Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

why does having a faith and science always have to be conflicting?

At 10/4/07 07:52 AM, Jonowales wrote: why does having a faith and science always have to be conflicting?

Because some people of faith often makes claims that collides with science. You know, such as the age of the earth, how the universe began, how live began, and so on.

And when it comes to a standoff, those people of faith cannot provide any valid evidence for their claims. But yet they aren't going to change their standpoint either, even when science "wins". Just look at the US today. Anybody can tell you that evolution is proven enough to be a valid scientific theory, but you won't see the majority of Christians in the US accepting evolution because of that.

Thus, the problem will never go away, and faith and science will collide.

But faith with evidence is not faith at all. If we could prove faith then it wouldn't be faith...

At 10/4/07 09:56 AM, Jonowales wrote: But faith with evidence is not faith at all. If we could prove faith then it wouldn't be faith...

I still don't see why exactly we should not only belive in things without evidence, but even praise it as a good thing. It just doesn't make any sense.

For example, I could have faith in murdering people to sent them free. Would this be a good thing since it is faith?

At 10/4/07 11:54 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 09:56 AM, Jonowales wrote: But faith with evidence is not faith at all. If we could prove faith then it wouldn't be faith...

I still don't see why exactly we should not only belive in things without evidence, but even praise it as a good thing. It just doesn't make any sense.

For example, I could have faith in murdering people to sent them free. Would this be a good thing since it is faith?

When did i say we should only believe in things we cannot see? I was just saying, My personal faith in God and what he has done through christ I am not looking to make evidence for, I cant explain it, how do you explain God? All i can say is that i have felt SO loved since becoming a christian it has totally and completely overwhelmed me, and that has changed me so much it can only be God.

Well quite obviously that wouldnt be a good thing. But i dont think putting your faith into random things is a good idea anyway.

At 9/22/07 08:40 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 9/22/07 06:47 PM, doomuser5 wrote: Hmmm..... you say religion isn't true right? Well do you have any proof?

I have evidence that certain interpretations aren't true.

Well let me ask you a few questions.

Shoot.

(1.Why do we have so many coal beds under the earth?)

Plants die and over a few eons they chemically transform into coal.

(2.Why are there so many fossils?)

Things die. A small few get buried in a proper manner so as to save the animals original structure.

(3.How old is the earth?)

Approximately 4.7 billion years. Though there is no set dividing date.

(4.What do scientists and creationists agree on micro or macro evolution?)

Well since micro and macro evolution are the same thing they ether agree on both or neither. As it currently stands creationist are being very deceitful and intellectually dishonest when they reject macro evolution yet still claim to agree with micro. They're the same fucking thing! The whole concept of evolution boils down to this "The change in Allele frequency over time", that's it.

Answers-1. Beacause of the Flood with Noah and the Ark becasue there had to be many groups of animals and plants dieing at that time to form so many coal beds under the earth.

Incorrect. First off coal beds don't from from animal remains, only plant life. Second off the amount of coal doesn't suggest a few generations of plants, it suggest hundreds of thousands at a minimum. You also have problems with oil formation, which takes millions of years not thousands!

I'm sorry but the entire field of geology is against the creationist model.

2. Like answer #1 many groups of animals had to die and to be buried quickly (Water buries stuff into grounds real fast like when your at the beach and shells get buried near the shore in the sand.).

Except is takes more then 10000 years to fossilize something. You also have the additional problems of how things get older (not smaller as hydrological sorting would suggest) as you go down the geologic column.

3. 10,000 years old (You scientists belive that its millions of years old to support your "evolution" theory of man evoled from monkey over millions of years and you say you measured the biocarbon in rocks and said the biocarbon was over millions of years old, well guess what? biocarbon was around even befor God created the world!)

WTF are you talking about? To date rocks we primarily use potassium argon dating, or argon argon dating. Carbon doesn't enter into it!

