Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 247

Thread: Religions - Your Opinion

  1. #211
    I do what you can't. Religions - Your Opinion Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Here and there
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by M16 View Post
    The same questions you ask of evolutionism can be asked to attempt to disprove your creationism. How did this god form? How did this god create the universe? Where did this god come from?
    The difference -- huge difference -- is that none of that would "disprove" Creationism.

    I've tried to explain this many times to many people before. Creationism requires a supernatural being with supernatural power. It's obvious. Of course, right? It's the theory that God (supernatural) used His powers (supernatural) to create everything we know (natural). It makes sense for a supernatural being to have supernatural powers.

    Evolutionism, on the other hand -- especially if the Big Bang is included -- attributes supernatural powers to supposedly natural foundations, mainly nature itself. There has never been any evidence of any of the larger moves taken as fact in Evolutionism -- not only the animation of matter itself, but the graduation of unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms, or the move between sea-dwelling and land-dwelling organisms.

    Not to mention, of course, the simple yet unanswerable (to Evolutionism) question of, "Why didn't organisms in the same environment evolve into the same final family of organisms?" You try to relate it to dogs, and of course dogs would make sense with Evolutionism -- a dog from Siberia and a dog from central Africa wouldn't need or want to be the same. But that's conveniently bypassing the fact that creatures in the same relative location still split into thousands of different organisms. If Evolutionism were true, there would have been no need for humans and apes to evolve anywhere near each other, because if they were in the same environment, they would have either all evolved into humans or all evolved into apes.

    And you seem to have answers to everything, but nothing to back you up. Do you have anything other than "you're wrong because I say so"?

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by OnOneRyder View Post
    I can't stand the fact that creationist use science to attempt to disprove evolution and the big bang yet completey ignore known scientific laws when refering to their gods work. If they followed the same laws that we all do there would be no doubt that creationism is pure garbage.
    When Evolutionism starts following the laws of nature, you can start bitching about how Creation doesn't. Until then, concentrate on the plank in your own eye.
    Last edited by Sasquatch; 01-10-2010 at 10:02 AM.

    Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.


    Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
    John 15:13

  2. #212
    What I'm saying isn't just "I told you so." I'm providing you with reasoning behind my statements. It is no fault of my own if you refuse to pay it any attention.

    Why didn't organisms in the same environment evolve into the same final family of organisms?...If Evolutionism were true, there would have been no need for humans and apes to evolve anywhere near each other, because if they were in the same environment, they would have either all evolved into humans or all evolved into apes.
    For starters, there is no reason why every evolution would be entirely linear. No one has argued that it has been or should be. There's no reason for me to try to defend this. This says the same thing for apes and humans evolving near each other. First off, I'm not sure of what this means. If you meant in close proximity to each other, then again, there's no reason why they should all evolve and not leave some behind. Just because humans are more fit to survive than apes in some areas, that does not mean the exact opposite in other areas.

    Your arguments for the loopholes of Evolutionism aren't really founded on anything, either. So for you to say that Evolutionism is unfounded and follow it up with those arguments does not prove anything.

    In regard to the very first part of your post, while you may try to explain to people that "supernatural beings have supernatural powers," that, too, is not evidence of anything. That is just you, or anyone else using this excuse, saying that you have no logical evidence of why things are the way they are. All you do with this is show that you believe in fairy tales.
    Last edited by M16; 01-10-2010 at 03:01 PM.

  3. #213
    #LOCKE4GOD Religions - Your Opinion Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,917
    Blog Entries
    59
    I'm sorry to wade in here, but I just noticed this and thought it was silly.

    In regard to the very first part of your post, while you may try to explain to people that "supernatural beings have supernatural powers," that, too, is not evidence of anything. That is just you, or anyone else using this excuse, saying that you have no logical evidence of why things are the way they are. All you do with this is show that you believe in fairy tales.
    As for the Big Bang, there are more scientists these days that refuse to believe it just came from nowhere. One of the most accepted theories is that the Big Bang occurred from a previous reaction, and that the birth/destruction of the universe (as we know it) is all part of a large loop which continues to repeat itself. This is nearly impossible to test or prove, so more faith is required for this belief than a belief in a God.
    I'm of the belief - to bastardise my opinion - that 'God created the big bang and had some sort of hand in evolution'. I'm no biologist, and creationism barely gets any air time, but evolution seems far more logical. And I don't see how it is in anyway anti-religion. Unless you read Genesis literally. Which is sillier than the above comments, because it was - for hundreds and thousands of years - passed verbally. To assume that it is a literal record of creation is to say that writing has always existed. It hasn't.

    The most important thing to remember in all this is that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that evolution works by gradation. If you decided to count from one to 4,600,000,000, it would take longer than your entire life. For all practical purposes, time here has been infinite. If you dispute this, take a look at a hill made of mudstone. Look at a road cutting. Count the layers. Recognise that each layer is compressed immensely, and took many many years to form. Measure a single layer. <1mm? Probably. How big is the hill? Let's say it is 250 metres. 10 mm to a cm, 100 cm to a metre, that's 1000 mm to a single metre. That hill, therefore, is at least 250,000 years old.* Sounds like too much? That's because we're ignoring other factors, such as tectonic uplift (which takes thousands of years anyway, but would speed this measurement). Creationism = maybe, but young earth creationsim = ridiculous.

    *Note that this is illustrating a principle. One cannot just look at layers in a hill and perform the same analysis I just did. The rates of sedimentation and compaction have and do vary. It's just illustrative of the fact that the Earth simply CANNOT be 6000 years old.

    EDIT: Oh, and how's these?

    Mega Meteor Impacts - Researchers have found dozens of meteor-impact craters that are so large they would have profoundly affected the earth's climate. One crater in Northern Canada is around 60 miles wide. A giant meteor that struck the Mexican Yucatan Peninsula is blamed for causing one of the largest mass extinctions of dinosaurs. It's inconceivable that the biblical writers could have missed reporting an event that would have blanketed the globe with a choking blizzard of ash.

    Super Volcanoes - Several of the earth's volcanoes periodically have erupted with a force so massive in scale, they would dwarf any eruption that modern man has ever witnessed. The Toba Caldera on the island of Sumatra once exploded with a force that released a volume of ash 3,000 times greater than the amount produced by the 1980 Mount St. Helen's eruption. Core samples taken 2,000 miles away from Toba have measured ash layers as deep as 36 inches. Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is the home of one of these super volcanoes. If it were to erupt, much of North America would be devastated by the blast.

    Mount Everest - Ages ago, the Eurasian and Indian continents collided spectacularly to form the Himalayan mountain range. Geological movement continues to take place today as India is gradually pushed beneath China and Nepal at a rate of about 3 inches per year. Going by the current rate of upwelling, it has taken Mount Everest at least 100,000 years to rise to its 29,035-foot elevation. Before the great collision, the bedrock that makes up the Himalayan range was once at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. The top 1,500 feet of Mount Everest is comprised of limestone. This type of rock is slowly formed by the deposition and consolidation of the skeletons of marine invertebrates. Because these creatures are minuscule, it would take a very long time to accumulate these limestone layers.

