|
On May 28 2011 14:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:09 Oreo7 wrote:
I'm going to watch GSL, I think the atheists won this one. gg, wp plasma. And D10 and Clysm, I hope you come around before you waste too much time worshiping something that doesn't exist. n_n. Well thank you, although I wasn't necessarily arguing for atheism... just trying to shed some light on the interactions between religions and how science plays (or doesn't play) a role in religious texts  I do happen to be an atheist though. Anyways, I need to go to sleep as well. Good night everyone! Happy discussing!
Actually there was a large flood that was recorded by all cultures in the world at the time, from the Japanese, to Europeans, to the Native Americans... They all have a flood story and science DOES prove the "great flood" happened. It was on History channel last year on a special on religions... Cant remember the name though
|
On May 28 2011 14:38 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:32 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:25 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:
[quote]
Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence.
I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Science is not and never was at all about anything that's right. Science is about trying to explain things that actually happened. So first you need concrete evidence of things happening. Then you create an explanation for why it happened, and then you test it. So yes, Science is BUILT AROUND things that are factual, but Science itself isn't factual, it's just our currently best way to explain everything that we have observed up to this point. If magic was a repeatable phenomenon under testable conditions, our attempts to explain it would become part of Science. Things described in the Bible aren't in the subset of things that Science accepts as things we've "observed" similarly to how Science doesn't attempt to explain the Sumerian belief that Angels came down from the sky and taught them complex mathematics. Despite, and partially thanks to the exclusion of these alleged super-natural phenomena Science was able to serve our civilization extremely accurately. On the other hand if the accounts Bible were accepted as observed facts, then Science today would have to be a lot more general to encompass their explanations, and a lot of the useful predictions that it made wouldn't have been made in the first place, and we wouldn't be this far as a civilization. From what I understand, you aren't hesitant saying that "science" does not necessarily equal "real." Yet you refuse to believe that "not science" possibly equals "real." But this discussion about the definition of the term "science" isn't going to get us anywhere. Perhaps I was mistaken using the word science in my support of my beliefs. I'm not sure what would have been a better word though. Science operates under the assumption that it tries to explain all real phenomena. "Real" is somewhat subjective, so generally it refers to things that we have observed, and in many cases (but not all,) it requires us to be able to reproduce the phenomena, or at least show that's possible for this phenomena to occur again. When I say that Science isn't always right I mean that the explanations that it gives for the observed phenomena aren't always correct. However, everything that it tries to explain is assumed to be real, and everything that it doesn't try to explain is assumed to be not real, or at least unobserved. Science itself (the explanations) aren't always right, but definitions of reality of things rarely if at all change, largely because of the strict requirement for something in order for it to be considered real. My point about the Bible that if Science included the occurrences of the Bible as observed fact which you claim that they are, then Science would become infinitely less useful to the humanity, because the much broader scope of phenomena would require a much more general explanation which would be a lot less useful.
Real, by its very definition, is not subjective.
Once again, I apologize for using the term "science." I was trying to express that many aspects of science support the existence of God (such as DNA). But you have successfully convinced me that science, humanity's attempts to understand reality, at times does not support the existence of God.
This does not make God any less real to me though as God, an infinite being, can not be fully explained by the efforts of humans, finite beings.
|
On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:
What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle.
This guys is....
Poll: Cysmic isTroll (11) 61% Honestly believes in what he's saying (7) 39% 18 total votes Your vote: Cysmic is (Vote): Troll
(Vote): Honestly believes in what he's saying
You guys are being trolled imho.
|
On May 28 2011 14:47 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:
What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle.
This guys is.... Poll: Cysmic isTroll (11) 61% Honestly believes in what he's saying (7) 39% 18 total votes Your vote: Cysmic is (Vote): Troll
(Vote): Honestly believes in what he's saying
You guys are being trolled imho.
You sir, are adding nothing to what is, admittedly, a typical old trainwreck of a discussion.
|
On May 28 2011 14:39 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:24 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:18 Ryalnos wrote:On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:44 ClysmiC wrote:
[quote]
Read my post on page 2 about why I believe in the historical and spiritual accuracy of the bible, and it will explain why I chose my set of beliefs. I did not arbitrarily choose God and Christianity over Mohammed and Islam. I did so by considering factual evidence.
I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is. My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Watch out - you're playing word games here, which helps no one. Don't equate science with actual, objective truth when it is at best humanity's best approximation to the truth. Then don't tell me it is a fact that I am wrong, based on your "best approximations." It seems plasma was simply trying to argue against my statements by throwing out the word science Make sure to look back to the last page to see where I stand. I am [i][not/i] "with them". I don't feel that there is much of a point in these arguments on a message board. The majority of the posts are effectively copy-pastes of the same old arguments, yadda yadda nothing moves forward. Perhaps it was unnecessary to poke at your use of language there, but it mildly irritates me when the truth value of science is overstated (this coming from a physics grad student - as if this gives me any cred). Much better to demonstrate ever greater love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control because it is not me who lives, but He.
My apologies Ryalnos. I thought that the word-games comment was coming from Oreo7 (I misread the huge chain of quotes).
|
On May 28 2011 14:46 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:38 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 14:32 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:25 Kiarip wrote:On May 28 2011 14:13 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:08 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 14:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 13:54 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:49 Oreo7 wrote:
[quote]
I'm afraid I don't see where. And also choosing Christianity over Islam isn't the same as explaining why Christianity is valid while NO other religion is.
My question: What fact proves the existence of Jesus and the Holy trinity but disproves the existence of Odin and the mountain giants? And also disproves any other god that I could possibly imagine up. + Show Spoiler +because the different books of the bible were written over a 1000+ year period, by over 40 authors, almost all of whom have never met each other. Yet, every single book is consistent with all of the others, and countless Old Testament prophecies come true in the New Testament. This could not be conspired, due to the amount of time and people who wrote the bible without meeting each other. It also could not be chance, for the same reasons. The only explanation is the one offered by the bible: that it is God-breathed. Thus, I believe that every book of the bible is canon: no more, no less. Also, the bible claims that no words should be added or diminished from it. Plasmaball, I never said that current scientific theories coincide with biblical explanations. I said that scientific facts support biblical explanations better than they support scientific theories. Seeing as how scientific theories are overarching explanations for a multitude of related scientific facts, your statement is necessarily false. Furthermore, scientific facts also disprove Biblical explanations many times over. Genesis is flat-out falsified (Creation myth, Destruction myth, etc.). Granted, most scholars understand that these are supposed to be taken as allegory now, but how many Biblical stories have to be falsified and then backpedalled *to be meant as allegory* to be overlooked? Science says people can't rise from the dead too. Whoops, sorry Jesus. Science disproves the notions of 900 year old people. It's a scientific fact that Adam and Noah never existed. It's also a scientific fact that snakes don't have a voice box. Sorry devil snake. Science disproves the global flood myth. Science disproves any Young Earth Creationist claims. Now, for every Biblical claim made that's falsified by science, you can dismiss it with "Well that wasn't supposed to be taken seriously!" but then you're just cherry-picking your Bible verses, which makes the whole argument irrelevant. Some Christians dismiss those as allegory. I don't dismiss any of them. What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle. No. Science obeys the laws of physics. The Book of Genesis by enlarge defies those laws. Do you believe the earth is 6,000 years old? Science, to scientists is separate from religion. If you base your definition of science off of the accepted criteria of: Consistent, observable, natural, predictable, testable, tentative, then no, religion is not a science. I base my definition of science off of the actual, objective truth. Thus, I do believe that the book of Genesis is scientific, as I believe that God's ability to perform miracles are an objective truth. Science is not and never was at all about anything that's right. Science is about trying to explain things that actually happened. So first you need concrete evidence of things happening. Then you create an explanation for why it happened, and then you test it. So yes, Science is BUILT AROUND things that are factual, but Science itself isn't factual, it's just our currently best way to explain everything that we have observed up to this point. If magic was a repeatable phenomenon under testable conditions, our attempts to explain it would become part of Science. Things described in the Bible aren't in the subset of things that Science accepts as things we've "observed" similarly to how Science doesn't attempt to explain the Sumerian belief that Angels came down from the sky and taught them complex mathematics. Despite, and partially thanks to the exclusion of these alleged super-natural phenomena Science was able to serve our civilization extremely accurately. On the other hand if the accounts Bible were accepted as observed facts, then Science today would have to be a lot more general to encompass their explanations, and a lot of the useful predictions that it made wouldn't have been made in the first place, and we wouldn't be this far as a civilization. From what I understand, you aren't hesitant saying that "science" does not necessarily equal "real." Yet you refuse to believe that "not science" possibly equals "real." But this discussion about the definition of the term "science" isn't going to get us anywhere. Perhaps I was mistaken using the word science in my support of my beliefs. I'm not sure what would have been a better word though. Science operates under the assumption that it tries to explain all real phenomena. "Real" is somewhat subjective, so generally it refers to things that we have observed, and in many cases (but not all,) it requires us to be able to reproduce the phenomena, or at least show that's possible for this phenomena to occur again. When I say that Science isn't always right I mean that the explanations that it gives for the observed phenomena aren't always correct. However, everything that it tries to explain is assumed to be real, and everything that it doesn't try to explain is assumed to be not real, or at least unobserved. Science itself (the explanations) aren't always right, but definitions of reality of things rarely if at all change, largely because of the strict requirement for something in order for it to be considered real. My point about the Bible that if Science included the occurrences of the Bible as observed fact which you claim that they are, then Science would become infinitely less useful to the humanity, because the much broader scope of phenomena would require a much more general explanation which would be a lot less useful. Real, by its very definition, is not subjective. Once again, I apologize for using the term "science." I was trying to express that many aspects of science support the existence of God (such as DNA). But you have successfully convinced me that science, humanity's attempts to understand reality, at times does not support the existence of God. This does not make God any less real to me though as God, an infinite being, can not be fully explained by the efforts of humans, finite beings.
Yeah, but what is considered to be real and what isn't considered to be real is subjective, and that's what really matters when talking about things that humans believe/understand.
|
On May 28 2011 14:48 Ryalnos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:47 VIB wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:
What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle.
This guys is.... Poll: Cysmic isTroll (11) 61% Honestly believes in what he's saying (7) 39% 18 total votes Your vote: Cysmic is (Vote): Troll
(Vote): Honestly believes in what he's saying
You guys are being trolled imho. You sir, are adding nothing to what is (admittedly) the same old trainwreck of a discussion.
I agree, there isn't really any point in discussing this anymore. I never take part in online discussions, for exactly this reason. Both sides have their stance, and neither one budges... must don't even try to understand the others' points of view.
I only joined this discussion because it irritated me to see the very basis of Christianity misrepresented in the OP.
And on that note, I'm going to bed. Thank you to those of you who discussed this topic with decency, whether you agree or disagree with me. And just because we disagree, it does not mean that dislike you and I hope that you do not dislike me
To those of you who attacked/flamed, I suspect that you yourself don't have a strong enough opinion on this matter to contribute. I encourage you to investigate all of the arguments out there, and to read every religious and scientific text there is, and decide on your own.
Night guys.
EDIT:
And at least I am not required to commit atrocities in his name in hopes of getting a ticket into a wonderful fantasy land
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Doesn't sound like an atrocity to me.
|
I believe in Tassadar. He will lead me to the Khala's end. There is no greater glory than that.
(Before anyone mocks that, it is infinitely easier to rule out the existence of the gods of most "accepted" religions than it is to rule out Tassadar. And at least I am not required to commit atrocities in his name in hopes of getting a ticket into a wonderful fantasy land)
Edit:
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
Doesn't sound like an atrocity to me.
"If a man rapes a girl in the city, you must stone him to death, and the woman as well." Deut. 22:24
But that does.
|
On May 28 2011 14:52 ClysmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:48 Ryalnos wrote:On May 28 2011 14:47 VIB wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. On May 28 2011 14:05 ClysmiC wrote:
What you fail to understand is the concept of miracles, which is odd, because in a sense, every aspect of science is a miracle.
This guys is.... Poll: Cysmic isTroll (11) 61% Honestly believes in what he's saying (7) 39% 18 total votes Your vote: Cysmic is (Vote): Troll
(Vote): Honestly believes in what he's saying
You guys are being trolled imho. You sir, are adding nothing to what is (admittedly) the same old trainwreck of a discussion. I agree, there isn't really any point in discussing this anymore. I never take part in online discussions, for exactly this reason. Both sides have their stance, and neither one budges... must don't even try to understand the others' points of view. I only joined this discussion because it irritated me to see the very basis of Christianity misrepresented in the OP.
I will admit it appalls me when someone makes a post in which they make a claim which to them appears clear and obvious to them but in actuality is "way out there" and backed up by woefully simplistic arguments which ignore the complexity of the topic.
|
If we're talking about the God of the Bible, it is plainly obvious, from the text, that YHWH isn't fair.
|
On May 28 2011 14:36 ClysmiC wrote:
And Jaybee, I'd love to hear your logical arguments. All I've heard you say is how illogical and wrong we all are, but you haven't presented any actual logic of your own.
I could do that on his behalf. It'll be my pleasure to show you exactly the kind of retarded bullshit that believers constantly carry around in their heads absolutely convinced that it makes sense.
Ill open with a scripture:
2 Peter 3  : "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
This seems simple enough. Basically, God desires that all come to repent their sins and presumably enter heaven. Nothin wrong with that. Moving on.....
Luke 13:23-24 and 28, “Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able ... There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.”
Ok so here God acknowledges that not everyone is going to make it....understandable.
Psalm 139:1-6
(1) O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
(2) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; You understand my thought from afar.
(3) You scrutinize my path and my lying down, And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
(4)Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
(5) You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me.
(6) Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it.
Ok wait hold the fuckin phone....God can see into the future ?
“Great is our Lord, and of great power: His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5)
Infinite understanding ? Wow what an incredible guy!!!
Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Wow the kid even knows me before I was even conceived. But hold up....this guy is one sick fuck. You mean with that infinite knowledge and ability to see most likely infinitely into the future, this guy knew that all this shit was going to happen yet makes a passionate statement about not wanting anyone to perish.
If through his infinite foresight, he knew what his creation would become before he actually made them then it stands to reason that if he still went ahead and made us knowing full well what would happen then that was his will i.e. for some to perish. How can this twisted sick fuck then say that he wishes none to perish when he could have simply not made us or made us in a way that will fulfill his desire that none perish.
Forgive my strong language but its really insulting to ask an intelligent person to accept this garbage as fact. Can no one see this makes no sense ?
On May 28 2011 14:47 VIB wrote:
You guys are being trolled imho.
Of course he is a troll...he believes the bible....The bible is the bronze age trolling the infomation age.
|
On May 28 2011 13:33 Oreo7 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 13:15 D10 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:13 Oreo7 wrote:On May 28 2011 13:10 ClysmiC wrote:On May 28 2011 13:05 Oreo7 wrote:
Religion's much easier to understand when you realize it's fantasy. Every single of aspect of life is much, much harder to understand when you rule out the existence of God. Convincing yourself to believe secular explanations is a greater leap of faith than believing a religious one. Hardly. Especially if we're talking any kind of organized religion. Science actually has explanations for how it arrived at it's conclusions; religion is basically arbitrary with it's conclusions. Hence, faith. Tho theres so many scientists with faith that I dont see why people separate them so much, as if one canceled the other. If one day, science proves the afterlife is real, would that blow your mind ? Why would it blow your mind ? because you thought it was impossible to prove, or because it didnt exist ? Science's conclusions are based on the scientific process, one of the key steps of which is observation. You can't observe god, nor can you trace any impacts in our world back to a god, therefore god does not scientifically exist, according to current evidence. Of course it's possible (anything is) it's just much more likely he doesn't. Yes, the after life being proven real somehow through observation and experimentation that had consistent results would blow my mind and it would also be the happiest day of my life.
If God exists, do you really think he would let us know that he exists? I mean TRULY KNOW that he exists, like we all know that the earth is round? It's possible that some ppl have actually seen or heard God, but not without first proving that their faith for God is infinite, in which case they didn't need proof of his existance in the first place.
According to Christianity, Judaism and (I think) Islam, God put us on earth so that we would get the chance to embrace him. He wants us to make a decision. It's not a question of choosing from good and bad. It's a question of whether we want to accept the responsibility of being a Christian/Jew or whatever you want to call it. God knows that our happiness will be so much greater if we choose to go in his footsteps, but he still doesn't want to make the decision for us. If we know that God exists, wouldn't that make life on earth meaningless (according to religion)? If you're not willing to believe in God, because you don't think the investment is worth the risk that he might not be real, then you're looking at religion the wrong way. To believe in God doesn't mean to accept that God is real, it's all about accepting that his teachings is sound, and that following them would make your life better.
You can't prove that God exists in a way that we could comprehend, because doing so would make his plan obsolete, and thus prove that he doesn't exist at the same time. Religion is 100% about faith. If you don't accept that, noone can convince you into believing.
I've always believed in God. Atleast I can't remember not believing in him. I believed in the concept of God before I had even heard about his teachings, because as a child I had felt his presense. I was very vulnerable as a child, so because I had a greater need of comforting, I might have felt his presence stronger than others. But I think children in general are more spiritual and have stronger ties to God. Children look for comfort in God, and when they grow up, they drift away from God, and get more and more comfort from addictions. It's a sad reality.
|
Preachers always tell me "God can judge them". Weak humans cannot fathom/understand how/what/why god will do it, but he has a plan for everyone.
Pretty shitty argument IMO (no offense intended, but logically a bad argument)
|
On May 28 2011 14:52 ClysmiC wrote:I agree, there isn't really any point in discussing this anymore. I never take part in online discussions, for exactly this reason. Both sides have their stance, and neither one budges... must don't even try to understand the others' points of view. I only joined this discussion because it irritated me to see the very basis of Christianity misrepresented in the OP. And on that note, I'm going to bed. Thank you to those of you who discussed this topic with decency, whether you agree or disagree with me. And just because we disagree, it does not mean that dislike you and I hope that you do not dislike me To those of you who attacked/flamed, I suspect that you yourself don't have a strong enough opinion on this matter to contribute. I encourage you to investigate all of the arguments out there, and to read every religious and scientific text there is, and decide on your own. Night guys.
Wait, don't go. I am willing to discuss Christianity with you. It is my belief that Christianity is not real. Let me explain why from a Muslim perspective.
"There is no god worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His messenger."
This declaration of faith is called the Shahada, a simple formula which all the faithful pronounce. In Arabic, the first part is: La ilaha illa Llah - 'there is no god except God'; ilaha (god) can refer to anything which we may be tempted to put in place of God - wealth, power, and the like. Then comes illa Llah: 'except God', the source of all Creation.
Muhammad, was born in Makkah in the year 570, at a time when Christianity was not yet fully established in Europe. Since his father died before his birth, and his mother shortly afterwards, he was raised by his uncle from the respected tribe of Quraysh. As he grew up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes. The historians describe him as calm and meditative.
Muhammad was of a deeply religious nature, and had long detested the decadence of his society. It became his habit to meditate from time to time in the Cave of Hira near the summit of Jabal al-Nur, the 'Mountain of Light' near Makkah.
Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion does not dominate everyday life in the West today, whereas Muslims have religion always uppermost in their minds, and make no division between secular and sacred. They believe that the Divine Law, the Shari'a, should be taken very seriously, which is why issues related to religion are still so important.
Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith.
One becomes a Muslim simply by saying 'there is no god apart from God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.' By this declaration the believer announces his or her faith in all God's messengers, and the scriptures they brought.
The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just. (Quran 60:8)
It is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city.
Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves.
Now, in light of all of this, are you able to address what I've said in order to prove that Christianity is real and that I am wrong? Please rebut every single one of my points that I have made in order to make a valid argument otherwise you are simplying ignoring my arguments.
|
Are we really going to debate who's god is real and who's is fake now ? Are you guys serious ?
Both Islamic mythology and Judeo-Christian mythology are equally absurd when it comes to realism.
|
On May 28 2011 14:39 SacredSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 28 2011 14:09 Oreo7 wrote:
I'm going to watch GSL, I think the atheists won this one. gg, wp plasma. And D10 and Clysm, I hope you come around before you waste too much time worshiping something that doesn't exist. n_n. Well thank you, although I wasn't necessarily arguing for atheism... just trying to shed some light on the interactions between religions and how science plays (or doesn't play) a role in religious texts I do happen to be an atheist though. Anyways, I need to go to sleep as well. Good night everyone! Happy discussing! Actually there was a large flood that was recorded by all cultures in the world at the time, from the Japanese, to Europeans, to the Native Americans... They all have a flood story and science DOES prove the "great flood" happened. It was on History channel last year on a special on religions... Cant remember the name though
Most cultures that have Destruction myths do so in the form of floods because that is what they are familar with, since all civilizations are built near water. However, the floods they talk about are actually just large local floods that they exaggerate (or just make up for the sake of allegory). For example, the Biblical flood Destruction myth is actually in reference to a large local flood that happened in the area, probably the one that happened in the Black Sea.
It's rather silly to think that a city in the Middle East 4000 years ago would have any idea what the weather is like in South America or Australia.
But to be clear, science has absolutely disproven any recent global floods through geology and archaeology.
|
On May 28 2011 20:00 Maru- wrote:
Are we really going to debate who's god is real and who's is fake now ? Are you guys serious ?
Both Islamic mythology and Judeo-Christian mythology are equally absurd when it comes to realism.
all three of them believe in the same god anyway
|
Before this gets too heated, you guys have to understand that he's from Brazil and there's a strong Spiritist culture in that country. Research and read about Chico Xavier (most famous Brazilian Spiritist) to get a sense of where he's getting his perspective.
Edit: I didn't notice this was already six pages long. Sorry, I didn't pay attention. 
|
On May 28 2011 18:11 Maru- wrote:
The bible is the bronze age trolling the infomation age.
That is a brilliant line lol. I mean, all of what you said was spot on, but that was great haha. You mind if I quote you on that elsewhere?
|
On May 28 2011 19:47 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:52 ClysmiC wrote:I agree, there isn't really any point in discussing this anymore. I never take part in online discussions, for exactly this reason. Both sides have their stance, and neither one budges... must don't even try to understand the others' points of view. I only joined this discussion because it irritated me to see the very basis of Christianity misrepresented in the OP. And on that note, I'm going to bed. Thank you to those of you who discussed this topic with decency, whether you agree or disagree with me. And just because we disagree, it does not mean that dislike you and I hope that you do not dislike me To those of you who attacked/flamed, I suspect that you yourself don't have a strong enough opinion on this matter to contribute. I encourage you to investigate all of the arguments out there, and to read every religious and scientific text there is, and decide on your own. Night guys. Wait, don't go. I am willing to discuss Christianity with you. It is my belief that Christianity is not real. Let me explain why from a Muslim perspective. "There is no god worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is His messenger." This declaration of faith is called the Shahada, a simple formula which all the faithful pronounce. In Arabic, the first part is: La ilaha illa Llah - 'there is no god except God'; ilaha (god) can refer to anything which we may be tempted to put in place of God - wealth, power, and the like. Then comes illa Llah: 'except God', the source of all Creation. Muhammad, was born in Makkah in the year 570, at a time when Christianity was not yet fully established in Europe. Since his father died before his birth, and his mother shortly afterwards, he was raised by his uncle from the respected tribe of Quraysh. As he grew up, he became known for his truthfulness, generosity and sincerity, so that he was sought after for his ability to arbitrate in disputes. The historians describe him as calm and meditative. Muhammad was of a deeply religious nature, and had long detested the decadence of his society. It became his habit to meditate from time to time in the Cave of Hira near the summit of Jabal al-Nur, the 'Mountain of Light' near Makkah. Islam may seem exotic or even extreme in the modern world. Perhaps this is because religion does not dominate everyday life in the West today, whereas Muslims have religion always uppermost in their minds, and make no division between secular and sacred. They believe that the Divine Law, the Shari'a, should be taken very seriously, which is why issues related to religion are still so important. Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith. One becomes a Muslim simply by saying 'there is no god apart from God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.' By this declaration the believer announces his or her faith in all God's messengers, and the scriptures they brought. The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just. (Quran 60:8) It is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city. Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves. Now, in light of all of this, are you able to address what I've said in order to prove that Christianity is real and that I am wrong? Please rebut every single one of my points that I have made in order to make a valid argument otherwise you are simplying ignoring my arguments.
I'm not sure what you mean by rebutting your points, as this was primarily a summary of Islamic beliefs and history, not an argument for its correctness. But I'll discuss some of the points made.
I understand that the religion Islam is not extreme like most people think. Sure, some people take it to extremes performing acts of jihad, but that is not an issue with the religion itself (just as the Crusades were not Christianity's fault, they were the fault certain Christians who did not understand their own religion). From what I understand, Islam preaches peace and love.
But here's one thing I've never quite understood about Islam. Muslims regard Jesus as one of the most honorable prophets of God. In fact, the Qur'an mentions him more than it does Muhammed. Yet, Jesus, in no uncertain terms, states himself to be the Son of God, and states that he "is the way to truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through [him]" (John 14:6), which is not believed by Muslims. The only explanation I can think of is that Muslims believe one of their highest prophets made heinous, untruthful claims. To me, this severely undermines the integrity of the religion as a whole.
I don't claim this explanation to be the actual view of Muslims, but it is the only one that I can think of. I'd like to hear if you have a different explanation for this seeming inconsistency so that I can further understand the views of Islam, as I love to learn about all religions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
