At 12/1/09 02:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 12/1/09 02:06 PM, Drakim wrote: I love how it doesn't matter what the Bible says. If circular means spherical then I wonder what the authors of the Bible would have to have written if they really DID mean circular then.

Round, obviously.

And if they really DO intent to write round and not circular? (if you say spherical then I'm gonna party like it's 1999)

I'm not quite sure anymore. I used to have the idea that atheism was my religion because so many people were insisting that not believing in a supernatural intelligence that transcends the universe is a religion in itself.

But then it started getting kinda vague when I found accusations of liberalism and evolution being religions too. I accept the theory of evolution and I have several liberal opinions on public matters. Is it possible to have three religions at once? I've never heard of something like that before.

Stumbling upon comments on how science is a religion for us skeptical folks, I just sorta added it to the list. Four isn't that much more than three.

But then came the real brainbuster. In the same day, I was told my religion was abortion because I do not oppose it, and Global Warming was my religion since I accept mainstream science.

Dear people,
Please stop being retards and at least make your nonsensical insults be internally consistent. I can't imagine that it's that hard to make up shit that actually fits with itself. Don't call people dumbsmart or insist that they are walking in all directions at once, and stop saying that every single thing you oppose is a religion.

I mean, seriously. Why do people still do this? It should be as embarrassing as saying that your polical opponent Hitler bedmate. There should be internet laws like Poe or Godwin's law that decries this enormous stupid accusation.

So, since nobody else is for the moment, I'm hereby declaring that anybody who does this is a complete asshole. And if you disagree to this post then you are only doing it because disagreeing with me is your religion.

At 12/1/09 01:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/1/09 01:48 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: But Mechwarrior300 already proved that the people who wrote the Bible knew the earth was spherical.

Or as a scientist would say, "circular"

I love how it doesn't matter what the Bible says. If circular means spherical then I wonder what the authors of the Bible would have to have written if they really DID mean circular then.

At 11/29/09 09:43 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/29/09 04:14 AM, Dilapsor wrote: I think GWB is one of the greatest tragic figures in modern history, personally.

How so?

Although saying that he is "one of the greatest tragic figures in modern history" is an obvious exaggeration, I personally do see him as a tragic icon of modern times. Quite simply, being smart is looked down upon. There was a whole "we don't want a smart president, we want a down to earth president" feel over that election.

At 11/16/09 11:15 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/15/09 02:43 PM, AapoJoki wrote: That means God is not omnipresent. "Absence of God" implies that there are places where he can't or won't reach.

Oh, wow, I never thought of it that way. I guess I think it's not so much of an absence of God, but it's something done by choice. The part of us that does bad things is the human side, whereas the part that does good things is the God side. We have freedom of choice, which is why we live, so we choose to accept God or we don't.

Let me guess, once you go to hell, it doesn't matter if you regret it. You can scream out for God all you want but it's too late to accept God anymore.

At 11/16/09 09:14 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: God created evil because good cannot exist without an opposite. How can you not understand that?

This is such a stupid argument. If God is omnipotent, then he should have no trouble creating good without evil. I mean, if I program a virtual world, I don't need to add in murder and rape just to allow song and dance.

But even if evil had to exist for good to exist, it's still pretty moot. There is tons of unnecessary evil in the world, like earthquakes and tsunamis. You don't need to allow those to allow humans to be good and have free will.

Fucking shit. I guess I will ask you politely. What is pure truth?

The same as regular truth.

At 11/15/09 10:42 PM, FAtmat666 wrote: according to Drakim, the OP, he is in this thread "asking if God's authority, if he exists, really is that rock solid." My post gives my opinion on this. There is no god higher than god. If there was, the lower god would simply be an extension of the higher god, and knowledge would play no part.

What? Why? Why can't the lower God be a separated being? I mean, we humans seem capable of having our own agenda and not merely being an extension of something above. What if this higher God simply gave the lower God "free will"?

I don't think you have addressed this by merely saying "it's not possible". If you want to argue this, I want to hear a specific reason why the lesser God must be an extension of the true God.

At 11/15/09 05:37 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/15/09 05:35 PM, Al6200 wrote: 1. God is omnipotent.
2. God knows everything.
3. God doesn't know about something really tricky (i.e. a "higher" God).
4. Therefore God doesn't know everything.

