Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/22/06 11:03 AM, airraid81 wrote:
I would say Christian just because it is probably the largest religion among users. You can't tell what religion someone is by what they say in an arguement in forums.

Yes, it can be tough discerning, especially online, what established religion one chooses to follow.

I was raised united methodist (christian) by my mother and the church community. However, my father holds a somewhat unique view on God and Faith. He doesn't believe one must attend and congregate to worship a higher power, but that the relationship is strictly a personal one. That's not to say worshipping with others is any less spiritual (in fact, part of being christian is about sharing the Word with others), but it lent me a different perspective on both faith as a concept and religion as an institution designed (hopefully) to make that message understandable to others, and to rejoice in it's lovely success.

When you hear someone trying to relate their own spirituality (motivations behind decisive actions, life after death, judgement, etc) how do you relate yours to them? Can you exchange your rationality for being an atheist, on a personal, community, and global level?

At 11/22/06 10:46 AM, airraid81 wrote: I believe you, but that would mean that god is your conscience and most people have a conscience. You don't need to believe in religion to have a consciencse. I'm athiest, but I still try to be fair and just and all.

Now, about the definition of faith. When you put it into the context of this religious debate, "faith" refers to religionous fiath. Obviously I have faith in myself, but this thread is about relgion.

I'm an athiest also but I am compelled to say this. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in god. If he is real then he is real and we all go to hell. If he isn't real then he isn't real and nobody goes anywhere. Personaly I believe in reincarnation.

The thing is, in my opinion, whether or not the Abrahamic view of "God" is real or not is somewhat irrelevant, what is more relevant is whether or not this amoral, contradictory being should be worshipped, for me it has to be a no as a vindictive being who descriminates against people for idiotic reasons of not following a certain faith is not worthy of worship at all.

Anyway, judging from what what LazyDrunk has said as to do with the definition of "God"

For the sake of simplicity, think of God as the good little angel on your right shoulder telling you not to lie, cheat and steal, despite your base instinct to survive.

what "god" tends to be is psychological processes in the human mind. Just think, if "God" is the "little angel" that tells you to do good then all god is is the conscience or superego which is formed when the id (which is the primitive pleasure seeking part of our mind) is in conflict with the ego (which is societies requirements of us). Why exactly do we need to view this as being a supreme, infallible being when obviously our own conscience is not absolute?

Why can't we just stop and marvel at the human mind instead of trying to bow down before the personification of the conflict between psychological processes?

At 11/22/06 10:01 AM, StealthSteve wrote: "Rape her > Don't rape her?" What a stupid and cynical response.

Almost as bad as the formula that created it.

Now you go ahead and arbitrarily take 60+ books out of the library and explain to me why you think it would be a bad idea to read each differently -- taking into account the period it was written-in, the authorship, the content and subject matter, and the message contained within.

I don't doubt that the bible has a little "personality" when it comes to so many stories of morality, but if they're putting it into a book that has the theme of religion, containing one of the fundamentals of "putting yourself before others", I'm not too sure if stories of men leaving god and being ok with it aren't going to make it's way into the final draft.

Time period isn't important because the story is intended for anyone at any time.
Authorship only gives reference to the article, and how authentic it might be.
Content, subject and message are all apart of the plot-theme, which leads the reader up to the whole point of the story.

Even though you do have a point, it all depends on what it is you decide to just take. In our case, if you take what you want from the bible and add it to the stew of other things you've taken from your parents, idols, then you'd most likely have an average Joe, he applauds selflessness. A sort of abomination. If he's willing to take things from the bible then it says a lot about his morality and standards.

Maybe you can explain to me the detriment of putting more value in some books than others after reading what they have to say.

Well, you make your points and conclusions after you're done reading something. I'd hate to have to be half way through a fantastic novel about individualism and then he's crushed by society and becomes a neo nazi. "It was a fantastic book up until the last parts, where he realizes individualism has nothing on becoming apart of communism".

Sure, I can borrow the first part and use it in my life, but it depends on what until it eventually leads me to the revelation of becoming a communist.

A fictional novel is more memorable if it teaches you something, and it sticks if it applies to you. You've heard about books and movies and people "changing my life", it just takes time to apply those ideals, and if they make you happy.

Of course, a religious individual will say they're happy, but more often then not they're just lying, disillusioned from being pushed along the conveyer belt.

They each have a different level of "interpretational capability" due to their backgrounds.

Yep.

You're going off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I see plenty of connections. Desperate individuals will grasp to anything, it's typically in high school they're tested most, and when they'll say "I didn't realize I loved god until...".