    Coral Reefs -Coral is made up of the skeletons and calcium deposits of tiny animals that live in warm, shallow seas. It takes an estimated 100 years to produce a few centimeters of coral growth. One coral atoll has been measured at 3,900 feet in depth.

    Light and Cosmic Events - The sun is one of countless numbers of stars in the Milky Way. Our little galaxy is over 100,000 light years across. This means that light from some stars in our galaxy has taken many tens of thousands of years to reach earth. A common explanation for our ability to see stars that are millions of light years away is that God created the light from these distant stars already in transit. The problem with the light-in-motion claim is that as light travels through the universe, forces it encounters alter its properties, giving us a travel log of its journey. Many of the cosmic events we see in the universe take millions of years to occur. It doesn't seem logical for God to have constructed such a multifaceted, elaborate hoax.

    Bristlecone Pine Trees - The annual growth rings of trees are among the most reliable measures of time. Some Bristlecone pine trees in the White-Inyo mountain range of California date back beyond 6000 BC.

    Algae Growth Cycle - During the springtime, tiny, one-celled algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu, Japan. They die and sink to the bottom of the lake, where they create a thin, white layer. During the rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle to the bottom. The results are alternating dark and light annual layers -- much like the annual growth rings on a tree. Scientists have counted about 45,000 layers.

    Moon Dust - Measurements by sensors attached to satellites show that space dust accumulates on the moon at the rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter each year. (A nanogram is one thousandth of a millionth of a gram.) This rate would require 4.5 billion years to reach a depth of 1.5 inches, which is approximately the depth experienced by the astronauts who walked on the moon.

    Cosmic Rays - The Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a method of measuring the length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays. Cosmic rays stream into the atmosphere from all directions in outer space and break neutrons free when they collide with air molecules. When these neutrons hit rocks on the ground, they sometimes react with a tiny number of mineral atoms that create radioactive isotopes. At sea level, a few hundred modified atoms are created each year in a gram of quartz near the surface of the ground. New measuring techniques can detect very small numbers of these atoms and thus estimate the number of years that the rocks have been exposed. Scientists have found ages of about 8,500 years for "recent" glacial moraines in Newfoundland and 830,000 years for extinct volcanoes in Nevada.

    Radioactive Decay -The "nuclide" argument is one of the best proofs of an old earth. Nuclides are forms of matter that are radioactive. Each nuclide decays into another form of matter at a certain rate. After an interval of time equal to its half-life, only half of the original material is left. Scientists have found that every nuclide with a half-life of over 80 million years can be found naturally occurring on earth. All nuclides with a half-life under 80 million years do not exist naturally at detectable levels.

    Ice Ages - In North America, more than 20 glacial advances and retreats have occurred during the last 2 million years. It takes a foot of snowfall to produce an inch of glacial ice. Since some of the ice is thousands of feet thick, it takes centuries of snow to produce each ice age event. These glaciers would have had to move across the land like freight trains to fit into the 6,000-year model.

    Hawaiian Island Chain - If we could remove all of the water in the Pacific Ocean, we would find that the Hawaiian Islands are peaks on a 10,000-foot-high ridge that extends 3,000 miles to the northwest. The Hawaiian chain gets progressively older and becomes more eroded farther beyond the volcanically active region of the "Big Island" of Hawaii. All three factors - the movement of the ocean crust, the building of volcanic islands, and the erosion - are time-consuming geological processes.

    Seating capacity - A lot of creationists try to defend the narrow timeline of the young earth view by arguing that Noah brought all the animals that ever existed onto the ark with him. They fail to realize that many of these prehistoric creatures were huge; some beasts weighed as much as 100 tons. However, getting all those bulky dinosaurs onto the ark would have been the least of Noah's problems. Scientists estimate that a total of 10 million species have existed on the earth. Because Noah never could have crammed that many animals into the ark, when the rains came, it would appear that most of them were left standing at the dock. It is interesting to note that scientists have calculated that Noah could have fit all of the 16,000 species of land animals currently living on the earth into the ark.

    Coal - The Great Flood is frequently cited as the instantaneous creator of many fossil records. Geologists tell us that coal took millions of years to build up, and creationists point to the Flood as the source. The claim is made that when the Flood transpired, it buried all the earth's vegetation, creating the coal we mine today. The problem with this theory is that the available amount of plant material could not account for coal layers that are hundreds of feet thick. It would have taken several feet of organic material like ferns, grasses, and a few bugs just to produce a few inches of coal.

    Salt Deposits - In the state of Utah, there is a huge, underground deposit of salt created by the continual evaporation of a shallow sea that once covered the land. The dome is nearly 5,000 feet deep and it was pushed to the surface by volcanic forces. Noah's flood cannot account for such a vast quantity of salt being deposited in a compact location and in such short stretch of time. A steady stream of water over millions of years is the only plausible solution.

    Grand Canyon I - Young earth proponents like to disprove popular belief that the Grand Canyon is the result of millions of years of erosion by saying the Great Flood carved out the steep canyon walls in a few days. There are several problems with this simple explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon. The Canyon is not the product of flooding. It was formed by the uplifting of a plateau by mountain-building events. The narrow inner gorge of the Grand Canyon and its many tributaries are the antithesis of the erosion that would be found as part of a broad floodplain.

    Grand Canyon II - The Grand Canyon example is a two-parter in order to also account for all those thousands of layers of sedimentary rock that give the Grand Canyon its beauty. Creationists often say the Great Flood laid down the layers and in its aftermath, the receding waters dug out the gorge. One of the more prominent formations in the Grand Canyon is the Coconino Sandstone. This layer is found only a few hundred feet below the rim. Geologists have described this sandstone as originating from an ancient desert. Remnants of sand dunes can be seen in many outcrops of the formation in a phenomenon called cross bedding. Many footprints in this sandstone have been recognized as those of lizards scurrying across the desert. It's ridiculous to think there could be a sandy desert formation wedged between a series of layers that were all formed by the same flood event.
    Interestingly, the above is written by a creationist - just not a young earth one.

    tl;dr:
    Fitting the age of our world into the 6,000-year time frame would require disrupting our understanding of the speed of light, annual growth cycles, the erosion process, historical records of tectonic movement, rates of decay for radioactive atoms, climate patterns, the historical content of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the freezing point of water, and a host of other processes.

    God is not going to vanish if it turns out that the world is a million, a billion, or a trillion years old. There is the general idea in the Bible that God created Adam and Eve a certain number of generations ago, but the Good Book gives no exact reference for the age of the earth itself.
    Source: This Old Planet

    And no, I don't think the rapture is coming any time soon. I just found that site for the first time after a Google search.