4. Micro evoulution is for example like this tiger,lion,cheathah,jaguar,cougar,bobcat ,etc like animals for one kind of species and macro evolution is like saying "mammals,reptiles,birds,amphibians,fish, etc all came form one tree!

Well since you know more about biology then me, perhaps you can explain the actually mechanism that keeps micro evolution from becoming macro. Because in all of biology there is nothing to stop such a shift.

Oh and you dont have the evidence to prove macro evoulution yall say Lizard + ? = Duck I mean that is so dumb how can yall belive in a man theory wich was made in 1800's when the bible was started 10,000 years ago by people choosen by God its plain logic to belive in God and not in man cause man is sinful.

...
Do I even need to comment on this?
*sigh* I guess I will.
You want evidence of evolution look at post on the previous page, the one with all the links in it. Pick one and read it.
The bible was not written 10000 years ago, but closer to 1700. See the council of nicea.
You have yet to prove or at lest proved valid evidence that the bible is the word of god. until you do what you've written here is irrelevant.

I think your a troll, I doubt your even a real creationist. The evidence you've just presented is just a large list of PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). If you are an actual creationist, then you need to wake up and pay attention in science class. Though the book cover you posted make me think the former rather then the latter.

so basicaly you don't believe in god or any religion mombo-jumbo? am I right?
---humanism has incorrect way of thinking..we didn't evolve from apes, infact they're is no real proof that we evolved from monkeys, and if you think bones count let me just sqash that right now. instead of taking in everything you hear and callin it truth, think for yourself, and ask your self how do they know those bones evovled from humans..... because are skullz look similar? huhh. All these scintific facts that try to disprove of things of the bible are just scentific guesses, and as the humans we are capable of mistake...so isn't possable, just maybe..we might be wrong. Know one thing. You might still feel the same way you do about religion after this..but one day god will put u too shame when he proves science wrong. No offence just speakin the truth; believe it or not friend.

At 10/4/07 11:54 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 09:56 AM, Jonowales wrote: But faith with evidence is not faith at all. If we could prove faith then it wouldn't be faith...

I still don't see why exactly we should not only belive in things without evidence, but even praise it as a good thing. It just doesn't make any sense.

For example, I could have faith in murdering people to sent them free. Would this be a good thing since it is faith?

lol your type crack me up, but I understand ur still trying to understand, first of all killing for any reason isn't considered faith because your setting them free, because to destroy life u didn't creat is wrong. Understand what faith is; (not being Bias) faith is believing in something that u feel is true, but can't prove it. Most of the time people like to believe what everyone else thinks so they don't look like the crazy one; its very hard for some 1 stand aginst a group by themselves. Faith is very hard not every person can handel believing in something they can't prove; thats just how we humans are, but if set your Master degrees, and science a side..U might actualy start to understand.

At 9/23/07 10:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

for some reason no one has yet realised that science does not put itself in a position where it attempts to conflict with religion.

Well I thought we had taken care of that on page 20 something, but it probably got lost somewhere along the lines.

This thread won't die for the exact reasons Proteas made it the Official Religion Thread on pg 12.

At 10/4/07 01:56 PM, Greggg586 wrote: we didn't evolve from apes,

No, no, you are right. We didn't evolve from apes. We ARE apes! Look at your hands and compare them to the shape of any other apes hands. Then compare their hands to the fins of a fish. It's clear we're much more closely related to apes than to fish. We don't really need fossil records to show that we're related to apes. Common sense and logical thinking do the trick just fine.

instead of taking in everything you hear and callin it truth,

Sounds like religion to me. Taking in what a book says and calling that truth. Science, however, searches for facts through experimentation and study. Get your facts straight and don't be such a hypocrite.

think for yourself, and ask your self how do they know those bones evovled from humans.....

Think for YOUR self and ask, "How do they know Jesus walked on water?"... because an ancient book says so?

because are skullz look similar?