1. God tells us he is omnipotent.
2. God tells us he knows everything.

It works now.

or alternatively,

1. God thinks he is omnipotent.
2. God thinks he knows everything.

At 11/15/09 11:41 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 11/15/09 09:43 AM, Drakim wrote: The interesting dilemma here is that the God of the world's religions does very much impose his will upon the universe, as it's his divine right. Kill those gay people! Persecute those Jews! Don't do shit on Sunday! You will burn in hell! But if God was actually not the highest power, but merely a puppet, then who is to say that what he does is right? Perhaps the true God is watching in concept as this fake God abuses his power akin to a dictator, causing harm and despair.

;;;
I for all my trying cannot see a dilema.
You (the religious) may THINK, god imposes his will upon the Universe...

Where did you get the idea that I'm religious?

I'm obviously talking about how various religions presents everything. Don't be gay. Why not? Because God says so! Religions needs to use God's authority to be able to impose their will upon people, and I'm in this thread asking if God's authority, if he exists, really is that rock solid.

At 11/15/09 11:56 AM, Worthless-Wisdom wrote: My first thought was a simple, god is stated as being all knowing, therefore he would know. He supposedly created this universe and everything in it. Before him there was nothing. Now there is the universe. He is the highest power. In that sense you can say he definitely is the highest power in this universe until proven otherwise.

The idea that god could be a puppet himself/herself/itself is quite intriguing. Because in our universe god also lives in a world of cause and effect. Things weren't just there, he had to create them for them to be. He created them, they were there. Cause and effect. If he lives in a universe of cause and effect he himself should start to wonder what created him for him to be?

But considering he is meant to be all knowing, he must have some insight that not everything is cause and effect and some things can just be, then he would for all intents and purposes know he is the highest power.

Before you counter with your argument that if he is not the highest power and he can be duped into thinking he knows he is I will say this. Surely then everything we 'know', we don't. Everything we think is certain actually isn't because there is the chance we are being duped into it. Even though we've had absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, the fact that that small chance exists that what we know is wrong, we should accept we don't know,

For example electricity. We learn how it works in school, all the top scientists accept that its all about switching electrons or whatever. The theory is sound. People have seen it to be true in experiments involving different materials, different voltages, different distances, blah blah blah etc. You or I could research into how electricity works, and afterwards we would know how it works. In our world as far as we are concerned, as far as we care, as far as we need, we know how it works.

But if theres the chance we're being led to believe thats how it works(even if there is absolutely nothing to suggest were being mislead), and actually something else is happening, then we cant say we know how it works and we should really consider it a theory. You could then say this for everything, and really, we don't know anything. If you get what I mean.

This is indeed a good point, however, I think there is one major difference. God, as various religions present him, meddles in the affairs of humans. He burns a bush here to impress some dude, he orders firstborns to be murdered there, he watches as a tsunami kills thousands. This is usually justified by saying that since he is God, he can do whatever he pleases. But this obviously wouldn't apply if there was actually a higher God above.

So, in comparison with your electricity example, there are actually possible consequences depending on what is true, while electricity doesn't care if we understand it or not.

At 11/15/09 04:35 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/14/09 08:35 AM, 4urentertainment wrote: Well, as religion states the point of life is test you.

You know. I also hear quite often that God is not testing, but rather preparing us - that he's not interesting in seeing if we can make it to heaven, but rather that he's interested in making us able to make it to heaven.

Once we take the bracket of "test" out of the equation it honestly makes more sense with regards to God's primarily interest: to be close to his children in as little a contrived manner as possible.

Except when he creates an earth which has the occasional mass murdering tsunami. Then the test thingy rather than "God just wants to love us" makes more sense. Hard to love somebody who watches you die as a result of his past actions.

Hey guys, I just want to tune in and say that:

1. All the people who are, as usual, posting off topic stuff
2. All the people who answers "God knows everything he would know"

...are complete idiots. Thank you for your time, now please remove yer arse from the topic so we adults can talk about this instead.

---

The interesting dilemma here is that the God of the world's religions does very much impose his will upon the universe, as it's his divine right. Kill those gay people! Persecute those Jews! Don't do shit on Sunday! You will burn in hell! But if God was actually not the highest power, but merely a puppet, then who is to say that what he does is right? Perhaps the true God is watching in concept as this fake God abuses his power akin to a dictator, causing harm and despair.