    One last thing. I've already asked two people, but now I'm making it public. Someone make a damn evolution vs creationism thread. Someone knowledgeable, mind you.
    Last edited by Alpha; 01-10-2010 at 03:48 PM.


  4. #214
    Govinda
    Guest
    Sasquatch, the thing here is that there is a difference between simply thinking something is correct and believing in it. If a better logical theory than evolution comes along, which is possible, all the scientists will go hop on that train. They don't believe in evolution, they just think the theory is the best explanation we have at the moment.

    Evolution doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural power; it just doesn't answer all the questions. If there was a big bang, did a supernatural power have to be involved, or have we just not found the scientific answer yet? Evolution leaves blanks; it doesn't assume that a higher power was involved, or allude to that. You're filling in the blanks on your own, talking about a version of evolutionary theory that is uniquely yours.

    And can we stop calling it Evolutionism? Please? That word and the capital 'e' make it into something that it isn't. It's just a theory, and as soon as a better logical answer comes along the scientists will focus on that one. Nobody 'believes' in it, and it isn't an 'ism'. It's just a theory.


    /sorry Alpha
    Last edited by Govinda; 01-11-2010 at 05:33 AM.

  5. #215
    I do what you can't. Religions - Your Opinion Sasquatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Here and there
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by M16 View Post
    What I'm saying isn't just "I told you so." I'm providing you with reasoning behind my statements. It is no fault of my own if you refuse to pay it any attention.
    You're arguing against cited, sourced claims, and you have nothing to back you up. Your "reasoning" doesn't matter. Especially when your responses don't even fit the claims you're trying to respond to.

    If you meant in close proximity to each other, then again, there's no reason why they should all evolve and not leave some behind. Just because humans are more fit to survive than apes in some areas, that does not mean the exact opposite in other areas.
    You're contradicting yourself, here. If they're in the same area, they should "evolve" along the same line and end at the same final point. They would adapt the same ways to the same environment, and respond in the same ways to the same stimuli.

    Your arguments for the loopholes of Evolutionism aren't really founded on anything, either. So for you to say that Evolutionism is unfounded and follow it up with those arguments does not prove anything.
    I haven't really posted much on the argument that Evolutionism is unfounded, but that simple fact remains plainly clear to most of us here. Of course, you don't help your own cause when you're unable to respond to simple piercing questions about the belief you support.

    In regard to the very first part of your post, while you may try to explain to people that "supernatural beings have supernatural powers," that, too, is not evidence of anything. That is just you, or anyone else using this excuse, saying that you have no logical evidence of why things are the way they are.
    Alright, I'm going to try to explain this again.

    A belief in Creation requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. You know, laws of nature. Something had to have supernatural powers to break those laws. Something ... like, say, the supernatural God who made those laws in the first place?

    A belief in Evolutionism also requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. (Even without the completely obvious Big Bang's breaking of multiple natural and scientific laws.) Now, something had to have supernatural powers to break those natural laws ... but there is supposedly no "supernatural being" included in Evolutionism. So where did those supernatural powers come from? How did nature itself break the laws of nature?

    All you do with this is show that you believe in fairy tales.
    Yes, kid. When you're backed into a corner because you can't argue worth a shit and you just seem unable to back up your own position, just start saying that the person who disagrees with you believes in fairy tales. That's not called ad hominem or anything. What's next, am I a Nazi for not believing Evolutionism, too?

    Quote Originally Posted by Govinda View Post
    Sasquatch, the thing here is that there is a difference between simply thinking something is correct and believing in it. If a better logical theory than evolution comes along, which is possible, all the scientists will go hop on that train.
    Which is why more and more scientists are coming out and saying that they don't believe in Evolutionism? Why more and more scientists are professing a belief in Creation?

    They don't believe in evolution, they just think the theory is the best explanation we have at the moment.
    There's a difference in "best" and "only". If it was the best theory at the moment, then it would be acceptable to teach it as the best theory -- not the only theory. But legal thuggery and anti-religious sentiment have led to banning everything in schools that isn't, at its base, an anti-religious philosophy.

    Evolution doesn't assume the existence of a supernatural power; it just doesn't answer all the questions.
    No, it just places supernatural powers on the natural entity of nature itself.

    If there was a big bang, did a supernatural power have to be involved, or have we just not found the scientific answer yet?
    So it's alright if your supposedly-natural theory has gaps and holes that can only be filled by attributing supernatural powers, but if there's a theory that admits to being supported by supernatural powers of a supernatural being, it's wrong?

    The supernatural theory makes sense with supernatural powers involved. The supposedly natural theory makes no sense with only natural powers involved, and thus requires supernatural powers to be involved anyway.

    It's a good ol' case of, "Science is better than religious faith, even when the science is unfounded and so shoddy that it requires religious faith to believe!"

    Evolution leaves blanks; it doesn't assume that a higher power was involved, or allude to that. You're filling in the blanks on your own, talking about a version of evolutionary theory that is uniquely yours.
    How is the animation of life a blank that I'm "filling in on my own"? How is the split from unicellular to multicellular organisms, or the split between modern-day humans and modern-day apes, something that only I am concerned about?

    And can we stop calling it Evolutionism? Please? That word and the capital 'e' make it into something that it isn't. It's just a theory, and as soon as a better logical answer comes along the scientists will focus on that one. Nobody 'believes' in it, and it isn't an 'ism'. It's just a theory.
    It's a religious theory. I've gone over this before -- requires faith (a lot of faith), attributes supernatural powers, belief in the cause and purpose of our world, etc. etc.

    It's funny how some people believe in Evolutionism simply because it's supposedly not religious, then reject any implication that believing in Evolutionism requires any sort of faith.

    Alpha -- sorry bud, get to your stuff later. That'll take a little bit longer, but I've got answers.

    Sig courtesy of Plastik Assassin.


    Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.
    John 15:13

  6. #216
    I'll make you famous Religions - Your Opinion Rydia Lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    alexandra, VA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    753
    I am a buddhist, which neither denies or confirms the existance of a god. i dont want to sound like a whinney victim but for a very long time i had been descriminated by alot of churches simply because i was a bisexual. and during that same year i lost 3 friends, one had a heart attack, another cancer, and the third died in a car accident. it took a long time to come to terms with it, but i used to blame god for a long time because of it, and thats why i became a buddhist.

    I have noticed that athiesm has become a trend, and even buddhism as well (which is what i am), and it pains me to no end to see people who have no knowlege at all of anything on buddhism accept that you become reincarnated and the wheel of karma... but nothing else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermetal
    But I think this girl is uber hot
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumour.Delirium
    You ARE my number one, Rydia Lover. <3
    current games playing:
    Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    Assassins Creed Revolutions
    Saints Row: The Third
    Dynasty Warriors Gundam 3
    Fallout New Vegas


  7. #217
    Govinda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch View Post

    Which is why more and more scientists are coming out and saying that they don't believe in Evolutionism? Why more and more scientists are professing a belief in Creation?

