even form groups in the first place
and those animals who live in groups are much more likely to survive than those
who do not as they can protect each other.
Quote by Persocom01They did die. Both
physically, and being seperated from God, spiritually. (although I'm more
inclined to think that God refered to the latter) God didn't say when they would
die either, nor did he say "I will kill you". (considering humans
naturally die spiritually after being seperated from God)
Um... okay. What does "dying spiritually" mean exactly?
Quote by Persocom01
Again I think you're misusing the word illogical. What you probably mean is that
it's unreasonable to you. I'll overlook that, considering it's just a language
error. If you talk about mathematics/logic, God's law states:
1 life = 1 life
1 tooth = 1 tooth
1 eye = 1 eye
Now it fits the laws of mathematics perfectly. Letting someone off scott free is
hardly logical to me.
If you promised that you'll kill someone for somebody, and not do it, then you
have done evil by breaking your promise. I'm not saying that you should have
gone ahead and killed the person, for breaking your promise is the lesser of the
two evils. However, what God has promised is justice, and justice is good. He
did not promise to do evil, but to do good. Now before we lose sight of it
altogether, let's go back to the issue of Jesus' death. Jesus died to satisfy
the justice of God. And God did not do evil by forcing him to die. Jesus died
willingly as it is written:
"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I might
take it again. No one takes it from Me,
but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay it down, and I
have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment from My
Father." - John 10:17-18
I think I remember hearing a story in Sunday School about Jesus not wanting to
die and asking God if there was another way or something like that. I was pretty
young, so I could be mistaken, but, if true, I don't think Jesus really had a
choice in the matter. If God allowed Jesus to suffer for no good reason, then
that is evil. If Heaven exists, allowing Jesus to die in itself wouldn't really
be evil exactly.
I don't think breaking a promise to cause death or suffering is the "lesser
of two evils." Choosing to kill someone immediately instead of torturing
them and then killing them could be considered the lesser of two evils, for
example. Breaking a promise is only "evil" if the promise isn't evil
itself.
I don't see what's wrong with using the word "illogical." Punishing
someone when there is no gain in doing so for either party is illogical and only
leads to unnecessary hatred and suffering. The only justification for "an
eye for an eye" is as a deterrent to crime in the first place. If someone
knows they're going to be beaten up if they beat someone else up, they're
unlikely to do it. If people were genuinely empathetic beings, that would be
unnecessary and they would be able to relate to each other easily, preventing
them from causing each other to suffer. This not being the case, punishments are
the easiest deterrents to crime a society can use and has thus become a core
part of many societies, even if people, such as yourself, don't realize why
punishment is useful.
Quote by alexjohnc3
To give another example, we could create an artificially intelligent robot, but
program it to believe we don't exist. Even though it is an intelligent life
form, it will ignore how obvious it is that we created it, even if it can see
us. The same could be true for humans. Even if God's existence is obvious, we
could have been created to ignore the most obvious facts that prove his
existence.
Humans innately believe in God, as far as I know. I heard that studies on
children who were never taught that God is the creator found that these children
still answered "God" when asked who created the
universe.
Not really my point. My point was that the evidence for God's existence could be
obvious, but we would not be able to understand the evidence because God, being
out creator, could prevent us from doing so. We could create an artificially
intelligent robot that, when it saw a television, it would not believe
televisions exist as it would be unable to comprehend the evidence, even though
it is right in front of it since its creators do not will it. The same could be
the case for God. God could not want us to see the evidence supporting his
existence, even if its right in front of us. Not something like the complexity
of the world, but something more obvious like the example I gave with the
television. That could be why we aren't able to understand God's reasoning, as
God has purposefully limited our ability to reason in order to prevent us from
coming to the conclusion that it exists through reasoning.
Quote by Persocom01
This article goes so far as to say:
Atheism, as far as I know, is scientifically an unatural religion (belief
system) that isn't innate in human beings, but rationalised in some way
later.
Atheism isn't a religion or a belief system, first of all. You should know that
by now.
I don't think belief in God is innate, but giving meaning to things when there
is none is probably innate in human nature. I myself have a tendency to give
meaning to events when there is no meaning or there is little reason to believe
in a meaning. For example, if 1,000,000,000 Christians enter a lottery and they
all pray to God that they win, the one that wins the lottery is going to think
their prayers were answered while the other 999,999,999 people just shrug it
off. One of them was bound to win and give meaning to an event where there is
none. Each specific individual has only a 1/1000000000 chance of winning, but
someone is going to win and each person thinks that if they win, it will have
been God that caused it. I would probably also think something or someone caused
me to win if I was in a lottery with 1,000,000,000 people and I bet you would
too. This type of thinking is irrational because the only reasoning you have to
support it is that something unlikely, from your point of view, happened.
Pre-Christian pagan beliefs were based on this element of human nature too as
pagans attributed things like storms, volcanic eruptions, death, birth, etc. to
gods or other supernatural entities. If you imagine the world from their
perspective, it makes perfect sense in a way. You see blots of lightning come
down from the sky and hit a tree, you think Thor did it if you're raised to
believe in Thor's existence. How else could huge jolts of electricity come down
from the sky? Since there's no actual evidence to back it up, only shallow
reasoning, it could be right or it could be wrong. If, however, I was raised in
an environment where people attributed lightning to Thor, I would be very likely
to believe it since when humans don't have an answer to how something happened,
they think there is a meaning or intent to it, simply because when humans do
things, they have an intent when they do them so they assume the world around
them works the same.
Quote by Persocom01If I created a
robot that was dumber than me, I wouldn't say that I've "purposely
limited" its ability to reason. And I think "cannot comprehend"
is different from "cannot fully comprehend". (which is my position) I
did not say we cannot understand ANYTHING that God does. I just said we can't
understand EVERYTHING. (which would be the case if my hypothesis is true) Yes I
do think that reason and common sense is the best tool to judge reality
with.
The wording wasn't the point I was trying to make. Feel free to replace what I
said with "cannot fully comprehend."
Also, the point I was trying to make is that we cannot assume God has limited
out ability to judge reality using our reason since anything we cannot
understand is meaningless to us. The closest we can get to the truth is through
our reason and if God is beyond that, God is meaningless. God could kill and
torture 1,000 people for what appears to us to be for no reason at all or have
Jesus crucified to make up for our sins. We can only apply human reason to both
scenarios and assume there is no good reason for doing either, even if there is
actually a very good reason that only God can understand. As far as we can be
concerned, God has done something evil and unnecessary, even if that's not the
truth, if that is the conclusion we come
to through reason.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- merged: 08-12-2007 ~ 01:02pm
Quote by Persocom01I recall that he
did take some physical factors into account in his chapeter, "some
objections". Anyway, explain to me in detail what the biological factors he
did not take into account are.
I can't explain in detail, since I'm neither a biologist nor have I read too
much on how humans make decisions involving morality. My point was, however,
that he doesn't consider that the commonality of human morals throughout
different cultures can also be explained by the fact that we're all human beings
and thus have many similar traits that would allow for cultures with similar,
but not the same, morals and views to develop.
Quote by Persocom01I think you're
misusing the word logic here. There is nothing "illogical" about
keeping a promise. If I promised to sell a car for 10 thousand dollars and got
an offer for 20 thousand dollars, there's nothing "illogical" about
keeping my promise to sell it for 10 thousand. In fact, it's known as honor and
integrity. And if you follow CS Lewis' argument, we all know that keeping one's
word is 'good'. If I say I will arrive at 1pm. By the moral law we all know that
that is the time I ought to arrive at. Even I'm held up for valid reason, I will
still apologise when I arrive late. God then, being the author of this law, will
not break his promises simply because:
1. He has perfect honor and intergity.
2. He, unlike us, has no valid reason to break his promises because he happens
to be omnipotent and omniscient. (arguable there are limits to his abilities but
that's another matter)
I think I remember reading God said to Adam and Eve that they would die if they
ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Instead of dying as their
punishment, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
I'm not saying that keeping promises is illogical, but that the action God
promised in itself was illogical. If I promised someone I would kill someone for
them, it would be illogical to carry out that promise and doing so wouldn't
reflect my honor nor my integrity, as is the case here.
Quote by Persocom01It makes sense,
that is why I don't see the need for "whether you like it or not". And
of course 0.9999... = 1 so 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 1 + 1 = 2. I don't really see
you point although I can tell you're trying to be a wise
guy.
I was just kidding around. o.o
Quote by Persocom01Considering that I
think God is probably extradimensional, the science behind this I won't explain
now (nor do I know all of it) but it does mean follow that he can never be
completely comprehended by lower dimensional beings like us.For a rough idea
about this perspective see also the novel flatland: http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_dimension
However it really just boils down to even if you can't comprehend how it is
possible doesn't mean it really isn't. Afterall, God did create the universe.
Now I won't pretend to know how matter and energy can be created from
nothing.
To give another example, we could create an artificially intelligent robot, but
program it to believe we don't exist. Even though it is an intelligent life
form, it will ignore how obvious it is that we created it, even if it can see
us. The same could be true for humans. Even if God's existence is obvious, we
could have been created to ignore the most obvious facts that prove his
existence.