At 11/11/09 05:57 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: If there was a god, and if that god was omniscient, he/she/it would know whether or not they were the highest power. That's what being omniscient is all about; unlimited knowledge.

Think a little. All this higher God would have to do is convince the lower God that he is omniscient when he actually isn't.

At 11/11/09 06:39 PM, Chavic wrote: How can you explain creativity without free will?

Yes I can, I don't see a problem at all. I mean, fuck, there are birds who copies a number of other birds songs and makes a mix of them to impress the bird ladies.

Creativity is simply the usage of our intellect to combine old ideas and concepts into new ones. Despite what you might think, humans don't just pull ideas out of nowhere, all ideas are based on previous ideas and experiences.

At 11/11/09 10:52 AM, DeadSun wrote:

At 11/11/09 10:45 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Explain everything you just said as it didn't make sense. :)

Ok, what I mean when I said "The fact that you are asking this question proves free will." was that he asked that with no one else telling him to, and no other power telling him to.

Do you really have such a simplistic view of the environmental effects on people?

It was him alone that wanted to ask that question. It wasn't like some power made him ask. He had an idea for a question, it was his idea, and he decided to ask that question. By questioning free will you prove free will.

I don't agree. Non-free will beings can still invent a concept of "free will" and question it. You need to make a case for why a non-free will being would never ask this question.

And I shall prove free will once again by saying this...
I want a hotdog. Yum yum.

I don't think you really understand the whole free will debate. You seem to think that any intelligence is free will.

At 11/11/09 10:14 AM, DeadSun wrote: The fact that you are asking this question proves free will.

How so? Is it impossible for a robot to make a thread like this? I don't think you completely understand the dilemma that's presented with free will versus non-free will. I don't think we would notice if we didn't have free will in the manner you seem to imply.

At 11/10/09 09:18 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 11/10/09 06:14 PM, amaterasu wrote: Since when has this been the religion board anyway?

Are you kidding?

And yeah, God would know that he's the highest power, since he's omnipotent and all.

You aren't very good at thinking outside the box, are you?

It would be easy for the true God to make the fake God simply think he is omnipotent, by letting him have powers over everything in his little bobble.

Sorry for the oddly worded title, couldn't fit it all in, it's supposed to be "Can God know he is the highest power?"

So, assuming a personal God exists, as described by the Bible, or the Koran, would it be possible for said God to verify that he is the highest power? I mean, if there truly exists an omnipotent being, then it would be no big task for this being to make a fake good inside a little sandbox universe, and let this fake God have his own little genesis and create man and all that.

Or does God simply "have faith" that he is the one true God? What if the real God frowns upon the actions of his creation, creating a world with living creatures, and letting pain and suffering befall them?

At 11/10/09 11:18 AM, Chavic wrote:

At 11/10/09 09:51 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 11/10/09 09:28 AM, Chavic wrote:

At 10/17/09 10:20 PM, fatape wrote: I find alot of the problems with free will is the fact that we can't even agree to a definiton of free will to begin with.

lol, wouldn't this be evidence for free will?

Yes, definitely. Lack of evidence is evidence in itself. Makes total sense.

Wow, you are good at jumping to conclusions and making an douche of yourself. Did you even read my post? No one ever spoke of actual evidence. We can't agree on a definition. A diverse set of opinions seems to imply free, personal will. Since it can't be proven, we have opinions. How is my opinion any less valid than his?

Yes, but how is this actually evidence for free will? You said there was no evidence, but different opinions, which is evidence for free will somehow. It doesn't make sense, but I'm sorry if I interpitated it wrong. Please correct me by explaining in what way it's "evidence for free will", according to your words.

Are we automatons? No. Do we have free will? I'd like to think so.

So you base your opinion on free will soley on that you would want it to exist? Let me guess, you also believe there is heaven. : D

Yes, its an opinion. If you read my post you would see that free will could be argued both ways. There is no way to prove it currently. I never said I believed 100% in free will, merely that I would like that to be so. Are we as choice-less as a toaster? No.

Because you want us to be better than a toaster. That's your reasoning I'm getting now.

I don't believe in Heaven, way to make another assumption based on nothing.