You asserting that people who take what they want from the Bible is even worse than those that take the entire thing the same would make me think you either DID hear about it from other people (and not the professional mathematician/theological scholar kind either) or you just don't have much experience or familiarity with it in general.

It varies. If nobody is willing to be devote to follow their god and their bible, then it shouldn't be a problem that I'm hearing it from other people, what you're accusing me of only promotes that establishments like Churches are useless in actually "bringing people together under god", and making people feel less guilty that they aren't devote.

"Hi, I'm 1/4th (specified concepts from scriptures of the bible) God loving, 2/4ths Athiest and 1/4th Agnostic! I only use god when I feel like I need him, everything else is my daily life."

I mean... you think it's wrong to place more value on some parts of the Bible than others?

It depends on the person. A scholar in church might preach about various subjects and use scriptures from the bible, but those are only momentary instances. It's what the average Joe decides what's important for his life, and how stable he is in determining whether or not it works. Any religious individuals understands the universal concept of "selflessness".

placing value only on that which other people tell you is valuable?

Hey, that's your society. I've personally never followed a scripture from the bible.

The mistake is in people thinking that spirituality is a product of religion instead of being its source.

Spirituality is a concept many use to explain, "how I understand something deeper then words can describe", that feeling when you've ascertained an incredible amount of information and something pops in you and you realize the whole things and how it works.

The next step is how that information you understand deeply affects your life.

that doesn't mean the various religions are incapable of giving you a valuable perspective into what Truth is.

Even if they mislead you entirely?

Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

But then an artificial creation of man (geometry) would be perfect. Can't have that! The real universe can't actually have a circle or sphere, only what appears to be one from sufficient distance.

At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

I never understood what that Pi crap was about, anyway. Why use 3.141593653589251649824 to measure the area of a circle instead of 3 ?

Solution: There is no way to prove that God doesnt exist (as stated before). There is no way to prove his existance (as stated before). Why does he make complex things? Who knows. Is evolution real? Micro = proven; Macro = so far myth. Any arguement on either side leads to an endless and pointless quarrel. Why must men be so adament to disprove the existance of a god? Countless resources have been wasted to fund this research, although most research is pointless. If there is no god, then resources have been wasted for naught. If there is a god, then he cannot be disproven, except by men trying to gain a buck by doing something pointless.

All I want to know is why an all knowing being would be prejudiced against natural urges. I somewhat believe in a creator somewhat but, I do not believe in the st1gma that has been attached.

Cereals erelevant theory ony afterlife:

Imagine an animal running from a predator, trying to fight for its life, its their instinct. The animal is human, and the predator is death, humans always want to fight for life, its their nature. So by creating life after death they've made the ultimate way to escape their predator.

At 11/23/06 04:09 AM, Cereal wrote:

you're an idiot

While I haven't made an attempt to survey prominent thinkers on the opposing sides of the debate over the existence of God, it would surprise me to learn of credible theologians or philosophers claiming to have proved that there is no God. By the terms laid down by thinkers like Pascal, God is immaterial and inaccessible save through revelation, and so long as such a conception prevails, the believers' God remains safe from disproof behind his hypothetical fortress as would any inaccessible entity, even without the advantage of immateriality. Personally, I take both atheism and theism to be problematic, the latter carrying the ontological baggage of a creator whose origin yields a vicious regress, and the former leaving one to accept creatio ex nihilio (creation from nothing).

At 11/23/06 03:50 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

I never understood what that Pi crap was about, anyway. Why use 3.141593653589251649824 to measure the area of a circle instead of 3 ?

Because the area is not something we define. The ratio of the diameter to the circumference of any circle is pi. It is mathematically defined. It just so happens that there is no exact ratio, so pi is endless.

At 11/22/06 12:14 AM, airraid81 wrote: Prove the God doesn't exist? Why don't you prove that he does?! You can't put so much stock into something that you can't prove! I bet you can't disprove that I'm god. Pray to me then. You can't prove that I'm not god.

Exactly. Why do they say God exists when they have no proof what so ever.

I challenge god to a duel for the supreme overlord of the universe. And if he doesnt answer in the next 2 minutes I win by default.

2 minutes later....

I WIN. Now I'll have to ignore all my peoples preyers and send my only child to die on Earth full of horrible people.

At 11/22/06 12:00 PM, beardofchuck wrote:

I'm an athiest also but I am compelled to say this. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe in god. If he is real then he is real and we all go to hell. If he isn't real then he isn't real and nobody goes anywhere.