In the end, the problem with assuming that we're like that robot who cannot
comprehend its creator or understand it's reasoning is that we may not actually
have a creator or our creator may not be God. Using the same logic, we could say
2 + 2 actually equals 5 because we could have been created to believe that 2 + 2
equals 4. Such claims are worthless because we can only rely on our own
reasoning, even if that means we won't be able to find truth. Based on what we
do know and what we have observed, our reasoning is the best tool for finding
truth and judging reality. If God purposely limited our ability to reason, we
can't do anything about that. I actually have a tendency to half believe we do
have a creator, but the idea that the Christian god is our creator seems
obviously wrong to me.
One of the reasons I reject the view that there is an entity that created us at
all is that it's only based on human ignorance. If we don't know how rain falls,
we assume it's was the work of a supernatural entity. If we see a volcano
explode, we assume the same thing. Finally, if we observe the complexity of the
world, we'll once again assume the same thing. In the first two cases, we know
that isn't the case, but many people have believed that to be the case for
thousands of years. In the last case, it's much harder to study than the first
two, but, based on what we do know about the Universe currently, the scientific
explanations seem to make this yet another case of human bias resulting from our
ignorance causing us to become convinced of a false belief once again.
Just think about how reasonable it would be to assume that God caused a volcano
to erupt, when you don't know any other way it could have happened. If
scientists discovered how volcanoes actually erupted and a group of people had
held a tradition of trying to appease God. Regardless of the scientific
explanation, they would continue to hold their belief because it was a tradition
and, if belief was widespread enough, this new scientific idea would be fought
against in favor of the traditional views.
Quote by Persocom01It shows that you
do not understand the context behind Jesus' words if you're quoting that
passage.
"For we know Him who has said, "Vengeance belongs to Me, I will repay, says the Lord."
And again, "The Lord shall judge His people." - Hebrews 10:30
The reason you do not resist an evil person is simply because you trust God to
take revenge for you.
Um, but the other passage you posted specifically says "you shall give life
for life, eye for eye..." not God. From every source I've ever seen, Jesus
was advocating a pretty advanced view for his time, that revenge for the sake of
revenge is worthless and that forgiveness is more important than revenge.
There's also a good saying, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world
blind."
Quote by Persocom01They were all
frivolous, that's what they have in common. (adultery by god? not to mention
sibling rivary and whatnot political nonsense, plus the ramen) That is not true
for the Chrsitian God.
Yeah and the Christian god sentencing people to eternal damnation for not
worshiping him isn't frivolous?
And God made Mary pregnant, which is sort of like adultery. =P
Quote by alexjohnc3
I would say that God is more stupid than stubborn for not changing His mind when
doing so would be beneficial. I'm not saying God "should be this" or
"should be that," however. I have a basic idea of what the people were
like in general around the time the belief system involving that "God"
was developing, so I'm not surprised that God is so stupid. Back then, a God who
would help people win wars and would punish nonbelievers, enemies, and thieves
to keep order was a good thing. Now, not so much, and that's why belief in that
God has weakened, besides the fact that God doesn't actually do any of that,
whether that's because God doesn't exist or just doesn't feel like it. You can't
change the texts, but you can choose to ignore the parts you know are illogical,
as people have done for thousands of years, though not necessarily because
they're illogical.
You're just stating what you believe, (without being specific, even about the
ignore parts thing) nothing to address here.
You don't accept the fact that a larger number of Christians believe in God as
kind and forgiving, rather than vengeful than back when believing that was
beneficial to society? That's basically all I said there, but I also added that
it would explain why that belief was was so popular than and has now weakened,
even though the texts haven't changed much, if at all. That's one weakness of
written religions, they can't evolve with society's changing needs anymore as
religions kept alive through oral traditions can.
Quote by Persocom01I've already said
before that I find Christianity to be the most reasonable religion. (aka belief
system) More reasonable than Scientific Materialism. (even if you ignore the
occasional interllectual evasiveness) And it best explains the world we live in
today. Plus, I believe that there is real power behind Christianity, power that
can be seen at work.
Most Atheists don't seem to know what they believe in. (besides evolution) And I
find many of their common core beliefs difficult to believe. (one for example,
is the belief that we - aka our sense of self - are illusionary: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-3,00.html
) I believe we should trust our God-given common sense and reason, if you can't
even trust that, then I don't know what you trust as your basis for
truth.
Evolution isn't an "atheist thing". It's a matter of science and
atheists mostly accept it for two reasons. The first reason it that they don't
have a scripture to tell them something else, so they don't have to reconcile
their beliefs with it. The second reason is it provides an explanation for
something we had originally attributed to a supernatural entity. Just as an
atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation for how rain falls, an
atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation of the evolution of
life on Earth. In both cases because they don't have a belief in God to prevent
them from forming beliefs based on new knowledge rather than their own
ignorance. There are other reasons of course, such as the fact that Creationists
have driven some of the atheists in our little community to take some sort of
weird, almost religious pride in evolution. It's kind of weird, seriously.
o_o
I can understand liking evolution for its explanatory powers, but that's not why
some people like it so much. It's because they're driven to be the opposite of
their "opponents," so they lose sight of the fact that evolution could
be wrong; and they don't accept it on its merits, but because it's what the
Creationists tell them they believe and that what they believe is against
God.
I don't really see how that article shows flies have freewill. It seemed to
neglect the fact that there are both internal and external factors that
contribute to a fly's actions, not just external ones. Maybe I'm missing
something, but I wanted to go to sleep a few hours ago and it's about 1:00 a.m.,
so I might not be thinking straight, especially since I didn't sleep much
yesterday either. ^^;
Quote by Persocom01You seemed to have
the idea that intelligence has a negative co-relation with
suffering.
Oh, I see what you mean now. What I was saying was that if humans were more
intelligent and thus better able to understand that others feel same things they
feel, there wouldn't be things like torture. Even if humans couldn't perfectly
associate with each other, just enough for us to be at the same level as those
humans who have exemplary abilities to feel empathy for others would be
nice.
I recall reading about people who have been born without the ability to feel
empathy. I don't remember where, but then again, I don't remember where I've
read most of the things I've read. If you want to, feel free to look for
yourself, but I'm not having much luck finding any examples right now.
Quote by Persocom01More often than not
we choose to ignore the predicament of others. (sometimes for a good reason,
since some people use sympathy to decieve others) Army training does not include
a course on "feel the pain of your enemy" for a good
reason.
That human empathy is so easily defeated by training does say a lot about how
weak it is.
Quote by Persocom01I don't like too
bloody animes because it makes me cringe. I didn't watch Elfen Lied for that
reason.
Although I watched Elfen Lied, I did get really upset watching it.
Quote by Persocom01Unless everyone is
perfectly empathtic, there will still be room for someone to complain about the
level of people's empathy. (since you believe that empathy - a lack of it - is
the root cause of suffering for some reason) Just like unless messages are sent
instantly, some people will still complain about the speed of email. I on the
other hand, see a lack of empathy as a symptom, not a cause. It's a symptom of
sin.
I don't believe a lack of empathy is the root cause of suffering, I believe that
a lack of empathy is a reason why humans are often willing to inflict suffering
on each other for their own benefit.
Quote by Persocom01
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu was pretty good. (especially the way they arranged it
to end with the climax of the show) Ouran High School Host Club was funny but
not worth rewatching. As you can see it gets long even with addressing just half
a post. You might get the idea why I don't do it often.
(Sorry for all the random line breaks above...)
I finished Ouran recently and when I finish an anime or while I'm in the middle
of it, I tend to think it's the best thing I've ever seen. For example, I loved
Pita Ten when I was watching it. Now, I don't really like it much at all. I
still love Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu because the anime was more unique and
interesting than most, I've been reading the light novels every now and then
online (if you're interested, they can be found here: http://www.baka-tsuki.net/project/index.php?title=Suzumiya_Haruhi
), and the ending didn't make me feel like it was missing something, unlike
Ouran's ending and most other animes, which feel like they end way too
abruptly.
Random picture for you: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/alexjohnc3/anime/haruhi/haruhiString.png
-
-
-
-
-
Old posts below:
-
-
-
-
-
Quote by Persocom01Reply Part 1 (due
to length and considerations for average attention span, I'll break it up into
2, the other part I hope to do, but it often takes long, and I'm unfortunately a
very unreliable person.)
Don't worry about it, take your time or feel free not to reply to the rest of my
other post at all.
Quote by alexjohnc3
That's a nice way to get out of trying to justify any action, or inaction, of
God. Just assert that God created the laws of logic, so any action God takes
must therefore be necessary and logical. Too bad it's intellectually dishonest.
If God decided to kill and torture every human being, it would be necessary and
"lawful" according to you.
You're mistaken about what I was saying. I did not say:
1. God created the laws of logic.
2. Therefore what God does is logical.
But rather:
1. The laws of logic are rigid.
2. Therefore God who created them is also rigid.
I made a deduction about the nature of God though an observation of the physical
laws that he created, and not a deduction on the nature of God's actions from an
assumption about God. The book Mere
Christianity by CS Lewis also uses this argument.
My dad has Mere Christianity, which I
read some of about a year and a half ago. After reading a few pages I had to
stop because the claims he was making were based on horrible logic and it pained
me to read it without being able to question him about his claims, at least from
what I remember. (Update: Before I posted this response I read some of the book
again (near the beginning of it) and, though his claims weren't exactly logical,
they weren't horribly off either. I'm talking about his claims involving
"Right" and "Wrong." Just because different civilizations
had some similar views on morality, such as killing being bad, that doesn't mean
there is an absolute morality. He doesn't take biological factors into account,
for example.)
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that because logic is rigid that if God
created logic God is also rigid, even when being rigid means acting illogically.
Also, God created humans and humans aren't rigid, so God might not be rigid
either. There's more to base this on too since we were supposedly created in
God's image. Hm, maybe that's why He has so many sadistic tendencies in the
Bible.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Still, your post didn't address what I said at all, though I didn't expect it
to. Forgiving people's sins instead of sacrificing Jesus and then forgiving
their sins makes no sense, whether you like it or not. It's perfect for trying
to create a new, less repressive religion out of an old one, but it doesn't
really make any sense and saying that God is stubborn to the point of which it
allows completely unnecessary suffering doesn't justify its
actions.
It makes perfect sense that the God who created the physical laws of
conservation also demands the same for the moral law. (I don't see why you had
the "whether you like it or not" in your statement, I'll say the same
to you) 1+1=2 all the time, everytime, and it is never even the slightest
decimal place smaller or greater.
When I said, "whether you like it or not," I meant that, even if you
dislike the fact that God unnecessarily sacrificing Jesus' life makes no sense,
that has no impact on the fact that it doesn't make any sense and wasn't
necessary.
Well, 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 2, remember? =P
I'm not sure how you can say God created these things or logic itself. According
to you, God created logic, but, do you seriously believe that even if God
actually exists that it's possible He could have made the logic such that if you
get one object and another object, then you put them next to each other, you'd
have three objects? Logic can't be "created." While I do agree that it
is possible, since we, as humans, don't
know enough to say anything with absolute certainty, it seems really, really
unlikely.
"And if any injury occurs, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for
wound, stripe for stripe." - Exodus 21:23-25
And what he says will come to pass, to the smallest detail. He does not bat an
eyelid to any transgression.
Well, so much for being rigid then.
Jesus (also God) said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I
tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also." -Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
Quote by Persocom01And before you
start about how stubborn God is, let me remind you that we're talking about the
Christian God. And the Christian God is one that is always 'stubbornly' faithful
to his promises. There is no use arguing about how God should be this and God
should be that. If you want to do so, then go ahead and discuss how good Thor,
Poseidon or Zues if you want, but you're not talking about the Christian God
(the real God whose nature is seen in the physical laws) any longer, but an
imaginary Flying Spaghetti Monster clone.
I'm not sure Zeus, Thor, or Poseidon have much in common with the FSM other than
they probably all like pasta, but that's also true for the Christian god,
a.k.a., the One True God (TM).
I would say that God is more stupid than stubborn for not changing His mind when
doing so would be beneficial. I'm not saying God "should be this" or
"should be that," however. I have a basic idea of what the people were
like in general around the time the belief system involving that "God"
was developing, so I'm not surprised that God is so stupid. Back then, a God who
would help people win wars and would punish nonbelievers, enemies, and thieves
to keep order was a good thing. Now, not so much, and that's why belief in that
God has weakened, besides the fact that God doesn't actually do any of that,
whether that's because God doesn't exist or just doesn't feel like it. You can't
change the texts, but you can choose to ignore the parts you know are illogical,
as people have done for thousands of years, though not necessarily because
they're illogical.
You've probably read a lot about God's nature. I think that because you're
making an argument I don't see very often (i.e., that the real God is this way
and other views about God that make Him seem empathetic or more plausible aren't
about the real God since they aren't necessarily backed with scripture as
strongly, if at all). All views about the Christian god are based on how you
interpret the scriptures or what you read or hear about God, including yours.
The only way that you can find what God is really like is using the reason He
blessed you with, not just mindlessly accepting Biblical text as fact because
you've been told the Bible is infallible. Catholics have also historically been
told the Pope is infallible and eventually that view was rejected (mostly) as
has the view the Bible is infallible (again, mostly). You don't need to believe
something just because your environment has told you to believe it if the belief
itself isn't reasonable, although humans have that tendency.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of
God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than
that of blindfolded fear." That view isn't based on the Bible, but the view
that our creator has given us reason to allow us to see the truth, so we should
use that reason to do just that.
Pet dogs? Huh? Are you referencing something in my original post (which I don't
recall where I posted, so I can't really check)? I'm not sure what your point is
from just my quote.
Quote by Persocom01And how can we be
made perfectly empathetic, might I ask? I'll suggest:
a. Linking all our pain sensors to each other's brains telepathically.
b. Making everyone capable of reading everyone else's minds all the time, every
time.
If it hasn't hit you yet, probably the only way we can be perfectly empathetic
is pretty much if we were like part of a single body. (which is possibly what
God intends to do with Christians in the body of Christ, and, if true, makes it
alot more obvious why he's so particular about choosing who comprises this
body)
The original plan, was:
a. We stay individuals but we just obey what God tells us to do.
Which, failed, unfortunately.
I don't recall saying anything about being perfectly empathetic, but there are
instances where people lack the ability to feel empathy at all even and have
gone around killing others. In fact, humans by their nature aren't nearly
empathetic enough. I'm not saying humans should be basically one entity, but
that when you have people torturing, or willing to torture, each other, for
example, something is very wrong. Since this is an anime forum, I might as well
relate it to an anime. If you've seen any of Elfen Lied, you should know what I
mean when I say humans, under far too many conditions, can easily not feel
empathy for others.
Speaking of anime, two animes you might want to watch if you haven't already are
Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu and Ouran High School Host Club, the latter of which
I just finished recently. Both are two of my favorites, especially Suzumiya
Haruhi no Yuutsu. Haruhi FTW. =D
Quote: I do not think that good,
bad, moral, immoral are entirely based upon opinion. While it is true that
people sometimes disagree with each other about what they think is moral or
immoral, but the disagreements on a whole are minor compared to agreements. If I
go to an old folk's home and crack an elderly lady's head with a mace for no
good reason, I doubt you're going to accept my 'opinion' that what I did was
moral, and neither will the judge.
Hot and cold cannot be measured without a thermometer, but does that mean before
the thermometer was invented it was immeasurable?
Temperature is a human made measurement of the natural world; Good, bad, moral
and immoral are human constructs to define mentality, I have heard absolutely
nothing anywhere to suggest otherwise, which is why I don't believe they are
measurable. If god exists and has a moral measure somewhere that can completely
asses a set of circumstances and give a 'morality measurement', then I'm
completely happy to accept that. Until then I don't believe it is measurable (in
terms of any form of accuracy). Before the thermometer was invented, I would
agree heat and cold were to an extent immeasurable. Hot, cold, warm, freezing
were the terms of measurement. Not very accurate but enough to prove the
point.
Quote: You might then say but moral
and immoral isn't measurable like hot and cold, however if that is so, then why
do we have different penalties for different crimes? If stealing and corruption
are immeasurable offenses, then they should all have the same punishment. But
the fact is that we do measure them, whether we are accurate or not is another
matter.
At this point in existence morality is measured the same way the temperature was
before the thermometer, and remember that not everyone thought the same day was
freezing. A judge is what humans have created to determine morals for us, why?
Because we can't decide ourselves. Any judge will say downloading a song is
illegal (hence immoral), how many people would agree? When I say morality is not
measurable I am referring to what you said, that there is absolutely no way to
know whether we're making an accurate judgement, because we're only human. It
doesn't seem fit to measure something as important as morality with little
perception of realistic accuracy.
Quote: While it is true, (and also
in the above case) that some of us disagree on what is good, I do not agree with
you that there's neutrality in the middle separating the two. If I have plenty
to eat and I see a family starving to death, it will not be 'neutral' to do
nothing. It will be just easy to do nothing, however it will still be immoral.
If a soldier sees an enemy approaching and does not report it to his commander,
would his commader let him off if he knew about it? (because he did
nothing)
At the heart of your beliefs about this is the belief in dualism. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism
the belief that good and evil are 2 equally strong opposites, and thus there's a
'neutral' in between) However I only believe in good, and evil as an absence of
it, a belief known as Monism, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
) which CS Lewis also took in his book, Mere Christianity. Take for example a
poor widow. Would giving her a penny when you are rich be considered good? I
would say it's a step in the right direction, but it will not be good enough.
(just as there is some light but it is still dark)
Using the starving family as an example, my train of thought says that it would
be neutral to do nothing, as oppose to taking advantage of that families poor
position to subject them to something like slavery (which has been done plenty
of times through history). You can't possibly put doing nothing and subjecting
to slavery on the same level, however at the same time doing nothing shouldn't
be classed as a good deed, which is why I believe you must include a level of
neutrality before moving towards evil. I'm not saying neutrality is a definite
position of innocent ignorance, but an in-between.
Quote: Without good knowledge of
philosophical concepts, (hopefully even if you do have a good grasp) I hope you
will refrain from labelling others as brainless in future. While I do disgree
with the dualistic model, I do not think it is honorable to call someone with
another view as brainless.