    Beats me. It's entirely up to them. And can you prove this?

    There's a difference in "best" and "only". If it was the best theory at the moment, then it would be acceptable to teach it as the best theory -- not the only theory. But legal thuggery and anti-religious sentiment have led to banning everything in schools that isn't, at its base, an anti-religious philosophy.

    The reason it is taught in schools is because it is the closest thing to a scientific answer that we have. Children will learn the religious versions in their religion classes and at home. The job of the state is to teach the best (and in this case, only) scientific theory. Are you suggesting that Christian creation theory be taught as science in schools? Or Islam's theory? Or Bhuddist theory?



    No, it just places supernatural powers on the natural entity of nature itself.

    No, it doesn't. It takes events that it cannot explain and comes up with a theory about what might have happened, and admits that its proponents are still seeking the scientific answer. It's not attributing supernatural powers to nature; it's taking an unexplained event, such as the big bang, admitting that it is currently inexplicable and then searching for an answer found within nature. Supernatural powers don't need to fill that gap, unless you decide that they do, as you have done.


    So it's alright if your supposedly-natural theory has gaps and holes that can only be filled by attributing supernatural powers, but if there's a theory that admits to being supported by supernatural powers of a supernatural being, it's wrong?

    They can't 'only be filled by supernatural power', physics just hasn't found the answer yet. You are filling the gaps with this supernatural power while the rest of us think about what could have caused these events that was not supernatural.

    The supernatural theory makes sense with supernatural powers involved. The supposedly natural theory makes no sense with only natural powers involved, and thus requires supernatural powers to be involved anyway.

    Do you claim to know the extent of all natural powers? I don't, and nor do research scientists.


    It's a good ol' case of, "Science is better than religious faith, even when the science is unfounded and so shoddy that it requires religious faith to believe!"

    It doesn't require religous faith to see these things. Look at your feet; awfully similar to your hands in their basic makeup, no? Could almost say they'd been hands that adapted so you could walk on them. And science for me is better than religious faith, and it's better kept that way in schools too. If you can prove creationism, I'll surely leave it be; but you can't prove that any more than I can (currently) prove that the big bang was the baby of physics.


    How is the animation of life a blank that I'm "filling in on my own"? How is the split from unicellular to multicellular organisms, or the split between modern-day humans and modern-day apes, something that only I am concerned about?

    Because you're the only one saying that it had to be supernatural rather than trying to think of natural solutions.

    It's a religious theory. I've gone over this before -- requires faith (a lot of faith), attributes supernatural powers, belief in the cause and purpose of our world, etc. etc.

    Where does evolutionary theory mention the purpose of our world? You are attributing supernatural powers, the theory is still being worked on, answers are still being sought (and for that reason it isn't religious). If those answers do turn out to be supernatural then so be it, but for the moment I'm assuming they won't be.

    It's funny how some people believe in Evolutionism simply because it's supposedly not religious, then reject any implication that believing in Evolutionism requires any sort of faith.

    How do you know I think the theory of evolution makes sense just because it's 'not religious'? I don't need faith to think something makes sense. I don't need faith to inspire me to continue to speculate about what natural phenomenon could have created our planet.

    Alpha -- sorry bud, get to your stuff later. That'll take a little bit longer, but I've got answers.
    Sorry again Alpha
    Last edited by Govinda; 01-11-2010 at 02:02 PM.

  8. #218
    Permanently Banned loaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Rydia Lover View Post
    I am a buddhist, which neither denies or confirms the existance of a god. i dont want to sound like a whinney victim but for a very long time i had been descriminated by alot of churches simply because i was a bisexual. and during that same year i lost 3 friends, one had a heart attack, another cancer, and the third died in a car accident. it took a long time to come to terms with it, but i used to blame god for a long time because of it, and thats why i became a buddhist.

    I have noticed that athiesm has become a trend, and even buddhism as well (which is what i am), and it pains me to no end to see people who have no knowlege at all of anything on buddhism accept that you become reincarnated and the wheel of karma... but nothing else.
    Nothing wrong with being Bi ;].

    I really like Buddhism, it's the closest I'd ever come to have some sort of "religion" but I still deny religion in general, including Atheism. I know how Atheism has become some sort of a trend, mainly because the Atheists I've seen in the past 5+ years (including Chrono) are just as about the same as a loud African who is yelling about how the white man does this and how the black man needs this and that and those and how Jesus was Black. New age Atheists are just about as close as that.
    Last edited by loaf; 01-11-2010 at 03:54 PM.
    Signature Updated: Yesterday
    CPC8! - Pimpin' is easy

    CPC8! - Chess Club

    SPOILER!!:
    lol


    Currently Playing: Video Games

  9. #219
    I'll make you famous Religions - Your Opinion Rydia Lover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    alexandra, VA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    753
    Quote Originally Posted by Gypsy Elder View Post
    I have another question, why is atheism considered a religion?
    even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermetal
    But I think this girl is uber hot
    Quote Originally Posted by Rumour.Delirium
    You ARE my number one, Rydia Lover. <3
    current games playing:
    Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    Assassins Creed Revolutions
    Saints Row: The Third
    Dynasty Warriors Gundam 3
    Fallout New Vegas


  10. #220
    Waiting for your sister to turn 18 Religions - Your Opinion chrono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Atlanta,GA
    Age
    37
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by Loaf View Post
    mainly because the Atheists I've seen in the past 5+ years (including Chrono)
    http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...8159844805.jpg

    ]a loud African who is yelling about how the white man does this and how the black man needs this and that and those and how Jesus was Black. New age Atheists are just about as close as that.-LOAF
    http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...g-wahlberg.gif

    Are you referring to those africans who are\were victims of labor exploitation on the highest level(slavery)? Are you referring to those africans who have been slaves in this country longer than they have been free? Are you referring to those africans who did not even have basic human rights until the 60s?

    Maybe you are talking about the scores of civil rights leaders(black & white) that have been assasinated during the civil right era(before then to)? Maybe you are referring to those africans that had their language, culture and religion taken from them by force during slavery? Wait..... I know who you are talking about!!!!!!! You are talking about the untold number of africans who were sentenced to death via lynching without a proper trial or jury. Most of them young men even teenagers and young boys.