Unless you are Pat Robertson than that argument is BS. The definition of "god" that most people subscribe to would be that god just wants you to be a good person, and that he wouldn't send you to hell simply for not believing. Secondly, this brings up the question of which god to believe in? Extremist Christians will tell you that you go to hell if you aren't Christian while extremist Muslims will tell you that you don't go to heaven unless you are Muslim.

At 11/23/06 03:03 PM, scottish-cunt wrote:

I challenge god to a duel for the supreme overlord of the universe. And if he doesnt answer in the next 2 minutes I win by default.

2 minutes later....

I WIN

He cares for you to much to kill you, believe it or not.

This will probably be ignored, but I wish people would look at it.

Athiesm is, of course, a total disbelief in God. Some are lazy and go "I dont phht, whatever." Others make an effort to get everyone out of some sort of "delusion".

The point is really, athiest or no, more and more people are finding out that they don't need God in their lives. They are perfectly fine going day by day living their lives. They can believe if they want or not, but people still want to make their own choices. People can say, "Oh I believe in a God." Then be asked how many times they go to Church and the last time they went was Easter.

In a way they are technically winning in that which some churches and leaders are leading people into irrational thought. While I am a Christian myself it pains me to see so much anger and seperation in this world. Lines are being broken down and crosses more and more and it always frustrates me to no end.

No one can stand up and say, "I KNOW GOD DOESN'T EXSIST!" if you do then you are wrong and you need to sit down. Same way goes the other way around. Its a belief really. A feeling from both sides that they get in logic, thought, and experiance.

It constantly annoys me whenever I see these arguments because I am wondering where one is.

Do you honestly want to change the world? Make it a Utopia when religion is out of the picture or if everyone is following Jesus? I know as a Christian you can tell people about your religion and I sure as hell know we should be able to openly talk about it without anyone getting offended. I just want to know instances where "throat forcing of the bible" happens. Vice versa as well for athiesm.

I know an athiest and he doesn't even have the effort to believe in a religion let alone complain about it.

You said that you are annoyed when athiests say "I KNOW GOD DOESN'T EXIST!"
Well, what about when Christians say "I KNOW GOD DOES EXIST!" like the starter of this thread. Not that I'm offended. I just like to argue, but if you can get offended by the first example, than you shouldn't get mad if someone gets offended by the second.

Chaos theory is the theory that in non-linear dynamical systems (thanks wiki) the behaviour of a system can be predicted to be chaotic. You can't predict the actual behaviour, only that it is going to be appear completely random. Within the chaotic behaviour however, are areas where chaos does not exist, order within chaos as they say. It is only in that sense that chaos is predictable.

With the bouncing ball theory, it is actually possible to predict where the ball will land but only under perfect, ideal conditions. No air resistance etc etc because then there are only a few, definable and calculable variables. Just thought I'd clear that up.

As to the original topic of atheism and religion, religion is losing a battle with science, and facts. Over history, religious orders (particularly Christianity) have slowly recanted on many fundamental ideas. As the bishops of this era claimed that they spoke "directly to God" they have clearly been proved liars historically. eg. "God told me that the Earth is flat." Oh really? "God told me that if you pay me 1000 gold pieces he can guarantee a place in heaven for you." Oh wow what a great deal! Therefore, it is clear that organized religion is at the very least, prone to corruption and at the worst, a thin veil covering a whole lot of secrets explainable by science.

I personally believe that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by science and experimentation, given enough time and thought. Religion is simply the easy way out, "the Big Band occurred because God made it" just doesn't cut it with me.

At 11/24/06 12:35 AM, airraid81 wrote: I just like to argue, but if you can get offended by the first example, than you shouldn't get mad if someone gets offended by the second.

Same way goes the other way around.

Try reading more carefully.

At 11/23/06 12:12 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 11/23/06 03:50 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 11/22/06 09:58 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote:

Maybe if God existed Pi wouldn't be a number caculable to a million decimal places but would be something more "common sense" like 3.0

But then an artificial creation of man (geometry) would be perfect. Can't have that!
Because the area is not something we define. It is mathematically defined. It just so happens that there is no exact ratio, so pi is endless.

Ok, of the many branches of mathematics (creation of man) the one most commonly used as a basis to understand the universe is called theoretical astrophysics. In the man-made realm of number chrunching, and human abstract constucts, astrophysicists rule supreme.

Astrophysicists (grounded in science) are generally characterised by the athiest belief that "To know the Universe is to know God's plan". Counter this with theological types (eg. Priests) who would say "Leave it to God, He knows what He's doing!"