Gradual changes in the skull structure over time do clearly demonstrate how evolution has occured. This can be backed up by dating the fossils, either by understanding how deep into the earth they came from and what time-period that indicates, or by carbon dating.
We also have the ability to do genetic testing and have discovered that the difference in DNA between humans and chimpanzees is around 2%. That may sound very small, but if you consider decimal point and the variety of species on Earth, it's a massive difference and it's logical to assume there could be others in between. "Missing-links", if you want to call them that, to our common ancestors.

All these scintific facts that try to disprove of things of the bible

Science doesn't try to disprove things from the bible. Science searches for the truths of the universe through testing and study.

are just scentific guesses,

Which are based on evidence.

and as the humans we are capable of mistake...

Indeed we are. We're also very logical creatures, though... Some of us anyway. Sometimes, we're afraid to admit our mistakes... *cough*religion*cough*

so isn't possable, just maybe..we might be wrong.

About evolution? Not likely. Seems like a very sensible idea to me... and to billions of other people.

but one day god will put u too shame when he proves science wrong.

How can science be proved wrong? Science is a technique... a study. In fact, the only way current science could possibly be proved wrong is by further scientific study.

just speakin the truth

Well we can certainly tell that isn't "the truth".

You have it in your mind that science goes against religion. Not true, that's just extreme religious propaganda. Many religious people are able to accept scientific teachings as well as maintaining their faith in a god.
Ponder on this: Perhaps evolution was part of God's immaculate design. Perhaps God created the laws of the universe and designed them to work in perfect harmony, like a beautiful symphony of quantum events and gravitational forces.
Wouldn't that be far more majestic than, "Poof! Earth!" and "Poof! Animals!" and "Poof! Mankind!"?

At 10/4/07 12:18 PM, Jonowales wrote: All i can say is I've been smoking tones of crack since becoming a christian it has totally and completely overwhelmed me, and that has changed me so much it can only be the drugs.

LOL

Anywho back to work. My couch has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

At 10/4/07 02:18 PM, Greggg586 wrote: lol your type crack me up, but I understand ur still trying to understand,

Thanks. :)
That you can take my post as part of a debate with interesting questions, instead of thinking of it as a bunch of attacks on your religion shows maturity. Some newgrounders go bananas the minute you question their beliefs as not being 100% true.

first of all killing for any reason isn't considered faith because your setting them free, because to destroy life u didn't creat is wrong.

And how do we decide which faith is wrong and which faith is right? We aren't allowed to use evidence, since that would destory the very reason for faith. Basicly, faith is whatever you want it to be, and is therefore not a very good thing. Your faith isn't anymore "real" than the faith of a mass murderer. It's just that you, from your own perspective, feel that it is more right, just like the mass murderer feels that his faith is right.

Understand what faith is; (not being Bias) faith is believing in something that u feel is true, but can't prove it.

What if somebody feels that racism is true? What if somebody feels that they are Napoleon? Why does your faith overrule theirs? To me, it sounds like you are saying your faith is better because that's just the way it is. No explanation or reason.

Most of the time people like to believe what everyone else thinks so they don't look like the crazy one; its very hard for some 1 stand aginst a group by themselves.

Since Christianity is the biggest religion in America (90% or so?), I can't exactly call it standing against a group. That sounds more like what an atheist faces. :p

Faith is very hard not every person can handel believing in something they can't prove; thats just how we humans are, but if set your Master degrees, and science a side..U might actualy start to understand.

Why should I need to set science aside?

You are going to have to explain it a bit better, because to me, I just heard something like this:
"If you just accept my word without questions or thinking at all, everything will be all right."

Personally, I feel faith is a trap. It is wish-thinking, which gives you a feeling of justification. And what you say only reinforces that image for me, unless you are able to provide a good reason for faith. Just saying faith is right because faith is right won't work. :/

At 10/4/07 03:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 10/4/07 12:18 PM, Jonowales wrote: All i can say is I've been smoking tones of crack since becoming a christian it has totally and completely overwhelmed me, and that has changed me so much it can only be the drugs.