    That post was just uncalled for.

    http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/z...banhammer1.jpg


    Just to stay on topic a bit.... not having a belief in a deity in not a belief like being bald is not a hair color. Im sure most of you have heard that one befor.
    C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\Desktop\bit torrents\jiu jitsu\helio.jpg

    Sometimes I just want to be with my family and watch a movie and eat some popcorn. But when I step on the mat I know there is no other place I'd rather be." -Marcelo Garcia

    To fight is a man's instinct; if men have nothing else to fight over they will fight over words, fancies, or women, or they will fight because they dislike each other's looks, or because they have met walking in opposite directions” - George Santayana

  11. #221
    Permanently Banned loaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Austin
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,105
    No actually I wasn't. If you weren't to busy stroking your epeen on these boards you would have got what I was saying.

    I wasn't saying you were that guy. I was comparing not just you but other Atheists and as well as others I have met and still talk to. You all seem to have this urge to prove to everyone that you are right in what you believe in regardless of what others have to say about their own. You are first to say NO NO NO to everyone else. Did you know you and Christians are very much alike? Only difference is Christians say that 9,999 of religion is false. Atheists have just 1 more and don't believe in god.
    Signature Updated: Yesterday
    CPC8! - Pimpin' is easy

    CPC8! - Chess Club

    SPOILER!!:
    lol


    Currently Playing: Video Games

  12. #222
    #LOCKE4GOD Religions - Your Opinion Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,917
    Blog Entries
    59
    Only difference is Christians say that 9,999 of religion is false. Atheists have just 1 more and don't believe in god.
    Can people stop saying this is what "Christians" believe. If you haven't noticed, their are a lot of people who would call themselves "Christians". I don't give a rats ass what others believe, and I have never tried converting anyone, and don't intend to. Any religion is just as likely as mine, and I will never tell you otherwise. Unless your religion tells you to rape children or commit acts of war. I think Jesus taught tolerance of others, love of your enemies, selfless service, and think that "Christianity" should not be seen as so damn anthropocentric. Pantheism (literally, or just the principle behind it) is actually a healthy trait. After all, why would any creator god make a world so that we may destroy it? I see these values encapsulated in "Christianity". Other "Christians" don't. That's why there are innumerable varieties of "Christians".

    Too many times I hear people say something along the lines of "this is what Jesus taught, and there is no theological/social/whatever debate around this." It's not true, whether a "Christian" or a non-"Christian" says it. So stop lumping every member of the world's largest religion into a neat pigeonhole.

    Look at it this way. Sasquatch and I both profess to be "Christians". I like the guy a lot, but we have never agreed on a single issue. Don't generalise. Please.

    This is why I only refer to myself as "Catholic", because of the stigma and stereotypes associated with the word "Christian".

    [/rant]
    Last edited by Alpha; 01-11-2010 at 05:25 PM.


  13. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Sasquatch View Post
    You're arguing against cited, sourced claims, and you have nothing to back you up. Your "reasoning" doesn't matter. Especially when your responses don't even fit the claims you're trying to respond to.
    I'm arguing against the cited, sourced claims because they don't make sense and aren't entirely relevant to the matter at hand. What more would you like me to use in order to back me up? There are no other articles dedicated solely to disproving that article, so I apologize that I have no "cited, sourced claims" to back up my arguments against this article or its poor arguments.

    You're contradicting yourself, here. If they're in the same area, they should "evolve" along the same line and end at the same final point. They would adapt the same ways to the same environment, and respond in the same ways to the same stimuli.
    Says who? Where is your evidence to support this? Which scientists have come out and said this? By your argument, since you didn't provide a viable source, this is just an empty statement.

    I haven't really posted much on the argument that Evolutionism is unfounded, but that simple fact remains plainly clear to most of us here. Of course, you don't help your own cause when you're unable to respond to simple piercing questions about the belief you support.
    Does it really remain plainly clear to most of the people that the theory of evolution is unfounded? Because as far as I know, most people here really don't know enough about it to consider it either founded or unfounded. Speak for yourself, not the masses.

    A belief in Creation requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. You know, laws of nature. Something had to have supernatural powers to break those laws. Something ... like, say, the supernatural God who made those laws in the first place?
    Which still requires the belief in a God, which is no more founded than the belief in evolution.

    A belief in Evolutionism also requires believing that things happened that didn't follow natural laws. (Even without the completely obvious Big Bang's breaking of multiple natural and scientific laws.) Now, something had to have supernatural powers to break those natural laws ... but there is supposedly no "supernatural being" included in Evolutionism. So where did those supernatural powers come from? How did nature itself break the laws of nature?
    Again, this just requires a belief in a supernatural power.

    Yes, kid. When you're backed into a corner because you can't argue worth a shit and you just seem unable to back up your own position, just start saying that the person who disagrees with you believes in fairy tales. That's not called ad hominem or anything. What's next, am I a Nazi for not believing Evolutionism, too?
    No, it's not called ad hominem because I didn't insult you. I called a 'supernatural being' to be a fairy tale. As far as I know, religion is based on nothing more than stories passed down by oral tradition turned into a book. Much like most other fairy tales. That should be no more insulting to you than you saying that the theory of evolution is false is to me. You getting offended only shows your inability to remain objective in this debate. Your attempt at a demeaning jest also just provides insight to your immaturity.

    Which is why more and more scientists are coming out and saying that they don't believe in Evolutionism? Why more and more scientists are professing a belief in Creation?
    Want to provide numbers on this? Who said this, and when?

    There's a difference in "best" and "only". If it was the best theory at the moment, then it would be acceptable to teach it as the best theory -- not the only theory. But legal thuggery and anti-religious sentiment have led to banning everything in schools that isn't, at its base, an anti-religious philosophy.
    The theory of evolution is not anti-religious philosophy, and it's a shame that so many people seem to think it is. Above, you mentioned the plethora of scientists that are ceasing to believe in evolution and leaning more towards creationism. Take it from someone who is currently involved in a field of science somewhat relevant: This is not the case. What is actually happening is that more and more scientists are trying to link the two together, using them both to explain the occurrences around us. This, I believe, is a noble undertaking and one that should be looked at positively from both sides of the debate.

    So it's alright if your supposedly-natural theory has gaps and holes that can only be filled by attributing supernatural powers, but if there's a theory that admits to being supported by supernatural powers of a supernatural being, it's wrong?
    Which theory admits to being supported by supernatural powers of a supernatural being?

    You're so busy getting offended that you refuse to see as much of the other side of the argument as you're claiming supporters of the theory of evolution do.

  14. #224
    Che
    Guest
    The problem with religion is (for most western religion) that it tries to get people to think from one angle. Once it does this, everything is wrong, and if you go deeper into this religion it tells you not to read counterarguements to this religion because it's "against the bible" (or whatever).

    Then its just a bunch of followers arguing that they're right and everyone else is going to burn in hell for not believing the same thing.

    In reality, all this causes is a huge fight. I'm pretty sure the #1 cause of violence in the world is religion, or it's at least at the top. Why should any belief (which is really just a guess, since no one knows whether or not there is a God for sure. Not one person on this planet knows.) be a cause for violence?