There is however a remarkably small (and underfunded i might add) subset of mathematicians who straddle both the theological as well as the theoretical fences who are characterised by the idea "If God made the Universe, He must have left evidence of His Magnificent Creation" (like an artist who signs their paintings).

At 11/24/06 01:46 AM, turtolMiG wrote: Chaos theory is the theory that in non-linear dynamical systems the behaviour of a system can be predicted to be chaotic. You can't predict the actual behaviour, only that it is going to be appear completely random.

This, on the face of it, sounds like an adequate explanation for the randomness of the decimals of Pi. It could also be that our decimal (10-fingered-ness) mucks things up, in that there's perhaps a "truer" number-system which fits with geometrical perfection, and fulfills our desire for a Perfect Universe reflective of it's Perfect Creator.

Consider then, now that we're thinking of number systems as a mere language expressing "What Really Is" from "What Should Be", we can now start to see an odd correlation between, say, S.E.T.I. researchers (looking for messages in otherwise random cosmic radiowaves), and our rarest breed of people (theological mathmeticians) who seek to find order out of chaos by spending apparently fruitless long hours searching for God's Ultimate Message in the endless decimals of Pi.

I never understood what that Pi crap was about, anyway.

;O)

oops..

... not ... "What Should Be" ... but ... "What It Appears To Be"

At 11/24/06 12:16 AM, Steel-Reserve wrote:

At 11/23/06 03:03 PM, scottish-cunt wrote:

I challenge god to a duel for the supreme overlord of the universe. And if he doesnt answer in the next 2 minutes I win by default.

2 minutes later....

I WIN

He cares for you to much to kill you, believe it or not.

Sure he does. And i care about magic fairies and go to my happy place

At 11/24/06 04:59 PM, sacredshade wrote: its realy quit simple. god is like santa claus lots of ppl are told he exists but when exposed to critical thought its obvious that he dosnt. the reason pure and simple is that theres nothing to say that god does exist ergo you cant aply god to any sort of logical procces. the only way to define god is thru a psychological means.

ssshhhh. Dont say something like that.

A lot of these people still believe in santa. lol

OH JESUS CHRIST, WE PRAISE THEE. FOR US YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR LIFE, AND WE ARE ETERNALLY GRATEFUL!

i think to understand religion we must first know history so it would be best to study all religions from newest to oldest and you will start to notice a trend in all of them- all religions are fundamentaly the same the christian religion is almost an exact copy of the ancient egyption one just different names and only one god so this tells me you could probably follow a chain of copy cats all the way to the verry first religion the original wich would have not been just derived and slightly changed would have to be the correct religion-or-religion itself is all an elaborate hoax of lies used to control people keep them on the side of wich ever political force diceded to take advatage of the human desire to know the answer to the question why are we here if you think about it you'd see how easy it would be to convice gulable primitive people of these lies but then of cours comes the question if only those primitive people would have been suseptible to this lie then why hasent socciety in general figured it all uot yet simple answer as a child your parents speak to you of god they tell you he loves you and that he is always watching as there parents told them and in time you begin to belive the story and love god back after you love it you'l belive almost anything the church says in support of this theory i bring up the point that most religios people come from familys of the same religion and those who convert later in life to a new religion from their old one tend to be faceing trouble when church reaches out and helps them they feel loved after they feel loved they start to love in return just like the children being told of religion from there parents

The proof that god does not get any clearer (which still is not very clear)

God could not have created himself.

Prove that he does exist

At 12/9/06 09:46 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Prove that he does exist

Just think it would be fun to try the other side for once. :)

Eternity as we know it only goes as far as the big bang and into the unknown. What came before the big bang may not have applied the same laws of logic as we hold now.

At 12/11/06 03:07 AM, EKublai wrote:

At 12/9/06 09:46 AM, cold-as-hell wrote: Prove that he does exist

Just think it would be fun to try the other side for once. :)

But that's not "the other side." It's always believers demanding that non-believers disprove their deity, since the believers have created a foundation of "truth" based on non-proof, and they even brag about their lack of proof. It is always the other people, the ones who want proof, who are burdened with disproving something which should even be assumed in the first place.

Yep, this is similar to the consideration for the position of sainthood..

"one miracle that can be traced to him/her before he/she can be beatified a saint. They need a second miracle to be canonized a saint."

..it's not a miracle if you can simply explain it scientifically, but if you can't explain it scientifically, then you've got a strong contender for a miracle.

Likewise, by the time you're able to prove God exists (meet Him in the street and shake hands with Him kind of proof) then he's no longer a God, but an Alien with magical powers.