You did read the original article I was replying to right? If not I'll forgive
your last statements, if you did then your accusation is just plain offensive. I
never suggested anyone was brainless. In the article, if you used the christians
reasoning to suggest the professor was brainless, you would also be suggesting
more than half the human race was brainless. I was pointing out that this was an
absurd set of reasoning and more absurd conclusion. I wasn't saying people are
actually brainless, sorry if you thought otherwise. Also by calling him a moron
I was referring specifically to that part, there was no connection to his views
of monism.
I respect others views and believe everyone is entitled to their own, however
when someone uses obviously flawed reasoning to prove someone lacks a brain and
that's used as justification of gods existence, I draw a line. I would never
belittle someone personally for such a view however outrageous ideas always
create plenty of discussable controversy.
no, its okay, i prefer to keep things bottled up (personal choice). btw i used
to be a Catholic, Christian, and Jehovah's witness. but in the end i went my own
way.
Quote by Persocom01
Well no I don't understand information theory that well either, however I'll
tell you more about how I see it:
Information theory measures the amount of information (in bits) of a system. It
differs form thermodynamic entropy in the sense that we can't exactly quantify
the amount of disorder in a genetic information system. This is not because it
is impossible, but it is due to our ignorance, because:
1. We do not know the original state of the information system.
2. We do not know the language that the genetic code is written in.
Therefore we cannot quantify how much the information system has deviated from
the original. (which is what entropy in a thermodynamic system measures) The
Christian worldview, however, assumes that the information was written by God,
and gradually, deteriorated over time, resulting in cancers and other genetic
diseases. I'm sorry that I am unable to adequately address many issues. I'm just
an undergrad as yet, and in my major it is also unlikely that I'll learn
anything in depth about information theory. Sadly, such is the state of human
knowledge today. Due to our short lifespan and extensive knowledge, it is
impossible for anyone to posses first hand knowledge on all
fields.
Haha, I know exactly what you mean! My major is electrical engineering/physics,
which means I'll be going into the more physics-related aspects of EE
(semiconductor devices or photonics). However, I'm very interested in all the
facets of the field..it's unfortunate that I won't have the time to take classes
in the other branches.
Incidentally, earlier today I sat in on a presentation from the DSP focus here
at my university. The professor gave an illuminating example of information
entropy (though she didn't actually mention the term). If you're
interested:
Case 1: It's summer and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
Case 2: It's autumn and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
Case 3: It's winter and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
In which case did I give you the most information?
If it's summer, then you already know tomorrow is going to be warm, so I didn't
give you much information there.
If it's winter, then you already know it isn't going to be warm, so I also didn't give you much
information there.
If it's autumn, however, the weather is more variable..more random. Thus, here I am giving you more
information about the weather than in the other cases.
So I guess this is how randomness is related to the amount of information in a
signal. Ah, I only wish I could take some classes in DSP or comm theory. I'm
unwilling to give up physics though..
Out of curiosity, what is it you're majoring in?
merged: 04-03-2007 ~ 02:28pm
Quote by Persocom01
I like the intelligent design idea of complex specified information. For
example:
Case 1: hrdjbvkfzfe
Case 2: fffffffffff
Case 3: convergence
Assumming that all the letters were randomly generated, and every letter of the
alphabert as an equal chance of appearing, which result is the most likely to
appear? (all contain 11 letters)
The answer is that all cases are equally likely to appear.
However, which do you recognise as most likely to be a deliberate
design?
The answer is case 3. While it may be true that all outcomes are equally likely,
it is possible to differentiate one as likely to be designed while the others as
not. Information can be encrypted, or written in a different language, however,
it is still information. (whether the pattern is hidden or obvious)
We do know however, that it is possible to come up with patterns that look
designed by chance. For example, clouds in the sky might look like a rabbit with
correct cloud conditions and enough imagination. However, when a pattern gets
more and more complex while still retaining it's specificity (meaning), it
becomes more and more likely that an intelligent agent was the cause. GK
Chesterton expressed it as such:
"One elephant having a trunk was odd: all elephants having trunks looked
like a plot" - GK Chesterton
I major in civil engineering. Not doing too well right now, exams coming also so
I won't be very active. Feel free to post on my guestbook tho ^^ God bless
=)
Hello:
Thank you for your note... I wasn't too happy that day, because I don't have a
boyfriend, or a husband. I spend it in my house, tending to a lot of roses. I
hope that they will let the poor flowers alone...
Thanks for the well-wishes ^^
My Valentine's day was... well, like any other day, really. I'm also single, but
don't really have any friends to spend it with... so I stayed home and did
homework ^^; I'm kind of lame like that... not celebrating it doesn't really
matter, though. *shrug*
Glad to hear it was alright for you... anyway, I've gotta go; hw's calling
again. Talk to you later *waves*
Quote by Persocom01
Thermodynamic entropy and information entropy are closely related concepts. They
are basically the same in the sense that they are both a measure of the amount
of randomness in a system. When you repeatedly copy a file, do you expect it to
get better or to become corrupted? This gradual and inevitable corruption of
data (or information) is just what entropy is
about.
Well, I'm starting to see the connection..I think. And admittedly, it's not your
attempt that convinced me..rather, I read about information entropy
online.
My issue is not with thermodynamic entropy; I have a pretty good basic
understanding of what that is (I'm a physics major). My issue is that in the
context of information theory, 'entropy' is the amount of information in a signal. After studying it a bit, I
started to see how the 'amount of information' relates to uncertainty..but your
post, unfortunately, did not address this at all.
I wish I had a better understanding of information entropy..but I'm not going
into the communications industry, and I don't have time to take any information
theory classes.
Quote: The reason why "people
during the middleages live a shorter life rather than people during these
current times" can be explained by clarifying the concept of lifespan and
life expectancy. Maximum Lifespan is the maximum time you are capable of living.
Life expectancy is the time you are expected to live. What's the difference?
Life expectancy is actually an average of many lifespans.
For example. 2 men have a maximum lifespan of 100 if they do not catch any fatal
diseases, eat the right things, and do not get killed. However at the age of 50
one of them get knocked down by a car and dies. (I'm sad for him but remember
this is for the sake of an example) The other lives till 100.
What's the maximum lifespan of the men?
Ans: 100
What's the life expectancy of the men?:
Ans: 75
In the middleages people could live as long as we do. However, many of them were
killed by slavery, disease and other factors. That is why they had a shorter
life expectancy than we do. It is not their maximum lifespan that increased. It
was their life expectancy. Anyway I just posted a new article on MT-Atheists. Be
sure to read it. ^^ Also feel free to ask me anything. Take care and God bless.
What I mean about the life span and whatever was that if sin was to deteriorate
our living existence, then why shouldn't we be dieing in like 1 year or whatnot.
This was for Ingram >.>
oh yes, there is. Neutrality is a form of standing, denying neutral standing is
itself however, ignorance I may presume.
Quote:
My interpretation: "There will one day be a great apostasy (people leaving
the Christian faith) and the Anti-Christ will be revealed. He will deny that
there is a God, and set himself up as the most powerful man on earth, and those
who want to believe in lies would follow him." The Anti-Christ (the
embodiment of evil) is inspired by Satan otherwise known as The Devil.
how does that work then? aren't the world's greatest and richest men, women all
Satan worshippers if that is your definition? And if you are american, doesn't
that mean George Bush is also Satan's pawn? Or Ronald Reagen? Or even Bill
Gates?
How can you define a lie? if nothing is proven to be true.
Lest you can prove to me the Xtian faith or Koran is true, I will default
renounce Atheism. Otherwise, there is no cause to believe.
------------------------------------
Quote:
Answer: In case you haven't noticed, many who dorn the title "Atheist"
also happen to be deeply Anti-Christian. This can be seen here at the "Rational Response
Squad". (are they trying to justify that Satan is good?) There also
happens to be an evilbible.com run
again, by Atheists, but no evilkoran.com. (you'll think they'll pay more
attention to Muslims after 9/11, but no, they prefer to attack Christianity. Who
knows, maybe the Koran is hard to find)
Your choosing of two rather random if anything sites gave me suspicion whether
or not these sites contain nothing but mal-intent aimed at Christainity, in this
case, if one site focuses on the general topic, it is therefore, by right, have
the right to debate the issue of the topic at hand, anti-christian or not is
part of the package.
You cannot have denounced Christianity if there are all playing on level field
:"Ie. I believe there is a God, but God is not existent in Xtian view (X =
Christ). "
You deem that we atheist are largely Anti Christ, but if that is the case, how
do we debate on an issue? You cannot say you believe in Christ but says he is
existent. We are not ALL anti christ. If you believe that, I am sure your God
would have been dissapointed with you, you embrace the act of hating in his
name. No?
There are a lot of Atheist who respect the views of others, namely like me, I
may not have this attitude when I am debating on the issue of God or not, I do
however, find no means are necessary for me to insult fellow men who follow the
act of God and his teachings. It is your life, am I stopping you?
Qualitatively, I can accuse you Xtian's the same ideal as you describe us. You
also call us Devil Worshippers because you cannot accept the standing of
neutrality, and hence, you also insult our understanding of your issue, you deem
that we are worshipping the devil. That would have been itself a degrading
comment if anything against a fellow atheist.
in essence: I scratch your back, you do mine.
Your understanding is also deemed unbalanced, the reason why the Koran was so
rare in terms of debate is because it is not the second most popular idea on the
table.