LOL

Anywho back to work. My couch has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

Cruel edit, but that illustrates an important point. I had what could be called a religious experience when I smoked weed. Must have had quite a lot and I was out sitting on some rocks by the beach. Halfway up the cliff and directly above me was a rock that had "JESUS" painted on it. That's not important, it's just a coincidence.
So anyway, I was enjoying a quite powerful spliff. It was great weed. I was incredibly paranoid... But it was the kind of paranoid I kept going back to, just for the buzz weed was giving me as well. So, this one time, I'm smoking a spliff and just sitting there watching the sea. Suddenly but also quite gradually I felt a sort of climax to all of my paranoia. Just this one incredible buzz hit mean like my head was exploding. I was thinking, "Shit! Shit! This is God! What is happening?" Basically it was a moment of clarity and I was thinking what is this feeling? Quicker than the feeling had built up, it dissapeared and I came to a realisation, that feeling is life! It's my breathing, my heartbeat... It's my subconcious!
We know weed effects the brain. I even had mild hallucinations I smoked it so much. I know that my experience was drug-induced... It wasn't me tapping into a higher level or being one with God. It was just life viewed from a different perspective. A scary and mind-blowing perspective but that's what it was.
I had a fear of God for quite a while when I smoked weed. Mainly a fear that I was god and that everything was imaginary... That may still be true but I don't get paranoid anymore, because I quit smoking weed.
Although it may be true that all that exists is in my imagination, I know there are equally likely alternatives... Some of them make more sense too. So now that I've gotten rid of the paranoia, I can maintain a multitude of beliefs without selecting anything definate and withouyt the fear of God. I'm an agnostic. There may or may not be a God of some description and that's all I'll ever know in this lifetime.

At 10/4/07 02:58 PM, Schmut wrote: Ponder on this: Perhaps evolution was part of God's immaculate design. Perhaps God created the laws of the universe and designed them to work in perfect harmony, like a beautiful symphony of quantum events and gravitational forces.
Wouldn't that be far more majestic than, "Poof! Earth!" and "Poof! Animals!" and "Poof! Mankind!"?

Does how majestic something is change anything at all? Does a nice lie overrule a sad truth?

And besides, how exactly does one measure how majestic something is? It's not like there is an established scale for it. I could just say that I think a God created world would be the most ugly pointless thing ever, and I wouldn't be anymore wrong or right than you.

At 10/4/07 03:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
LOLlolz

Anywho back to work. my sister has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

my perception has changed... whats your point?

and great argument, comparing a couch to God, yeah step aside Plato...

At 10/4/07 03:50 PM, Jonowales wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
LOLlolz

Anywho back to work. my sister has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

my perception has changed... whats your point?

and great argument, comparing a couch to God, yeah step aside Plato...

He did bring up a valid point. You can't brush it aside without a response to why it isn't a good argument. >>

At 10/4/07 04:00 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:50 PM, Jonowales wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
LOLlolz

Anywho back to work. my sister has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

my perception has changed... whats your point?

and great argument, comparing a couch to God, yeah step aside Plato...

He did bring up a valid point. You can't brush it aside without a response to why it isn't a good argument. >>

Well you cant compare two things which are completely different... Its like trying to compare a wooden brick to askyscraper...

At 10/4/07 04:10 PM, Jonowales wrote:

At 10/4/07 04:00 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:50 PM, Jonowales wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:00 PM, Brick-top wrote:
LOLlolz

Anywho back to work. my sister has overwhelmed me, does that mean I have to worship it?

Lots of people say they feel God or that they know he's there or that he's changed their lives in some. Or it could simply be that your perception of everything around has changed.

my perception has changed... whats your point?

and great argument, comparing a couch to God, yeah step aside Plato...

He did bring up a valid point. You can't brush it aside without a response to why it isn't a good argument. >>

Well you cant compare two things which are completely different... Its like trying to compare a wooden brick to askyscraper...

Well, it wasn't the objects that was relevant, but the method of which he saw the objects.

I'll rephrase it. Somebody might say that they feel God is there. But, then, I might equaly say that I feel God isn't there. Who would be right? Doesn't this show that feelings can't be used for proof of something?

At 10/4/07 03:36 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 02:58 PM, Schmut wrote: Ponder on this: Perhaps evolution was part of God's immaculate design. Perhaps God created the laws of the universe and designed them to work in perfect harmony, like a beautiful symphony of quantum events and gravitational forces.
Wouldn't that be far more majestic than, "Poof! Earth!" and "Poof! Animals!" and "Poof! Mankind!"?

Does how majestic something is change anything at all?

No, I just feel that if a god existed, he'd be more subtle than, "Abra-Kadabra, Here's man. God, I'm good!"

Does a nice lie overrule a sad truth?

Not in the adult world.

And besides, how exactly does one measure how majestic something is?

True, that's down to personal opinions. That's why it's just something to ponder, specifically for that person I was replying to. Gregg... something... I wanted him to realise that science and religion weren't enemies. Or at least that science is not an enemy of religion, even though religion seems to feel threatened by it. It's like religion is a cornered kitten and science is a friendly child. Although, I wouldn't suggest that science were approaching religion to try and stroke it.

At 10/4/07 04:17 PM, Schmut wrote:

At 10/4/07 03:36 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 10/4/07 02:58 PM, Schmut wrote: Ponder on this: Perhaps evolution was part of God's immaculate design. Perhaps God created the laws of the universe and designed them to work in perfect harmony, like a beautiful symphony of quantum events and gravitational forces.
Wouldn't that be far more majestic than, "Poof! Earth!" and "Poof! Animals!" and "Poof! Mankind!"?

Does how majestic something is change anything at all?

No, I just feel that if a god existed, he'd be more subtle than, "Abra-Kadabra, Here's man. God, I'm good!"

Does a nice lie overrule a sad truth?

Not in the adult world.

And besides, how exactly does one measure how majestic something is?

True, that's down to personal opinions. That's why it's just something to ponder, specifically for that person I was replying to. Gregg... something... I wanted him to realise that science and religion weren't enemies. Or at least that science is not an enemy of religion, even though religion seems to feel threatened by it. It's like religion is a cornered kitten and science is a friendly child. Although, I wouldn't suggest that science were approaching religion to try and stroke it.

Hmm. Good analogy. However, I'm pretty sure the kid would leave the kitten alone if the kitten wouldn't go around claiming perfect knowledge of how the world started and condemning the kid to hell when he discovers something that doesn't fit in with the kitten's view. :p

At 10/4/07 01:56 PM, Greggg586 wrote: so basicaly you don't believe in god or any religion mombo-jumbo? am I right?

Well I wouldn't go so far as to say religion is mombo-jumbo, but yes you are correct I don't believe. However I fail to see how my religious belief structure is relevant; In the end I'm a scientists first and an atheist second.

---humanism has incorrect way of thinking..we didn't evolve from apes, infact they're is no real proof that we evolved from monkeys, and if you think bones count let me just sqash that right now.

Bones as well as fossils are only part of the the evidence for evolution. They're a substantial part yes, but not all of it. Hell I'd go so far as to say genetics is an equally strong if not more so indicator of evolutionary decent.

instead of taking in everything you hear and callin it truth, think for yourself, and ask your self how do they know those bones evovled from humans..... because are skullz look similar?

I have, and continue to do so. I don't think you fully understand the theory of evolution, or the massive amount of evidence in favor of it. It's more then just similar skull types, it that the skull and bones couldn't have come from the same animal, and yet they are very similar. The show a clear trend from ape like human like over time. Then there's things like DNA markers, endogenous retroviral sequinces, etc... If your actually interested in learning then I recommend going back to page 74, about midway down, you'll see a post whit a small number of links at the bottom. This is a very, very, small amount of evidence that exist which is not only in favor of evolution but demanding of it.

huhh. All these scintific facts that try to disprove of things of the bible are just scentific guesses, and as the humans we are capable of mistake...

Science doesn't exist or try to disprove the bible wrong. Additionally we don't make "scientific guesses" in science. We look for evidence, we then attempt to quantify said evidence, and then we develop a model that fits with the evidence and is capable of predicting future evidence. While me may guess initial inside of the lab, as soon as we do we check it to see if it's right. If it doesn't fit we throw out our guess and try again. It's nothing like what your insinuating, and if these are just guesses then why can we find oil with them, but not with out? Why can we isolate genetic anomalies and treat them? Etc...

so isn't possable, just maybe..we might be wrong.

Of course, we're wrong all the time; however, the current theory as it stands, predicts everything we see in the biological world. It's backed up by quite literally millions, if not billions of pieces of evidence. Even if we do find something that doesn't fit, it extremely unlikely that our theory as a whole is wrong, and is simply in need of fine tunning.

Know one thing. You might still feel the same way you do about religion after this..

I doubt that, simply because I believe religion is a cultural hold over from before man understood any thing about the world.

but one day god will put u too shame when he proves science wrong. No offence just speakin the truth; believe it or not friend.

Your speaking your version of the truth, you don't know that will happen, and you can't be sure that your truth is the correct one. You may believe it, but with out evidence it means nothing. God very well may not exist, and if he doesn't or if he is different then what happens? At best you would have wasted part of this life believing and worshiping that which doesn't exist or care, at worst you get sent to hell for believing the wrong thing.

Please believe what you want, preach what you want, but remember this, if your use any modern medical technology, hell if you even fill up your car with gas, you become a hypocrite. You see the entire modern world is built on the same theories you fight against, using them and then denouncing them in the next breath is, well hypocritical.

At 10/4/07 05:41 PM, CHRlST wrote: I am quite sick of everyone depending on science to prove religions wrong, look at the history! There is proof that Jesus may have never even existed at all because only 1 out of 14 or 15 historians around the time he "lived" wrote about him and it was very brief, maybe a sentence or two..and that's it! There is other happenings such as this I am sure, but I can only remember that one.

1) Why would a Historian write about current events?

2) The Romans certanly knew about him, its sort of hard to have sombody that doesnt exsist exicuted.

We can and do learn many things from the past...not just from science is all knowledge obtained.

What exactly is your point?

At 10/4/07 09:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: 2) The Romans certanly knew about him, its sort of hard to have sombody that doesnt exsist exicuted.

though they weren't to impressed by him as they focus very little on him.

At 10/4/07 10:56 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/4/07 09:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: 2) The Romans certanly knew about him, its sort of hard to have sombody that doesnt exsist exicuted.

though they weren't to impressed by him as they focus very little on him.

and that proves...?

At 10/5/07 10:07 AM, Jonowales wrote:

At 10/4/07 10:56 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 10/4/07 09:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: 2) The Romans certanly knew about him, its sort of hard to have sombody that doesnt exsist exicuted.

though they weren't to impressed by him as they focus very little on him.

and that proves...?

;
It proves nothing conclusively, but if Jesus had hundreds , some times thousands of people coming to see him & hear him speak. I believe the Romans would definately taken notice.
When they took control of an area, they were serious about it.
They kept very good records. With someone that supposedly was influencing hundreds of people, its hard to believe that they did not, take note of him.
The lack of any real remarks about him at the time, probably means he wasn't remarkable enough to take note of, ie; he was an 'invention' of the early church.

Not that I'm Religious at all, but I find this quote to be quite appropriate.

"If a beliver in god is right, he goes to heaven, if he is wrong, he goes in the ground.
If a non-beliver is right, he goes in the ground, if he is wrong he goes to hell".