    If I believed in any religion, it'd be the religion in which nobody was a faggot, a ni gger (spaced because of censor), a jew, or anything at all. A person would just be...themselves as an individual, free to think whatever they thought.

    But then that all comes back around when that one person in the group thinks it's okay to push his or her ideas on others.

    That's religion.
    Last edited by Che; 01-11-2010 at 11:54 PM.

  15. #225
    Govinda
    Guest
    (Before this Gypsy Elder asked why athiesm is considered a religion)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rydia Lover View Post
    even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something

    Athiesm isn't a religion. It shouldn't be given a capital letter when found in the middle of a sentence.

    There is no belief involved. Athiests don't 'believe in nothing'; we just don't believe. At all. At least, real athiests do, and for them it is always a personal thing; it isn't organised, it isn't structured. It's just individuals looking for their own answers.

    Athiests who begin by telling other people that they are wrong are the ones I was talking about before. Hypocrites who always assume intellectual superiority. They are the ones who make athiesm look like a religion, who give it a capital letter in the middle of a sentence, and I hate that I am bundled in with them. I'm thinking of establishing my own meerkat-orientated variety of athiesm so that I can be alone. Just need a name. Maybe I could say that I believe in meerkats but go no further. Unsure.

    But it's not a religion. The theory of evolution is not religious.

    It's hard being an athiest these days. **** Richard Dawkins. Seriously.

  16. #226
    The pizza guy! Meier Link's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Broken Arrow, OK
    Age
    42
    Posts
    4,392
    Gov, I must commend you for trying to get this thread back on track.


    Now onto the point of me steping back in here once again.

    I see some of you have decided to completely disregaurd my last post in this thread and because of that some of you now have some new warnings added to your user account.

    As of right now I am going to say that if the bickering and random spats of fighting and spam do not stop I am shutting this thread down and I will ban religious threads from ID. This is suppose to be an intelectual conversation / debate not a pissing match over who is right.

    Notice the third word of this threads title, "opinion". If you can not express your opinion with out resorting to childish games then I suggest you check your self out of this thread. Also keep in mind that opinions are only true to that of the person that holds that opinion. Just because your opinion doesn't match what someone elses is doesn't give you the right to ridicule and exploit them for theirs.

    I hope now some of you realize that I am not joking around.
    Soldier: "We suck but we're better then you"

    We will fight, we will be strong
    Together we're marching on
    United, we move as one
    Our finest hour has just begun
    Philmore - Our Finest Hour

    Crao Porr Cock8! Need I say more!?
    My awards:



  17. #227
    Spectral Patriot Religions - Your Opinion Chaos_Weapon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Limestone, Maine
    Age
    36
    Posts
    47
    I can't stand how religion works! Its just a simple way of controlling people and their beliefs. But, when it seems pure and for the better, people jump right into it and have to leave most of their life's behind just to follow some stupid way of living! BORING! Glad to be an Atheist, and glad to be free!

    The Spirals of Death Shall Yield to No One...So Good Luck!

  18. #228
    Chaos I'm a bit confused by your statement. Isn't religion a system of beliefs? And since people hold to the same beliefs they are then classified in a religion? I don't think a religion started and then people believed it but rather people held to a belief system and then collectively it became a religion, at least what I understand from Christianity. It was that many Jews and non Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah (from Judaism) and henceforth proclaimed their belief. I'm not very well educated in other religions so I can't answer for them. I don't think religion is controlling per se because after all it is the people who hold to a certain set of beliefs to begin with then they are summed up into a category you know?

    Gov, unless I have the definition of religion wrong... the quickest definition I found was this religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Wouldn't the theory of evolution fit this bill? It in itself doesn't explain the cause of the universe but does provide the nature and purpose of it. They rest of the definition need not apply because it the evolution isn't subject to a moral code or observances which aren't necessary in a religion. Since evolution is a theory it does require belief doesn't it?

    Gov am I correct in saying then that real atheists don't concern themselves with either the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they don't believe?
    EBG


  19. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Rydia Lover View Post
    even believe in nothing is still the beliefe in something
    Not at all.

    Atheism is often given characteristics by the religious that do not really apply to the daily life of said atheist. Driven by Hollywood and other deathly hallows, the modern atheist is believed to break with the God that they originally believed in, often in a dramatic way. While this may be the case for the individual raised in a religious environment, it is not necessarily so.

    Would anyone prescribe the word atheist to an infant or an animal? Some may, but more than likely they would be mocked. The belief is that, since these creatures possess no cognitive ability to make the decision, it is moot. This is where religious types trip over themselves answering whether Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, or Michael Jordan would allow the uninitiated into Heaven given that they were not given the opportunity to believe.

    Atheists, for the most part, simply live in the state of mind that the uninitiated does. Some people would incorrectly call this agnosticism, but those people are roundly known as busybodies, so why bother?

    One previous poster astutely pointed out that atheism is just disbelieving in one extra religion. After all, there have been thousands of religions, from the tribal to the commercial, since the dawn of human civilization. Statistically, the religious man is almost just as likely as I am to end up in some religion's Hell.

    However, this logical point must be taken farther. The religious sects in this country frame the debate, and unfortunately the moderates follow. How else can you explain the repetition of the imaginary phrase "Evolutionism"? I imagine that Sasquatch is paid each time he uses the phrase by some creationist institute, and for that I applaud him for finding a way to feed him and his family (I refuse to accept the alternative, that one would fight the battles of someone else. It may be naivete, but it is willful). However, why does the phrase get used by people who are not the Billy Mays of the subject? Ignorance is part of it, fear is another, and placation is the end result. Too often the level-headed attempt to reason, and this is illogical. Modern medicine has been developed to deal with a plethora of emotional and psychological deficiencies because we know as a society that they cannot be reasoned with the way you might bargain with a meat vendor, a blacksmith, or a conductor of rail-based transportation.

    Getting back to the reality of the religious framing the debate, let's look at atheism in context. Is Govinda called an atheist for not believing a swallow can carry a coconut? Is Alpha called an atheist for refusing to accept a world where a fox eats his own intestines? Of course not, because we all do not believe these things, and a label that includes everyone defeats the point. To an atheist, Jesus walking on water, Moses parting the sea, or Mohammad ascending to the sky are all equally laughable, and science dictates that they are so. Atheists are just being practical, while the religious are basing their beliefs on faith. It is the religious who deserve a label, just like in every other facet of life.
    Last edited by Walter Sobchak; 01-12-2010 at 09:24 PM.

  20. #230
    Govinda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Atma-Noah View Post

    Gov, unless I have the definition of religion wrong... the quickest definition I found was this religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Wouldn't the theory of evolution fit this bill? It in itself doesn't explain the cause of the universe but does provide the nature and purpose of it. They rest of the definition need not apply because it the evolution isn't subject to a moral code or observances which aren't necessary in a religion. Since evolution is a theory it does require belief doesn't it?