You do realize the intense similiarity in both "Holy" scriptures, I
presume.
either bibles of faith contains similiar dictations from sources I would as
fellow atheist say as Illogical.
If Logic is my definition for faith, that means I cannot believe in empty faith
that carries illogical statements, in this case, bible and Koran.
The Koran also have many things that are rather if anything compared with the
bible, even more illogical and stupid, not to mention how they try to go through
all details in explaining evolution and finally contradicting themselves so
badly.
But that is beside the point, I believe it is fair to say you should not compare
your own religion to others.
Quote:
Which might lead Christians to believe that they will be more than willing to
serve a leader who is the Anti-Christ. You don't actually need to
"worship" the Anti-Christ as worship is commonly understood. You just
need to follow his leadership, just like the people of communist China once
devoted themselves to Chairman Mao and carried little red books of communist
idealogy around or something.
you name a person who united China and turned the country into a strong country
in the times of corruption as Satanic. How stupid and ignorant that may seem in
the times when hard learders are needed, and in a time when corruption must be
rooted out and form a social status quo. In this quote alone, I find it
disturbing how an average Xtian can be so ignorant over facts rather than laying
themselves back on a piece of 2000 year old scrap book.
I do consider that Chairman Mao was a man greatly needed in his time, we all can
accuse of him of communism, and all that, I believe he is doing what he did for
he is only man, dominated by logic.
Quote:
"There are two kinds of personality cults. One is a healthy personality
cult, that is, to worship men
like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin. Because they hold the truth in their
hands. The other is a false personality cult, i.e. not analysed and blind
worship." - Mao
Zedong
Atheists today already tend to 'worship' scientists "because they hold the
truth in their hands", so I won't be surpised if they would be willing to
unite under a human leader like the Anti-Christ.
I find that disturbing, who says science rules it all? we are just trying to
explain everything the mordern and scientific way, scientists do not denounce
God, they worship God as well, science does PROVE that God exists, (in a deist
fashion mind you).
Your generalization of people worshipping science icons shows irrelevant
emphasis. Just because someone is smarter you call them Satanic. Get the point?
------------------------------------
Quote:
Lastly, what do I think of Atheists? I think that there are still many people
among Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists and other religions that belong to God's
kingdom. People who love peace, who refrain from hurting others like The
Raving Atheist. I believe that my loving God will only send the deserving to
hell. When I look at someone like you, I do not see an enemy, nor a wicked
person. I see the possiblity of a brother in the kingdom. I think a Christian
does not just include people who now have a relationship with God, but also
includes all who will have one in future. I think it is completely unjustified
to call anyone a devil worshipper, for God alone knows who will be one.
I am not entirely atheist. Likewise, I do believe there could be possibility of
a great unknown force that shaped the details of the universe and its physical
laws, I do not however believe in any religion stated Gods. Nor do I think
omnipotence is true, as it is on its own, a controversial and verbal error.
Quote:
Comments or criticisms are always welcome, as long as one asks with intention of
knowing more. Take care, and I hope that you will know the love of God one
day.
My thanks.
I just like you to know that calling those icons in history as Satanic is what I
would call, itself, hating.
I do not see them as such, as in history and in the eyes of Logic, all things
and man is fair unto his doing. I'd be careful if I were you.
merged: 01-21-2007 ~ 09:23pm
Oh and by the way, I am sorry if I come off as harsh, for some strange reason, I
always get entangled in words of anger whenever it comes to conversations of
religions and their Gods.
It is a negative trait of mine. My apologies for any offense caused.
Hello:
Yes, you are right... is very easy to fool oneself....
I will share these piece of wisdom too, because is a prayer that I think will be
useful to prevent that from happening :
"Who can see his own mistakes? Forgive my
sins that I do not see. And keep your servant from sinning by going my own way.
Do not let these sins rule over me. Then I will be without blame. And I will not
be found guilty of big sins."
Sorry I was gone to vacation for the past few so I couldn't respond
Quote: I didn't say that we are
perfect. I said that the fact that glitches and problems with games, for
example, are not evidence that the games were not designed by an
intelligence.
Moreover, perfection is subjective. I said that a car is run on petrol. If it
broke down because you tried to run it on beer then don't blame the car maker
for imperfect design. Humans are not made to be shot by guns. If a person dies
after being shot by a gun why count it as a flaw? If you decide to use a jet
plane as a submarine would you blame the plane maker if you dr
own?
Well, it is true that perfection is subjective, too many views on perfect. I'm
guessing my view and yours are different. Well, what I'm saying is, according to
my view, if we were to be perfect, we should have the ability to adapt to a
certain situation, this way we won't have problems living. True, we weren't made
to be shot at or something and we can't really blame anyone for that >.>
(maybe our parents )
Quote by ProgramZEROI don't remember
where I found this but I found it to be terribly interesting. Enjoy.
If God exists, he is also an atheist.
Before the theist dismisses atheism as irrational or condemns the atheist as
immoral, he should consider the disturbing possibility that the God of
Christianity and Islam is himself an atheist. And if this is true, it means that
the Christian worships, obeys, and has devoted his life to an atheistic being
who does not believe in any power superior to himself, never prays, is utterly
without faith, and who does not acknowledge any authority, either cognitive or
moral, external to himself.
If theism is loosely defined as belief in a higher power, a mysterious being
whose essential nature cannot be understood (whether in whole or in part) by the
believer, then God is an atheist. He does not believe in a power higher than
himself, nor can there be anything which he fails to understand, for nothing can
be unknown or unknowable to an omniscient being.
If theism is defined as the belief in a supernatural being, then God is an
atheist. His own powers, though supernatural from a human point of view, are
comprehensible to himself. Everything is "natural" from God's
perspective.
If theism involves a relationship of subordination and dependence between a
theist and his or her object of veneration, then God is an atheist. He is a
self-sufficient Being who disbelieves in any power greater than himself. He
worships nothing, never prays, never seeks forgiveness, and never acknowledges
his own errors.
If theism is the belief in a creator, or first cause, who is ultimately
responsible for one's own existence, then God is an atheist. He believes himself
to have existed eternally.
If theism involves the belief in an external moral authority, a being whose
moral law is obligatory for his creatures, then God is an atheist. He does not
believe in a higher law, nor does he think himself capable of doing wrong. He
does not regard himself bound to respect the rights of any other being. God is
morally autonomous, a law unto himself.
God is therefore an atheist. Moreover, he is a positive atheist of the most
dogmatic variety, for he claims to know with absolute certainty that there
exists no being superior to himself. He is never troubled by doubt, never
re-examines any of his beliefs, and never feels obliged to justify
them.
Honestly, there isn't really anything very interesting about this article
because it just basically says "God is an Atheist" well, by your
definition, he truly is, since he doesn't believe in other god except himself.
However, what the article is really trying to prove is that it's rational to
believe that there is no God. (aka be an Atheist)
Do we have any reason to believe that we are God? (that there is no intelligent
being before us) We have a beginning, and have an end. We are born, and we die.
Can we then truly be the first cause? (the uncaused cause) We are beings who, from our conception, are born into
a world we did not make, nor have any prior knowledge of. How God is
capable of being the "first cause" is ultimately inexplicable. Then
again, why I even exist is ultimately inexplicable. If God is a being who has
made all things and there was nothing before or without him - well then he can
quite rationally believe that he is the only God. We on the other hand,
can't.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." - John 1:1
Well, I didn't write this article but I
will defend it.
Why would it be irrational to be an Atheist? Do you think it is irrational to be
an Atheist?
The article doesn't state that we are God. It simply states that God himself, by
definition, is an Atheist.
In either case, I don't know how you quoting a biblical verse would prove
anything.
Quote by Persocom01I vote for the 3rd
banner! Wait... how do I vote? Is it Mitsuki? I have a weakness for mitsuki
Hi there! This quote is from the group ''Arina Tanemure Fans'' ~
Thanks for voting in my banner, I'm glad you liked t!
Anyway, I think that Moon Elf will count the vote only if you put it on the
thread, here: Arina
Tanemura Fans Banner Voting
Thanks again!
Oh, and yeah, it's Mitsuki: I've got that image on a chapter opening split of
the manga.
Bye bye! ^_^
merged: 12-02-2006 ~ 02:24am
Quote by Persocom01Thx for your
comment on my guestbook too. ^^ Mitsuki is cute! I liked the anime... it gives
you a warm fuzzy feeling after watching it. ^^; I love happy endings. I still
think your banner is better haha. Take care!
Yeah, the anime is cute... but as always, the manga is way better.
Even the pictures are prettier! That's why I chose a manga scan~
Thanks for voting for me!
So, see you later!
You know, it's no fun without you or kingray around... Sigh...
Just in case you didn't see my message, I wanted to know if you could send me a link to an article that you think does a good job at explaining why homosexuality is immoral.
I don't think you mind me not replying to your other post as you said, "I replied to you because you asked for it here ... I don't have any other particular reason." I don't think the discussion was going anywhere and since you don't seem to have much of an interest in me replying, I'm not going to bother, unless you actually want me to.
Fair enough but my crap remark was centred around .Even so,if God created gays,then its just as effective as creating a human who steals,swears,and lies and like humans,you may feel like your in love with the same gender,but you must undertand that its just like a disorder,making your brain fall in love with the same gender,other than the opposite. If you can explain why creating a gay is as effective as creating a thief I'll take it back. That's not ignorance, it's just crap. It's his perspective of gays that makes life difficult for so many of them.
Evolution's come a long way since Darwin so I'll have to say I've never referred to is at 'darwinistic evolution' before. I know theists can support natural selection and even evolution as well, but either I've missed something or picked up something he didn't say because I was under the impression he didn't believe in evolution or it's mechanisms. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms that assist evolution to occur and he himself said changing the population possibly. The many contradictions he types makes it look like he's typing just for the sake of it sometimes.
I've visited a few of your links to answersingenesis. One issue I have with the Christian religion and it's branches is the answers are always different, even within what should be the same area. That confusion within is one of the main reasons I became atheist. Also I find much of the evidence against evolution is based on chance, stating that it's impossible to get from 'A' to 'B'....Although this may be true I always thought that 'A' didn't become 'B'; 'A' randomly became '?' that we later renamed 'B'. Of course 'A' became an in-effective and soon to die '?' over and over, but with the scientific time spent on this planet and the amount of generations possible, it's not hard to imagine that the variation could lead to a new species. Yes, the numbers are incomprehensible and always will be, but doesn't that increase the chances?
Do you know of any articles that you consider to do a good job at explaining why homosexuality is wrong?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Our posts are kind of long and so I don't think we'll get anywhere if we keep replying to each other while talking about like eight different topics. Is there any one thing you want to talk about specifically? I'll post what I had replied to so far, just so you don't think you wasted your time replying to me only for me to ask we try to shorten the discussion:
I wasn't talking about natural selection, but I'll try my best to address that based on my very limited knowledge of evolution later.
My point was that just because many cultures share similar values, such as honor and integrity, does not imply there is an absolute morality and thus a God who acts as the "law maker." Humans, being very similar creatures, are bound to have similar views on morality. If a civilization is to survive, it needs many people who are have a predisposition towards altruism. There are many people who see nothing wrong with stealing, lying, killing, etc., but if a society has too many of those people and they become too powerful, the society will crumble.
Note, however, that many civilizations have drastically different views on morality, which C.S. Lewis completely ignores in the first chapter (though he may have attempted to address it later on). Nowadays, many people have strong egalitarian views on ethnicity, sex, nationality, belief, etc. That isn't exactly a natural tendency of humans, who have a much stronger tendency to be intolerant of whatever qualities others have that they don't have or have a variation of (e.g., Protestants and Catholics fighting in Northern Ireland). These drastically different views on morality, such as human sacrifice and slavery, suggests relative morality, not absolute. Even if all views on morality were similar, it could mean those views on morality are what is needed for a society to exist.
As for what you said about natural selection, those groups full of animals that self-sacrifice are going to be the ones to survive as opposed to groups full of self-serving animals who act in ways that are not beneficial for the group and instead hinder the groups' survival as a whole. The self-serving animals, I would imagine, would be much less likely to even form groups in the first place and those animals who live in groups are much more likely to survive than those who do not as they can protect each other.
Um... okay. What does "dying spiritually" mean exactly?
I think I remember hearing a story in Sunday School about Jesus not wanting to die and asking God if there was another way or something like that. I was pretty young, so I could be mistaken, but, if true, I don't think Jesus really had a choice in the matter. If God allowed Jesus to suffer for no good reason, then that is evil. If Heaven exists, allowing Jesus to die in itself wouldn't really be evil exactly.
I don't think breaking a promise to cause death or suffering is the "lesser of two evils." Choosing to kill someone immediately instead of torturing them and then killing them could be considered the lesser of two evils, for example. Breaking a promise is only "evil" if the promise isn't evil itself.
I don't see what's wrong with using the word "illogical." Punishing someone when there is no gain in doing so for either party is illogical and only leads to unnecessary hatred and suffering. The only justification for "an eye for an eye" is as a deterrent to crime in the first place. If someone knows they're going to be beaten up if they beat someone else up, they're unlikely to do it. If people were genuinely empathetic beings, that would be unnecessary and they would be able to relate to each other easily, preventing them from causing each other to suffer. This not being the case, punishments are the easiest deterrents to crime a society can use and has thus become a core part of many societies, even if people, such as yourself, don't realize why punishment is useful.
Not really my point. My point was that the evidence for God's existence could be obvious, but we would not be able to understand the evidence because God, being out creator, could prevent us from doing so. We could create an artificially intelligent robot that, when it saw a television, it would not believe televisions exist as it would be unable to comprehend the evidence, even though it is right in front of it since its creators do not will it. The same could be the case for God. God could not want us to see the evidence supporting his existence, even if its right in front of us. Not something like the complexity of the world, but something more obvious like the example I gave with the television. That could be why we aren't able to understand God's reasoning, as God has purposefully limited our ability to reason in order to prevent us from coming to the conclusion that it exists through reasoning.
Atheism isn't a religion or a belief system, first of all. You should know that by now.
I don't think belief in God is innate, but giving meaning to things when there is none is probably innate in human nature. I myself have a tendency to give meaning to events when there is no meaning or there is little reason to believe in a meaning. For example, if 1,000,000,000 Christians enter a lottery and they all pray to God that they win, the one that wins the lottery is going to think their prayers were answered while the other 999,999,999 people just shrug it off. One of them was bound to win and give meaning to an event where there is none. Each specific individual has only a 1/1000000000 chance of winning, but someone is going to win and each person thinks that if they win, it will have been God that caused it. I would probably also think something or someone caused me to win if I was in a lottery with 1,000,000,000 people and I bet you would too. This type of thinking is irrational because the only reasoning you have to support it is that something unlikely, from your point of view, happened.
Pre-Christian pagan beliefs were based on this element of human nature too as pagans attributed things like storms, volcanic eruptions, death, birth, etc. to gods or other supernatural entities. If you imagine the world from their perspective, it makes perfect sense in a way. You see blots of lightning come down from the sky and hit a tree, you think Thor did it if you're raised to believe in Thor's existence. How else could huge jolts of electricity come down from the sky? Since there's no actual evidence to back it up, only shallow reasoning, it could be right or it could be wrong. If, however, I was raised in an environment where people attributed lightning to Thor, I would be very likely to believe it since when humans don't have an answer to how something happened, they think there is a meaning or intent to it, simply because when humans do things, they have an intent when they do them so they assume the world around them works the same.
The wording wasn't the point I was trying to make. Feel free to replace what I said with "cannot fully comprehend."
Also, the point I was trying to make is that we cannot assume God has limited out ability to judge reality using our reason since anything we cannot understand is meaningless to us. The closest we can get to the truth is through our reason and if God is beyond that, God is meaningless. God could kill and torture 1,000 people for what appears to us to be for no reason at all or have Jesus crucified to make up for our sins. We can only apply human reason to both scenarios and assume there is no good reason for doing either, even if there is actually a very good reason that only God can understand. As far as we can be concerned, God has done something evil and unnecessary, even if that's not the truth, if that is the conclusion we come to through reason.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
merged: 08-12-2007 ~ 01:02pm
I can't explain in detail, since I'm neither a biologist nor have I read too much on how humans make decisions involving morality. My point was, however, that he doesn't consider that the commonality of human morals throughout different cultures can also be explained by the fact that we're all human beings and thus have many similar traits that would allow for cultures with similar, but not the same, morals and views to develop.
I think I remember reading God said to Adam and Eve that they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Instead of dying as their punishment, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
I'm not saying that keeping promises is illogical, but that the action God promised in itself was illogical. If I promised someone I would kill someone for them, it would be illogical to carry out that promise and doing so wouldn't reflect my honor nor my integrity, as is the case here.
I was just kidding around. o.o
To give another example, we could create an artificially intelligent robot, but program it to believe we don't exist. Even though it is an intelligent life form, it will ignore how obvious it is that we created it, even if it can see us. The same could be true for humans. Even if God's existence is obvious, we could have been created to ignore the most obvious facts that prove his existence.
In the end, the problem with assuming that we're like that robot who cannot comprehend its creator or understand it's reasoning is that we may not actually have a creator or our creator may not be God. Using the same logic, we could say 2 + 2 actually equals 5 because we could have been created to believe that 2 + 2 equals 4. Such claims are worthless because we can only rely on our own reasoning, even if that means we won't be able to find truth. Based on what we do know and what we have observed, our reasoning is the best tool for finding truth and judging reality. If God purposely limited our ability to reason, we can't do anything about that. I actually have a tendency to half believe we do have a creator, but the idea that the Christian god is our creator seems obviously wrong to me.
One of the reasons I reject the view that there is an entity that created us at all is that it's only based on human ignorance. If we don't know how rain falls, we assume it's was the work of a supernatural entity. If we see a volcano explode, we assume the same thing. Finally, if we observe the complexity of the world, we'll once again assume the same thing. In the first two cases, we know that isn't the case, but many people have believed that to be the case for thousands of years. In the last case, it's much harder to study than the first two, but, based on what we do know about the Universe currently, the scientific explanations seem to make this yet another case of human bias resulting from our ignorance causing us to become convinced of a false belief once again.
Just think about how reasonable it would be to assume that God caused a volcano to erupt, when you don't know any other way it could have happened. If scientists discovered how volcanoes actually erupted and a group of people had held a tradition of trying to appease God. Regardless of the scientific explanation, they would continue to hold their belief because it was a tradition and, if belief was widespread enough, this new scientific idea would be fought against in favor of the traditional views.
Um, but the other passage you posted specifically says "you shall give life for life, eye for eye..." not God. From every source I've ever seen, Jesus was advocating a pretty advanced view for his time, that revenge for the sake of revenge is worthless and that forgiveness is more important than revenge. There's also a good saying, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
Yeah and the Christian god sentencing people to eternal damnation for not worshiping him isn't frivolous?
And God made Mary pregnant, which is sort of like adultery. =P
You don't accept the fact that a larger number of Christians believe in God as kind and forgiving, rather than vengeful than back when believing that was beneficial to society? That's basically all I said there, but I also added that it would explain why that belief was was so popular than and has now weakened, even though the texts haven't changed much, if at all. That's one weakness of written religions, they can't evolve with society's changing needs anymore as religions kept alive through oral traditions can.
Evolution isn't an "atheist thing". It's a matter of science and atheists mostly accept it for two reasons. The first reason it that they don't have a scripture to tell them something else, so they don't have to reconcile their beliefs with it. The second reason is it provides an explanation for something we had originally attributed to a supernatural entity. Just as an atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation for how rain falls, an atheist would willingly accept the scientific explanation of the evolution of life on Earth. In both cases because they don't have a belief in God to prevent them from forming beliefs based on new knowledge rather than their own ignorance. There are other reasons of course, such as the fact that Creationists have driven some of the atheists in our little community to take some sort of weird, almost religious pride in evolution. It's kind of weird, seriously. o_o
I can understand liking evolution for its explanatory powers, but that's not why some people like it so much. It's because they're driven to be the opposite of their "opponents," so they lose sight of the fact that evolution could be wrong; and they don't accept it on its merits, but because it's what the Creationists tell them they believe and that what they believe is against God.
I don't really see how that article shows flies have freewill. It seemed to neglect the fact that there are both internal and external factors that contribute to a fly's actions, not just external ones. Maybe I'm missing something, but I wanted to go to sleep a few hours ago and it's about 1:00 a.m., so I might not be thinking straight, especially since I didn't sleep much yesterday either. ^^;
Oh, I see what you mean now. What I was saying was that if humans were more intelligent and thus better able to understand that others feel same things they feel, there wouldn't be things like torture. Even if humans couldn't perfectly associate with each other, just enough for us to be at the same level as those humans who have exemplary abilities to feel empathy for others would be nice.
I recall reading about people who have been born without the ability to feel empathy. I don't remember where, but then again, I don't remember where I've read most of the things I've read. If you want to, feel free to look for yourself, but I'm not having much luck finding any examples right now.
That human empathy is so easily defeated by training does say a lot about how weak it is.
Although I watched Elfen Lied, I did get really upset watching it.
I don't believe a lack of empathy is the root cause of suffering, I believe that a lack of empathy is a reason why humans are often willing to inflict suffering on each other for their own benefit.
(Sorry for all the random line breaks above...)
I finished Ouran recently and when I finish an anime or while I'm in the middle of it, I tend to think it's the best thing I've ever seen. For example, I loved Pita Ten when I was watching it. Now, I don't really like it much at all. I still love Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu because the anime was more unique and interesting than most, I've been reading the light novels every now and then online (if you're interested, they can be found here: http://www.baka-tsuki.net/project/index.php?title=Suzumiya_Haruhi ), and the ending didn't make me feel like it was missing something, unlike Ouran's ending and most other animes, which feel like they end way too abruptly.
Random picture for you: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/alexjohnc3/anime/haruhi/haruhiString.png
-
-
-
-
-
Old posts below:
-
-
-
-
-
Don't worry about it, take your time or feel free not to reply to the rest of my other post at all.
My dad has Mere Christianity, which I read some of about a year and a half ago. After reading a few pages I had to stop because the claims he was making were based on horrible logic and it pained me to read it without being able to question him about his claims, at least from what I remember. (Update: Before I posted this response I read some of the book again (near the beginning of it) and, though his claims weren't exactly logical, they weren't horribly off either. I'm talking about his claims involving "Right" and "Wrong." Just because different civilizations had some similar views on morality, such as killing being bad, that doesn't mean there is an absolute morality. He doesn't take biological factors into account, for example.)
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that because logic is rigid that if God created logic God is also rigid, even when being rigid means acting illogically. Also, God created humans and humans aren't rigid, so God might not be rigid either. There's more to base this on too since we were supposedly created in God's image. Hm, maybe that's why He has so many sadistic tendencies in the Bible.
When I said, "whether you like it or not," I meant that, even if you dislike the fact that God unnecessarily sacrificing Jesus' life makes no sense, that has no impact on the fact that it doesn't make any sense and wasn't necessary.
Well, 0.9999... + 0.9999... = 2, remember? =P
I'm not sure how you can say God created these things or logic itself. According to you, God created logic, but, do you seriously believe that even if God actually exists that it's possible He could have made the logic such that if you get one object and another object, then you put them next to each other, you'd have three objects? Logic can't be "created." While I do agree that it is possible, since we, as humans, don't know enough to say anything with absolute certainty, it seems really, really unlikely.
Well, so much for being rigid then.
Jesus (also God) said:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." -Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
I'm not sure Zeus, Thor, or Poseidon have much in common with the FSM other than they probably all like pasta, but that's also true for the Christian god, a.k.a., the One True God (TM).
I would say that God is more stupid than stubborn for not changing His mind when doing so would be beneficial. I'm not saying God "should be this" or "should be that," however. I have a basic idea of what the people were like in general around the time the belief system involving that "God" was developing, so I'm not surprised that God is so stupid. Back then, a God who would help people win wars and would punish nonbelievers, enemies, and thieves to keep order was a good thing. Now, not so much, and that's why belief in that God has weakened, besides the fact that God doesn't actually do any of that, whether that's because God doesn't exist or just doesn't feel like it. You can't change the texts, but you can choose to ignore the parts you know are illogical, as people have done for thousands of years, though not necessarily because they're illogical.
You've probably read a lot about God's nature. I think that because you're making an argument I don't see very often (i.e., that the real God is this way and other views about God that make Him seem empathetic or more plausible aren't about the real God since they aren't necessarily backed with scripture as strongly, if at all). All views about the Christian god are based on how you interpret the scriptures or what you read or hear about God, including yours. The only way that you can find what God is really like is using the reason He blessed you with, not just mindlessly accepting Biblical text as fact because you've been told the Bible is infallible. Catholics have also historically been told the Pope is infallible and eventually that view was rejected (mostly) as has the view the Bible is infallible (again, mostly). You don't need to believe something just because your environment has told you to believe it if the belief itself isn't reasonable, although humans have that tendency.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." That view isn't based on the Bible, but the view that our creator has given us reason to allow us to see the truth, so we should use that reason to do just that.
Pet dogs? Huh? Are you referencing something in my original post (which I don't recall where I posted, so I can't really check)? I'm not sure what your point is from just my quote.
See also research into human empathy here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNGC654O7H1.DTL
I don't recall saying anything about being perfectly empathetic, but there are instances where people lack the ability to feel empathy at all even and have gone around killing others. In fact, humans by their nature aren't nearly empathetic enough. I'm not saying humans should be basically one entity, but that when you have people torturing, or willing to torture, each other, for example, something is very wrong. Since this is an anime forum, I might as well relate it to an anime. If you've seen any of Elfen Lied, you should know what I mean when I say humans, under far too many conditions, can easily not feel empathy for others.
Speaking of anime, two animes you might want to watch if you haven't already are Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuuutsu and Ouran High School Host Club, the latter of which I just finished recently. Both are two of my favorites, especially Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu. Haruhi FTW. =D
Temperature is a human made measurement of the natural world; Good, bad, moral and immoral are human constructs to define mentality, I have heard absolutely nothing anywhere to suggest otherwise, which is why I don't believe they are measurable. If god exists and has a moral measure somewhere that can completely asses a set of circumstances and give a 'morality measurement', then I'm completely happy to accept that. Until then I don't believe it is measurable (in terms of any form of accuracy). Before the thermometer was invented, I would agree heat and cold were to an extent immeasurable. Hot, cold, warm, freezing were the terms of measurement. Not very accurate but enough to prove the point.
At this point in existence morality is measured the same way the temperature was before the thermometer, and remember that not everyone thought the same day was freezing. A judge is what humans have created to determine morals for us, why? Because we can't decide ourselves. Any judge will say downloading a song is illegal (hence immoral), how many people would agree? When I say morality is not measurable I am referring to what you said, that there is absolutely no way to know whether we're making an accurate judgement, because we're only human. It doesn't seem fit to measure something as important as morality with little perception of realistic accuracy.
Using the starving family as an example, my train of thought says that it would be neutral to do nothing, as oppose to taking advantage of that families poor position to subject them to something like slavery (which has been done plenty of times through history). You can't possibly put doing nothing and subjecting to slavery on the same level, however at the same time doing nothing shouldn't be classed as a good deed, which is why I believe you must include a level of neutrality before moving towards evil. I'm not saying neutrality is a definite position of innocent ignorance, but an in-between.
You did read the original article I was replying to right? If not I'll forgive your last statements, if you did then your accusation is just plain offensive. I never suggested anyone was brainless. In the article, if you used the christians reasoning to suggest the professor was brainless, you would also be suggesting more than half the human race was brainless. I was pointing out that this was an absurd set of reasoning and more absurd conclusion. I wasn't saying people are actually brainless, sorry if you thought otherwise. Also by calling him a moron I was referring specifically to that part, there was no connection to his views of monism.
I respect others views and believe everyone is entitled to their own, however when someone uses obviously flawed reasoning to prove someone lacks a brain and that's used as justification of gods existence, I draw a line. I would never belittle someone personally for such a view however outrageous ideas always create plenty of discussable controversy.
Don't mind him, he's just trying to have a sense of humor thats all, hope your having a good trip.
Shinsen89
Peace Out!
*Awakes* Huh? What were we talking about again?
no, its okay, i prefer to keep things bottled up (personal choice). btw i used to be a Catholic, Christian, and Jehovah's witness. but in the end i went my own way.
...........................................(...)
Haha, I know exactly what you mean! My major is electrical engineering/physics, which means I'll be going into the more physics-related aspects of EE (semiconductor devices or photonics). However, I'm very interested in all the facets of the field..it's unfortunate that I won't have the time to take classes in the other branches.
Incidentally, earlier today I sat in on a presentation from the DSP focus here at my university. The professor gave an illuminating example of information entropy (though she didn't actually mention the term). If you're interested:
Case 1: It's summer and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
Case 2: It's autumn and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
Case 3: It's winter and I tell you that tomorrow is going to be warm.
In which case did I give you the most information?
If it's summer, then you already know tomorrow is going to be warm, so I didn't give you much information there.
If it's winter, then you already know it isn't going to be warm, so I also didn't give you much information there.
If it's autumn, however, the weather is more variable..more random. Thus, here I am giving you more information about the weather than in the other cases.
So I guess this is how randomness is related to the amount of information in a signal. Ah, I only wish I could take some classes in DSP or comm theory. I'm unwilling to give up physics though..
Out of curiosity, what is it you're majoring in?
merged: 04-03-2007 ~ 02:28pm
Alright! Good luck with exams! ^_^
Hello:
Thank you for your note... I wasn't too happy that day, because I don't have a boyfriend, or a husband. I spend it in my house, tending to a lot of roses. I hope that they will let the poor flowers alone...
Thanks for the well-wishes ^^
My Valentine's day was... well, like any other day, really. I'm also single, but don't really have any friends to spend it with... so I stayed home and did homework ^^; I'm kind of lame like that... not celebrating it doesn't really matter, though. *shrug*
Glad to hear it was alright for you... anyway, I've gotta go; hw's calling again. Talk to you later *waves*
Well, I'm starting to see the connection..I think. And admittedly, it's not your attempt that convinced me..rather, I read about information entropy online.
My issue is not with thermodynamic entropy; I have a pretty good basic understanding of what that is (I'm a physics major). My issue is that in the context of information theory, 'entropy' is the amount of information in a signal. After studying it a bit, I started to see how the 'amount of information' relates to uncertainty..but your post, unfortunately, did not address this at all.
I wish I had a better understanding of information entropy..but I'm not going into the communications industry, and I don't have time to take any information theory classes.
Hey there
I just thought i came to you and invite you to MT Singapore:
>> Clickie on da piccie to JOIN <<
Hope to see ya in the group
What I mean about the life span and whatever was that if sin was to deteriorate our living existence, then why shouldn't we be dieing in like 1 year or whatnot. This was for Ingram >.>
oh yes, there is. Neutrality is a form of standing, denying neutral standing is itself however, ignorance I may presume.
how does that work then? aren't the world's greatest and richest men, women all Satan worshippers if that is your definition? And if you are american, doesn't that mean George Bush is also Satan's pawn? Or Ronald Reagen? Or even Bill Gates?
How can you define a lie? if nothing is proven to be true.
Lest you can prove to me the Xtian faith or Koran is true, I will default renounce Atheism. Otherwise, there is no cause to believe.
------------------------------------
Your choosing of two rather random if anything sites gave me suspicion whether or not these sites contain nothing but mal-intent aimed at Christainity, in this case, if one site focuses on the general topic, it is therefore, by right, have the right to debate the issue of the topic at hand, anti-christian or not is part of the package.
You cannot have denounced Christianity if there are all playing on level field :"Ie. I believe there is a God, but God is not existent in Xtian view (X = Christ). "
You deem that we atheist are largely Anti Christ, but if that is the case, how do we debate on an issue? You cannot say you believe in Christ but says he is existent. We are not ALL anti christ. If you believe that, I am sure your God would have been dissapointed with you, you embrace the act of hating in his name. No?
There are a lot of Atheist who respect the views of others, namely like me, I may not have this attitude when I am debating on the issue of God or not, I do however, find no means are necessary for me to insult fellow men who follow the act of God and his teachings. It is your life, am I stopping you?
Qualitatively, I can accuse you Xtian's the same ideal as you describe us. You also call us Devil Worshippers because you cannot accept the standing of neutrality, and hence, you also insult our understanding of your issue, you deem that we are worshipping the devil. That would have been itself a degrading comment if anything against a fellow atheist.
in essence: I scratch your back, you do mine.
Your understanding is also deemed unbalanced, the reason why the Koran was so rare in terms of debate is because it is not the second most popular idea on the table.
You do realize the intense similiarity in both "Holy" scriptures, I presume.
either bibles of faith contains similiar dictations from sources I would as fellow atheist say as Illogical.
If Logic is my definition for faith, that means I cannot believe in empty faith that carries illogical statements, in this case, bible and Koran.
The Koran also have many things that are rather if anything compared with the bible, even more illogical and stupid, not to mention how they try to go through all details in explaining evolution and finally contradicting themselves so badly.
But that is beside the point, I believe it is fair to say you should not compare your own religion to others.
you name a person who united China and turned the country into a strong country in the times of corruption as Satanic. How stupid and ignorant that may seem in the times when hard learders are needed, and in a time when corruption must be rooted out and form a social status quo. In this quote alone, I find it disturbing how an average Xtian can be so ignorant over facts rather than laying themselves back on a piece of 2000 year old scrap book.
I do consider that Chairman Mao was a man greatly needed in his time, we all can accuse of him of communism, and all that, I believe he is doing what he did for he is only man, dominated by logic.
I find that disturbing, who says science rules it all? we are just trying to explain everything the mordern and scientific way, scientists do not denounce God, they worship God as well, science does PROVE that God exists, (in a deist fashion mind you).
Your generalization of people worshipping science icons shows irrelevant emphasis. Just because someone is smarter you call them Satanic. Get the point?
------------------------------------
I am not entirely atheist. Likewise, I do believe there could be possibility of a great unknown force that shaped the details of the universe and its physical laws, I do not however believe in any religion stated Gods. Nor do I think omnipotence is true, as it is on its own, a controversial and verbal error.
My thanks.
I just like you to know that calling those icons in history as Satanic is what I would call, itself, hating.
I do not see them as such, as in history and in the eyes of Logic, all things and man is fair unto his doing. I'd be careful if I were you.
merged: 01-21-2007 ~ 09:23pm
Oh and by the way, I am sorry if I come off as harsh, for some strange reason, I always get entangled in words of anger whenever it comes to conversations of religions and their Gods.
It is a negative trait of mine. My apologies for any offense caused.
Hello:
Yes, you are right... is very easy to fool oneself....
I will share these piece of wisdom too, because is a prayer that I think will be useful to prevent that from happening
:
"Who can see his own mistakes? Forgive my sins that I do not see. And keep your servant from sinning by going my own way. Do not let these sins rule over me. Then I will be without blame. And I will not be found guilty of big sins."
Psalm 19:12-13.
You're welcome and thank you! ^_^
Sorry I was gone to vacation for the past few so I couldn't respond
Well, it is true that perfection is subjective, too many views on perfect. I'm guessing my view and yours are different. Well, what I'm saying is, according to my view, if we were to be perfect, we should have the ability to adapt to a certain situation, this way we won't have problems living. True, we weren't made to be shot at or something and we can't really blame anyone for that >.> (maybe our parents
Hello:
I think that we haven't talked in a while. I hope that the Lord will always help you to find what to write and what to say. I will pray for it
May God bless you and your family all the time. Happy 2007!
Yay, thanks for the comment/fav ^_^
Well, I didn't write this article but I will defend it.
Why would it be irrational to be an Atheist? Do you think it is irrational to be an Atheist?
The article doesn't state that we are God. It simply states that God himself, by definition, is an Atheist.
In either case, I don't know how you quoting a biblical verse would prove anything.
Hi there! This quote is from the group ''Arina Tanemure Fans'' ~
Thanks for voting in my banner, I'm glad you liked t!
Anyway, I think that Moon Elf will count the vote only if you put it on the thread, here: Arina Tanemura Fans Banner Voting
Thanks again!
Oh, and yeah, it's Mitsuki: I've got that image on a chapter opening split of the manga.
Bye bye! ^_^
merged: 12-02-2006 ~ 02:24am
Yeah, the anime is cute... but as always, the manga is way better.
Even the pictures are prettier! That's why I chose a manga scan~
Thanks for voting for me!
So, see you later!