So really, atheists are at a disadvantage, as we don't get anything out of it. Where as religious people have a 50:50 chance of getting something good out of it.

Still not going to change me though :P

At 10/5/07 11:18 AM, urbn wrote: Not that I'm Religious at all, but I find this quote to be quite appropriate.

"If a beliver in god is right, he goes to heaven, if he is wrong, he goes in the ground.
If a non-beliver is right, he goes in the ground, if he is wrong he goes to hell".

So really, atheists are at a disadvantage, as we don't get anything out of it. Where as religious people have a 50:50 chance of getting something good out of it.

Still not going to change me though :P

That is called pascals wager, and is a big fallacy.

First of all, I would definitely say that the the believer would lose something should he turn out to be wrong. I mean, he has devoted his life to a lie!

Secondly, there isn't just one religion. The believer might be of the wrong religion, and go to hell anyway. We don't even know if the correct religion exists. So, even if there was 6000 different religions, you couldn't even say that there was a 1:6000 chance to be right.

Thirdly, if there is a God, we don't know what he wants. Perhaps he will reward atheist and punish believers? Perhaps he absolutely hates blind faith, but favors those who are sceptical?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wa ger'

At 10/4/07 09:14 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

2) The Romans certanly knew about him, its sort of hard to have sombody that doesnt exsist exicuted.

Well, we don't know that for sure. There are only three non-Christian sources from the century of Jesus' birth, that could talk about Jesus. Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius. Josephus writings are suspected to have been altered by Christians afterwards, and Tacitus' source is possibly Pontius Pilatus (and also Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus, just Christus, which is Hebrew "for Messiah"). Suetonius was born 30 years after the presumed death of Jesus, and writes about how jews were expelled from Rome for helping "Chrestus". However, Chrestus is also a hebrew word for slave, and at the time there had been some controversy over jews protecting slaves, which led to people getting expelled from Rome, so he likely is referring to this.

At 10/5/07 11:18 AM, urbn wrote: Where as religious people have a 50:50 chance of getting something good out of it.

Woah, where the hell did you get that number? How do you estimate that the probability of God existing is 50:50?

Even if this was the case, you still have to take into account the fact that people's religious beliefs are very, very specific. Therefore, the chances of a particular religion being the right one, are infinitely small. Plus you can create loopholes around your argument by saying "Well what if the real God only lets atheists go to Heaven?" It sounds absurd, but you can't disprove it, nor can you prove that this kind of God is less likely to exist than a God who rewards just those loyal to him. Thus it cannot be said that religious people have "better chances" or anything.

I always liked the Idea that nomatter what you believe in, as long as you are good, you get into heaven and/or get reincarnated with a better life.

But then again it might be that whatever you believe is what will happen to you, so a christian would go to heaven, a Buhdist will get reincarnated, and an atheist would get deleted.

Id rather go to hell than get deleted, at least in hell we can become evil minions of satan.

At 10/5/07 12:57 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: I always liked the Idea that nomatter what you believe in, as long as you are good, you get into heaven and/or get reincarnated with a better life.

But then again it might be that whatever you believe is what will happen to you, so a christian would go to heaven, a Buhdist will get reincarnated, and an atheist would get deleted.

Id rather go to hell than get deleted, at least in hell we can become evil minions of satan.

Uhm, from what I've heard, Christians mostly think that you suffer forever in complete pain, and the flames never end. The minion thing sounds awesome though. ^^

However, I can blow your theory away like a leaf with one single argument. I'll make this my belief in afterlife: "When I die, I come back to life superman, with enough power to control the earth!". Obviously, if you really could pick your afterlife, somebody would have done something we could have seen by now.

And personally? Sure, eternal life in the afterlife sounds nice, but the void isn't as bad as people think it is. It's not like you are there to experience being dead or anything. You can't miss your relatives that went to hell or something like that because there is no such thing as sorrow anymore.