    Gov am I correct in saying then that real atheists don't concern themselves with either the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe because they don't believe?

    As I've said before (this may be the third time I've said it now), I don't 'believe' in the theory of evolution. I merely think that it is the most likely to be correct just now. It's not belief, it's thought. It speculates about where we came from, but does not concern itself at all with the why. It does not seek purpose and meaning in the way that all religions do. Therefore it is not religious.

    I don't get your second question. Why would a lack of belief in a higher power make us stop questioning our origins?

  21. #231
    ...means nothing to no way Furore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    F*ckin' Australia!
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak View Post
    How else can you explain the repetition of the imaginary phrase "Evolutionism"?
    Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's quite possible as most of my knowledge relies on internet research and books published prior to 1995 which are all I could find locally), but isn't Evolutionism as a term describing those who believe in the theory of evolution acceptable within the scientific community so long as one is debating Creationism vs Evolutionism? I have noticed a trend among newer sources (mostly Creationist as Evolutionists have a majority in the scientific community and as such seem to collectively believe the term anachronistic, even if not everyone agrees) to retain usage of the term.

    And even if that isn't so, the term would be used incorrectly rather than it being used imaginatively as the word Evolutionism did have roots in 19th century science as people had theories on the evolution of several material things. I do recall reading some of that and finding it quite interesting, even though with today's knowledge some of it seems almost comical.

    One thing I am curious about though, is this. Do you believe there is any chance of a creator or something that could have created the Earth, or do you believe there is nothing that could have created everything? I've always wondered about Athiests' thoughts on the matter, and have heard some interesting theories from some of the people I've asked including a few that seemed plausible (with a bit of faith). Others though decided to change their stance to Agnostic, believing a creator of some kind could exist, they just don't believe in anything as specific as those who follow a religion.
    victoria aut mors

  22. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Silver View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong here (it's quite possible as most of my knowledge relies on internet research and books published prior to 1995 which are all I could find locally), but isn't Evolutionism as a term describing those who believe in the theory of evolution acceptable within the scientific community so long as one is debating Creationism vs Evolutionism? I have noticed a trend among newer sources (mostly Creationist as Evolutionists have a majority in the scientific community and as such seem to collectively believe the term anachronistic, even if not everyone agrees) to retain usage of the term.

    And even if that isn't so, the term would be used incorrectly rather than it being used imaginatively as the word Evolutionism did have roots in 19th century science as people had theories on the evolution of several material things. I do recall reading some of that and finding it quite interesting, even though with today's knowledge some of it seems almost comical.

    One thing I am curious about though, is this. Do you believe there is any chance of a creator or something that could have created the Earth, or do you believe there is nothing that could have created everything? I've always wondered about Athiests' thoughts on the matter, and have heard some interesting theories from some of the people I've asked including a few that seemed plausible (with a bit of faith). Others though decided to change their stance to Agnostic, believing a creator of some kind could exist, they just don't believe in anything as specific as those who follow a religion.
    The word evolutionism, as you mention, is anachronistic. It is used by creationists to incite images of a religion, as Sasquatch has admitted. Evolutionism would be a correct term if it was a controversial theory in the scientific community, but since we have universities and testing to weed out people who are unable to accept basic scientific facts, the science is accepted and therefore the term is silly. Do we use the term heliocentrism (the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, versus geocentrism, the reverse) to discuss scientists? Of course not, because anyone who subscribes to geocentrism is a quack.

    As someone who has seen beyond the playground of the formative years of my existence, I see no need or usage in incorrectly using words as some sort of insult system. I call a creationist a creationist, rather than the perhaps more correct term, like lunatic.

    I guess there is a chance of some sort of creator. I also may buy something from a television commercial one day. With both, neither has sufficiently convinced me. The problem with the term agnostic is that they are atheists. You either believe in a God or do not. To say you are not sure is redundant, because no one is sure. Agnostics correctly understand that there is more stigma in calling oneself an atheist, while churches will let agnostics use their Wi-Fi on Saturdays.

  23. #233
    Spectral Patriot Religions - Your Opinion Chaos_Weapon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Limestone, Maine
    Age
    36
    Posts
    47
    That's the thing that kills me about certain religion, if I may correct myself. Its all based off beliefs:
    Beliefs that can't be proven by modern science or simple fact.
    Beliefs that inspire hope and relief amongst the people, even though its contaminated with nothing but lies.
    Beliefs that go so far as to change people lives without a "actual" in the end (Manipulation)
    Its all a load of crap unless it contributes to actual facts.
    (Sorry if I confuse anyone. I haven't had my coffee yet XP)

    [merged]

    Quote Originally Posted by Govinda View Post
    You're seriously just giving people like Sasquatch ammo with posts like these. If religion makes someone's day easier, who are you to tell them to stop?
    Funny thing, Govinda, I'm not trying to inspire people to stop what religion they follow. Key word in this thread is "Opinion". I'm sharing it, you shouldn't get upset when it comes down to it.
    Last edited by Meier Link; 01-14-2010 at 08:57 AM.

    The Spirals of Death Shall Yield to No One...So Good Luck!

  24. #234
    #LOCKE4GOD Religions - Your Opinion Alpha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,917
    Blog Entries
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos_Weapon View Post
    Beliefs that can't be proven by modern science or simple fact.
    ...and can't be disproven. Maybe it's 'convenient' in this regard, but I don't really care. One may say that Jesus could not have healed a blind man, because it is impossible (barring some feat of modern medicine), but one cannot say that Jesus, as God, could not have done that, unless you were able to disprove the notion of God, or invent a time-traveling machine and visit the scene. Note that this can also be seen just as adequately as allegory. If one is able to help the downcast, then do so.

    Beliefs that inspire hope and relief amongst the people, even though its contaminated with nothing but lies.
    So without religious belief, there is no hope or relief for suffering people. Firstly, I dispute that. Secondly, then what's with your beef with religion? 'Lies': cf. first point.

    Beliefs that go so far as to change people lives without a "actual" in the end (Manipulation)
    Huh? Beliefs that change people's lives? For the better or worse? For the most part, people are free to choose their own religion (i.e. they are not manipulated, unless it is a cult). If they felt it was detrimental, then they would stop.

    Its all a load of crap unless it contributes to actual facts.
    What?


  25. #235
    Govinda
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos_Weapon View Post
    That's the thing that kills me about certain religion, if I may correct myself. Its all based off beliefs:
    Beliefs that can't be proven by modern science or simple fact.
    Beliefs that inspire hope and relief amongst the people, even though its contaminated with nothing but lies.
    Beliefs that go so far as to change people lives without a "actual" in the end (Manipulation)
    Its all a load of crap unless it contributes to actual facts.
    (Sorry if I confuse anyone. I haven't had my coffee yet XP)

    [merged]



    Funny thing, Govinda, I'm not trying to inspire people to stop what religion they follow. Key word in this thread is "Opinion". I'm sharing it, you shouldn't get upset when it comes down to it.