If you read my post you'll see that I was guessing. And it's not a very far fetched guess since you believe in free will because you want there to be free will.

At 11/10/09 10:45 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 11/10/09 10:36 AM, Elfer wrote: The entire point being made by the OP is that he considers free will unprovable due to the nature of the concept. Simply saying there must be a way to prove it then asking someone else to come up with it isn't a point at all.

I don't think this is necessarily true. I mean, yes, it seems unprovable, but I still submit the best proof would be to set up a closed system with an actor who in a given state makes many different decisions proving there is indeed more than one optional outcome from any state of being and that the universe relies on multisets!

But how you would prove that is beyond me as its for all practical purposes impossible to create a closed system.

But that's like saying we can prove the existence of God by making a machine that detects God and tells us the result. The idea is utterly concept unless somebody can actually make such a machine, or in your case, make a closed system with an agent in.

At 11/10/09 09:28 AM, Chavic wrote:

At 10/17/09 10:20 PM, fatape wrote: I find alot of the problems with free will is the fact that we can't even agree to a definiton of free will to begin with.

lol, wouldn't this be evidence for free will?

Yes, definitely. Lack of evidence is evidence in itself. Makes total sense.

Are we automatons? No. Do we have free will? I'd like to think so.

So you base your opinion on free will soley on that you would want it to exist? Let me guess, you also believe there is heaven. : D

At 11/8/09 05:54 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: but by merely placing a stamp of approval which affirms that the product is of good quality, the individuals who invested in the rating organization now know which products to buy and which ones not to buy.

What would prevent me from putting the stamp on my product despite it not being approved?

At 11/6/09 10:10 AM, Drakim wrote: Nothing can ever be blamed on religion ever, it's untouchable.

There's google. Don't like what I wrote? Come up with something to refute it.

Wut, I hadn't even read your post while posting my post. It wasn't addressed to you

At 11/6/09 10:08 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/4/09 08:09 PM, Proteas wrote: Operation Iraqi Freedom; to date, 4,669 in Coalition losses, and about 1,033,000 Iraqi deaths because of increased turmoil in addition to military action. Total body count; 1,037,669 people.

Wait, Iraqi freedom? Wasn't that caused by Muslim extremism? And wasn't it influenced by Christianity? I mean, in the conflict in the Middle East, everyone is always saying that it's the fault of religion.

No, haven't you heard? Even when somebody suicide bombs civilians in the name of their God it doesn't count for religion because he was doing religion wrong. Nothing can ever be blamed on religion ever, it's untouchable.

At 11/5/09 03:08 PM, BlacklistBurned wrote: Simply put, Religion and Science are not on opposite ends of a spectrum

This is true, however, it's not how everybody sees it. The fact is that a large part of the american public absolutely hates and despises evolution, which is established science, strictly because of religion. Until things like this changes, there will always be a conflict of religion and science.

At 11/5/09 02:13 PM, poxpower wrote: My praying service would be far superior to yours.

No homo pox. I will be issuing prayer healing licenses for official prayer healing of officialness. You aren't getting one.

At 11/5/09 02:58 PM, Mar666 wrote: Ignorant??? Ibelieve in God, evolution, Boom-bang etc. My religion teaches me how to get into heaven (in language of science it means another dimension) and science teaches me how this world works.

I don't know if I would call you ignorant, but you definitly seem to be putting wish thinking on equal par with reality. You really want something to be true, so you have decided it must be true.

What question should I be asking Elfer in his "ITT: Elfer Fix Yo' Life" to make him have a giggle and improve his day a little?

At 11/5/09 12:13 PM, Memorize wrote: I like how the thread went from the atheist being a asshole-ish jerk in the example to the topic starter going "Yeah! I agree!".

wut, where?

At 11/4/09 09:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/09 09:19 PM, n00b0fcha0s wrote: ...unless the marmalade company hires mercenaries to kill you or something.

with what money?

can't pay mercenaries with bad marmalade.

Heh. I don't think we are so lucky that every company only sells one product and has to live on that. The marmalade company probably says cocain on the side, which brings it more than enough profit to beat up you punks.

But but, poxy, the free market is supposed to fix all problems! Government regulations always kills the market and...oh sorry...can't hear myself over the sound of the US economy collapsing.