    You are trying to inspire them to stop. You're telling them they're stupid ('it's all a load of crap'), which means you think they are stupid, ergo, if they were not stupid they'd stop believing. You're being patronising.

    I know it's your opinion. Hence I am allowed to challenge it and disagree with it. Also, I most certainly am not 'upset' by you.

  26. #236
    SOLDIER 3rd Class Religions - Your Opinion Copperfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada.
    Age
    50
    Posts
    119

    Re: Religions - Your Opinion

    I think religion should be encouraged.

    It teaches good values and provides a moral compass for choices in life.

    It's the fanatics you have to watch out for.

    Anything taken to an extreme can be detrimental.

  27. #237
    The Mad God Religions - Your Opinion Heartless Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New Sheoth
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,970

    Re: Religions - Your Opinion

    I'm personally athiest. ALot of people say you just inherit religion frm your parents. Not me. I was raised Christian, even went to a Christian elementary school. I was always one of those kids who'd respond to anything you told me with, "Why?" This is how it all began...

    I want through the firs several years of my life believing without question. Then I became obsessed with learning how and why everything happened. I was kicked out of a Christian Academy in 1st grade, for constantly questioning the bible, weighing it against fact. Apparently they didn't like that, because not only did they never answer my questions, but they kicked me out. After this I was left questioning, why? Did God just not tell them the answers to my questions? Did the answer not exist? I couldn't believe that was it, or they could've just said they didn't know. Then it hit me, they didn't like the fact that my questions made other kids ask questions. This is when I was certain the answers to my questions did not exist. At least not answers involving a God. this is when I first looked toscience for real answers.

    Unlike the religion to which I once held on to, science actually had answers for everything. And for those that weren't answered completely, they said so, and continued looking for the answer, rather than just accepting everything without question.

    As I continued to develop, I only came up with more and more questions that made religion seem like nothing more than a tory full of plotholes. Like...
    • If God was a benevelont being that loves all his children, why did he only bother to appear to less than a third of them to make his existance know, thus damning the rest of the planet to eternal hellfire?
    • God, being omniscient would obviously know that only teaching half of the world of his existance would leave the rest to come up with their own dieties to believe in, which would inevitably cause conflict. He lvoes us so much, he let us all murder each other because he didn't feel like talking to the rest of the world? God sounds like an ass if you ask me.
    • Why is it that miracles stopped happening the very instant the camera was invented?
    • Why were people supposedly "appointed by god" basically con artists ripping people off in the middle ages? Y'know, that Holy guy with the big hat, he was selling tickets to heaven when the church was running low on cash.
    • If the world was created in 7 days, and man existed on the 7th, why is it science has proven that dinosaurs existed millions of years before the first man?
    • Why has religion persecuted so many scientists who dared to question "why", only to later agree with them? Like the whole Geocentric vs. Heliocentric thing, (though both turned out to be wrong) or the world being flat. At one point in time, you were a heretic if you suggested that the earth orbitted the sun and that the world was round. Now you're a dumbass if you suggest anything else.
    While religion came up with some ridiculous story to cover up for any inconsistancy a person could find, science actually goes and answers questions when raised. By this point in my life, I was completely athiest, no turning back.

    Another thing I began to consider after that, was the time that religion began. And it explained perfectly well why people were so willing to accept it without question. Because at the time, there was no science. Nobody else could tell you why anything happened. So people eagerly accepted any information someone could offer that provided an answer to their questions. Think of it this way, had religion not existed before today, and we still knew everything we did about science, and I suggested to everyone that in spite of what we already know, the universe was ACTAULLY created by an invisible super-being that nobody can see in 7 days, and this super-being only talks to me in my head, and that I met his son, born of a woman who never in her life had sex, and that all we had to do is follow whatever he said to me, and we'd live forever in a utopia after we died... do you think the world would see the light, or lock me in a padded room and throw away the key? I can't speak for you guys, but I'm betting on the latter.

    Thoguh I have mainly bashed on Christianity here, it's only because that's the religion that I grew away from, I have nothing against Christians, people have a right to believe whatever they please. I apologize if anybody has been offended by this.
    For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.





  28. #238
    Relaxin' with Final Fantasy Religions - Your Opinion KainsBro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Age
    46
    Posts
    103

    Re: Religions - Your Opinion

    I am a Christian. I do not believe in judging others or criticizing others on their personal belief, because its personal. Nothing to do with me. I believe there has to be a God or a Supreme being, what ever you wish to call him or her is your business. In science its is known that Nothing can come from nothing, meaning for the universe to exist, someone or something had to set everything in motion. If there was nothing in the beginning, then nothing is all we get. There had to be a beginning for us to even be here, so what existed before the thing we call time? Who started the clock ticking? If not a man, then something superior had to. At least, that is my opinion. Just thought I'd drop in my idea, hope everyone has a great day!

  29. #239
    The Mad God Religions - Your Opinion Heartless Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    New Sheoth
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,970

    Re: Religions - Your Opinion

    I often considered that as well. uBut in the end, that believe changes nothing, that creator would've had to be there from the beginning to, no matter how you slice it, something had to come from nothing. Least that's the way I see it, no disrespect.
    For Our Lord Sheogorath, without Whom all Thought would be linear and all Feeling would be fleeting. Blessed are the Madmen, for they hold the keys to secret knowledge. Blessed are the Phobic, always wary of that which would do them harm. Blessed are the Obsessed, for their courses are clear. Blessed are the Addicts, may they quench the thirst that never ebbs. Blessed are the Murderous, for they have found beauty in the grotesque. Blessed are the Firelovers, for their hearts are always warm. Blessed are the Artists, for in their hands the impossible is made real. Blessed are the Musicians, for in their ears they hear the music of the soul. Blessed are the Sleepless, as they bask in wakeful dreaming. Blessed are the Paranoid, ever-watchful for our enemies. Blessed are the Visionaries, for their eyes see what might be. Blessed are the Painlovers, for in their suffering, we grow stronger. Blessed is the Madgod, who tricks us when we are foolish, punishes us when we are wrong, tortures us when we are unmindful, and loves us in our imperfection.





  30. #240
    Relaxin' with Final Fantasy Religions - Your Opinion KainsBro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Age
    46
    Posts
    103

    Re: Religions - Your Opinion

    Maybe, but we judge creation as we see it, how does a deity see it? Does time even flow for a God? We cannot even know how long the universe has been around, so time must be created thing. I better stop, I think I'm confusing myself.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Your opinion on the above Avatar.
    By animaobli in forum Word Games
    Replies: 3728
    Last Post: 02-11-2013, 04:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •