Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

bringdownthesystem · 09-06-2007 11:18 AM

Heh, that CAN happen. I feel like that everyday at school... But it's cool. It's good to have a convertadar always on.

Will · 09-06-2007 12:09 PM

Kirby Wrote:No. You said people shouldn't kill. That is a moral statement.

Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."

Hayley44 Wrote:
Kirby Wrote:They are correct if they are what is prophesied. They are not even prophecies if they could be just an educated guess.

A lot of the prophecies are about the fate of the Jews and a lot of them have to do with persecution and their homeland. There is no reason to think that the "prophecies" are anything more than (1) ways to give hope to Jews; and (2) a repetition of what has happened before. Jews have been persecuted more than any other social group in the world; it is not surprising what they would do to try to escape from their torment.

I see what you're saying. it's possible that the prophecies were made up, though personally, I think that they were a bit too specific.

Kirby Wrote:It contains many prophecies but not all of them have come to pass. Even those that have come to pass can be explained as good guesses.

that's all debatable. there are a lot of people who would argue that everything prophecied in The Bible has come to pass. i think it's a circular argument since people can find things, and think that they have to do with prophecies when they really don't, and other people can deny the truth in things that really do have to do with prophecies (if that makes sense) so there's really no way of solving that argument

Again, examples?

Hayley44 Wrote:
Kirby Wrote:Life can be reasonably explained by chemistry and biology. There is no need to invoke a god to explain the origins and development of life. The "natural morality" can be explained different ways. It could be solely the product of evolution. It could also be just a fact of the universe. If God created the universe then God had no purpose to begin with. God would just have been. The universe, morality, souls, etc. can exist without reference to God. They can just be.

but if science was the explanation for natural morality, people would have no motivation to be good, because people would do the right thing only because it's the right thing to do, and not with any real reason or focus.

It's hard to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. As I said before, I don't like the idea of morality, but if you want to assume that everyone alive today is moral, it's because the other people died out. It could also be a non-genetic change: Many people have morals because they give better chances in life.

Hayley44 Wrote:
Newtown Wrote:Stop shoving your beliefs down our asses, got it?
If we want to say that god doesn't exist, let us.

sorry if it came across that I was trying to force people into any belief. I'm really not even qualified to force my beliefs on anyone since I have doubts all the time, and don't really have a solid oppinion.

bringdownthesystem Wrote:Uh, newtown, I don't the she was throwing her belief's down our throat, this is an open debate, and seems to be going fairly well.

thanks for defending me. that made me happy. your oppinion is very interesting, kind of reminds me of star wars, but really well thought out and I'm surprised there isn't a religion like that.

Happy Camper Wrote:So not an attack. Kirby just likes a good debate.

yeah, sorry if that was rude, i didn't mean a literal attack, just pointing out that that argument was thrown out. happy camper, some of your views are sort of similar to mine. i think it's stupid to get caught up in the argument of what religion is right, since so many of them only differ on little nit-picky issues. i don't think jesus could have been a crazy dillusional idiot, since a crazy dillusional idiot wouldn't sacrifice himself to save humanity.

What's wrong with saying that other people are wrong? Here's something I read in How to Read a Book: Opinions are just assumptions that haven't been proven rigorously. They can be proven, and there is a set of right answers and wrong answers. You should consider everything, you're stupid if you just stop at "That's my opinion."

There is a question that has no wrong answers though: What is your answer to this question?

Hayley44 · 09-06-2007 01:15 PM

wsgosset Wrote:Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."

religion does not change that. I don't know where you got that idea. there are several instances in The Bible where God encourages killing in defence.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven... A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;" (Ecclesiastes 3)

Hayley44 Wrote:that's all debatable. there are a lot of people who would argue that everything prophecied in The Bible has come to pass. i think it's a circular argument since people can find things, and think that they have to do with prophecies when they really don't, and other people can deny the truth in things that really do have to do with prophecies (if that makes sense) so there's really no way of solving that argument

wsgosset Wrote:Again, examples?

An example of a situation like this:

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as if it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." — Book of Revelation 8:10-11

A lot of people think that this verse is a prophesy about the Chernobyl nuclear explosion, since the translation of "chernobyl" is wormwood, then the burning star is self-explanitory, and the fact that the whole thing took place on a river, and that the water in the river was bitter and killed a lot of people due to the nuclear polution.

other people think that this is a ridiculous explanation and that the Chernobyl accident has nothing to do with the prophesy. if this is what you meant, when you asked for an example.

wsgosset Wrote:It's hard to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. As I said before, I don't like the idea of morality, but if you want to assume that everyone alive today is moral, it's because the other people died out. It could also be a non-genetic change: Many people have morals because they give better chances in life.

but it wouldn't matter if people have a better chance at life if we're all going to die and turn to nothing anyways.

wsgosset Wrote:What's wrong with saying that other people are wrong? Here's something I read in How to Read a Book: Opinions are just assumptions that haven't been proven rigorously. They can be proven, and there is a set of right answers and wrong answers. You should consider everything, you're stupid if you just stop at "That's my opinion."

There is a question that has no wrong answers though: What is your answer to this question?

my friend kept telling me I should read "How to Read a Book." hmm... maybe I'll pick it up... there's nothing wrong with saying that someone is wrong, but on this subject I can't say that because as I said before, my oppinions on theology aren't solid, and change every minute. so the answer to your question is whatever I write down as an answer to your question, and that's why that question has no wrong answers, correct?

09-06-2007 01:15 PM

wsgosset Wrote:Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."

Even saying people should generally not kill is a moral statement. Any judgement on what to to is moral.

Hayley44 · 09-06-2007 01:32 PM

Kirby Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."
Even saying people should generally not kill is a moral statement. Any judgement on what to to is moral.

I don't think religion makes any claim like that in the new testament, since a merciful God would take special circumstances into account.

09-06-2007 01:42 PM

I wasn't talking about religion.

Hayley44 · 09-06-2007 01:43 PM

Then I take it you were only making a general statement?

Will · 09-06-2007 02:37 PM

Hayley44 Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."

religion does not change that. I don't know where you got that idea. there are several instances in The Bible where God encourages killing in defence.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven... A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;" (Ecclesiastes 3)

I certainly did over-simplify that. If you compile all of the rules about when you can kill, you'll get some really complicated rule with lots of exceptions that may sound something like this. Even assuming that there are no contradictions, should you follow this really complicated rule to determine whether you should kill someone? Why shouldn't you decide for yourself? I'm not saying that you shouldn't seek help, but you shouldn't follow anything absolutely.

Hayley44 Wrote:
Hayley44 Wrote:that's all debatable. there are a lot of people who would argue that everything prophecied in The Bible has come to pass. i think it's a circular argument since people can find things, and think that they have to do with prophecies when they really don't, and other people can deny the truth in things that really do have to do with prophecies (if that makes sense) so there's really no way of solving that argument

wsgosset Wrote:Again, examples?

An example of a situation like this:

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as if it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." — Book of Revelation 8:10-11

A lot of people think that this verse is a prophesy about the Chernobyl nuclear explosion, since the translation of "chernobyl" is wormwood, then the burning star is self-explanitory, and the fact that the whole thing took place on a river, and that the water in the river was bitter and killed a lot of people due to the nuclear polution.

other people think that this is a ridiculous explanation and that the Chernobyl accident has nothing to do with the prophesy. if this is what you meant, when you asked for an example.

I was going to show how a random bible verse also had a prophecy, but I realized that it would be better if I took a line from another old book. This'll take me a while, but I'll come up with something. In case you value the Bible code at all, I'll mention that those codes exist in Moby Dick as well. But I'll make my own prophecy now, and I'll prove that it was correct when it occurs. I can't actually tell you directly what it means, though. I'm not sure why though. (If I make a lot of these, one of them will come true. Maybe I should publish a list of prophecies and then gain publicity when one comes true.) So, here it is:

The thing from the East will bring bad stuff to Tennessee and punish lazy people.

And now I'll rip apart the prophecy you gave:

What happened to the third angel? What about the first two?
Where's the great star, the burning and the falling?
Chernobyl is not at the "fountains of waters"--the source (How did you make that real em dash?
I think Chernobyl is quite close to the mouth of the Pripyat river, which would mean that much more than a third of the river got contaminated.
I don't know much about the incident, but based on what I've been reading, I'm not sure whether the contamination of the river had a significant impact on human health compared to the impact of the fallout that just fell on people. All of this stuff is hard to measure, though, so I don't consider this last point totally valid.[/list:u]

Hayley44 Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:It's hard to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. As I said before, I don't like the idea of morality, but if you want to assume that everyone alive today is moral, it's because the other people died out. It could also be a non-genetic change: Many people have morals because they give better chances in life.

but it wouldn't matter if people have a better chance at life if we're all going to die and turn to nothing anyways.
That's a completely different discussion. I completely believe that nothing matters.
Hayley44 Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:What's wrong with saying that other people are wrong? Here's something I read in How to Read a Book: Opinions are just assumptions that haven't been proven rigorously. They can be proven, and there is a set of right answers and wrong answers. You should consider everything, you're stupid if you just stop at "That's my opinion."

There is a question that has no wrong answers though: What is your answer to this question?

my friend kept telling me I should read "How to Read a Book." hmm... maybe I'll pick it up... there's nothing wrong with saying that someone is wrong, but on this subject I can't say that because as I said before, my oppinions on theology aren't solid, and change every minute. so the answer to your question is whatever I write down as an answer to your question, and that's why that question has no wrong answers, correct?
Yeah
Kirby Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:Good point! People generally shouldn't kill, and religion changes that statement to just "People shouldn't kill."
Even saying people should generally not kill is a moral statement. Any judgement on what to to is moral.
According to Wikipedia, there has to be an idea of something like right/wrong or good/bad for something to be moral. These ideas are like habits. You should choose the optimal answer in any situation, and that should not be based on some absolute definition of what is right or wrong, good or bad.

09-06-2007 03:12 PM

Quote:You should choose the optimal answer in any situation, and that should not be based on some absolute definition of what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Yet again, this requires morality. The optimal answer requires a moral judgement.

Will · 09-06-2007 03:38 PM

Kirby Wrote:
Quote:You should choose the optimal answer in any situation, and that should not be based on some absolute definition of what is right or wrong, good or bad.
Yet again, this requires morality. The optimal answer requires a moral judgement.

Darn, a moral definition of optimal

But "moral" still connotes the type of thing that I dislike. Maybe I should come up with a better definition.

Maybe this explains it better: I should base decisions on what I want to do. What I want to do generally follows other people's "morals," but I like to analyze everything. What many people consider "morals" should really just be considered guidelines.

Freak · 09-06-2007 08:44 PM

Quote:but if science was the explanation for natural morality, people would have no motivation to be good, because people would do the right thing only because it's the right thing to do, and not with any real reason or focus.

The bible tells us to do good or else we will burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Well, if people are just being moral because of that they're really not being moral at all. And no reason or focus? Why the hell do we need one? Your telling me that being benevolent because of the fear of burning in hell is better then going the right thing only because its the right thing?

Quote:But yeah. I need a creator most days. Maybe not a savior. But a creator.

But..... why can't the earth be our creator? You know.... mother nature. There, Smile

I even put a face on it.

Quote:Pretty isn't an absolute. You could be nurtured to think that because you haven't seen anything else.

I have no idea what your talking about, but how we percieve attractiveness is how average a person looks. And this means that for all the faces we see we put them allll together and and that is the base of our attraction. It differs from person to person becuase not everyone has seen the same faces, ect.

Quote:hmm...yes. There is no proof to say that god exist, and there is no proof to say that god doesnt exist.

Why do people use this argument? Why? Well let's see, we used science to determine that the earth is a couple billion years old. We have determined how a planet is formed, and they're were dinosaurs millions of years ago. We used it to prove that we have a common ancester with apes, and to figure out the evolutionary chain. Now, that completely contradicts the "God created earth in 7 days" "God created us" ect.
But god is infallible.....
And proving that an infallible deity wrong.... means on thing, he must NOT be infallible.
But if he is not infallible then the bible is also incorrect, and if the bible is inocrrect about that,
what else is it incorrect about?

which brings me back to my first point, science= proven your godzeses wrong

Ok, on another note. I'm amazed at how picky christians are.
Aren't you supposed to follow a religion as a whole? And not pick and choose what you like/don't like according to you own morals? (Yeah, your not supposed to have individual beliefs in religion either >.> )
If god killed a couple million of innocent people you have to accept that and follow it, if he had infants slaughtered and countless women raped and put to death your supposed believe that women really are the property of their husbands and follow it. Its like.... contradicting your religion by not fully believing said religion.

OK, and since you like talking about prophecies so much.
http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm
Yes, it is biased. But still, I is lazy.

OK, bai. Smile

**SoulRiser** · 09-07-2007 05:01 AM

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:
Quote:but if science was the explanation for natural morality, people would have no motivation to be good, because people would do the right thing only because it's the right thing to do, and not with any real reason or focus.
The bible tells us to do good or else we will burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Well, if people are just being moral because of that they're really not being moral at all. And no reason or focus? Why the hell do we need one? Your telling me that being benevolent because of the fear of burning in hell is better then going the right thing only because its the right thing?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say in response to that Smile

And I officially don't give a shit about whether or not we evolved from apes or how we got here... I'm here now, I'd rather spend time on what I'm going to do with the time I have rather than figure out the details of how I got here.

Quote:i don't think jesus could have been a crazy dillusional idiot, since a crazy dillusional idiot wouldn't sacrifice himself to save humanity.

If he was a crazy delusional idiot, I'll take that as a compliment from now on. I don't get why people obsess over the details of the whole resurrection thing and ignore all the cool stuff he did...

Will · 09-07-2007 07:07 AM

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:
Quote:hmm...yes. There is no proof to say that god exist, and there is no proof to say that god doesnt exist.
Why do people use this argument? Why? Well let's see, we used science to determine that the earth is a couple billion years old. We have determined how a planet is formed, and they're were dinosaurs millions of years ago. We used it to prove that we have a common ancester with apes, and to figure out the evolutionary chain. Now, that completely contradicts the "God created earth in 7 days" "God created us" ect.
But god is infallible.....
And proving that an infallible deity wrong.... means on thing, he must NOT be infallible.
But if he is not infallible then the bible is also incorrect, and if the bible is inocrrect about that,
what else is it incorrect about?

which brings me back to my first point, science= proven your godzeses wrong

Science has not proven religion wrong; God really planted those fossils to test our faith, and only those who still believe in God anyway will be saved.

So science hasn't proved that religion is wrong, and it hasn't proved that religion is right either. But this doesn't mean we should believe in religion. We should believe in whatever makes sense. Stuff that has been proven scientifically makes sense because it has been proven scientifically.

Hayley44 · 09-07-2007 08:49 AM

wsgosset Wrote:I certainly did over-simplify that. If you compile all of the rules about when you can kill, you'll get some really complicated rule with lots of exceptions that may sound something like this. Even assuming that there are no contradictions, should you follow this really complicated rule to determine whether you should kill someone? Why shouldn't you decide for yourself? I'm not saying that you shouldn't seek help, but you shouldn't follow anything absolutely.

But The Bible does encourage using your own judgement, and trusting in God that you make the right decision. I think God has mercy on people if their intentions are good but their decision doesn't match up with some complicated rule.

wsgosset Wrote:I was going to show how a random bible verse also had a prophecy, but I realized that it would be better if I took a line from another old book. This'll take me a while, but I'll come up with something. In case you value the Bible code at all, I'll mention that those codes exist in Moby Dick as well. But I'll make my own prophecy now, and I'll prove that it was correct when it occurs. I can't actually tell you directly what it means, though. I'm not sure why though. (If I make a lot of these, one of them will come true. Maybe I should publish a list of prophecies and then gain publicity when one comes true.) So, here it is:

The thing from the East will bring bad stuff to Tennessee and punish lazy people.

And now I'll rip apart the prophecy you gave:

What happened to the third angel? What about the first two?
Where's the great star, the burning and the falling?
Chernobyl is not at the "fountains of waters"--the source (How did you make that real em dash?
I think Chernobyl is quite close to the mouth of the Pripyat river, which would mean that much more than a third of the river got contaminated.
I don't know much about the incident, but based on what I've been reading, I'm not sure whether the contamination of the river had a significant impact on human health compared to the impact of the fallout that just fell on people. All of this stuff is hard to measure, though, so I don't consider this last point totally valid.[/list:u]

Oi! by ripping apart my prophecy, you're only proving my argument. If you read what I said above, I wasn't trying to say that the prophecies were true; I was trying to say that it's pointless to go around arguing about prophecies, because everyone interprets them differently. there's no way to prove whether a prophecy is real or not, because christians and athiests will interpret them differently.

wsgosset Wrote:That's a completely different discussion. I completely believe that nothing matters. Even saying people should generally not kill is a moral statement. Any judgement on what to to is moral. According to Wikipedia, there has to be an idea of something like right/wrong or good/bad for something to be moral. These ideas are like habits. You should choose the optimal answer in any situation, and that should not be based on some absolute definition of what is right or wrong, good or bad.

[list=]

I think these moral ideas/judgements would have to come from somewhere first, because if they were just habits, the first people ever born wouldn't have had anyone to learn them from. (if I'm following what you're saying. sorry if I completely misinterprated that.)

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:Ok, on another note. I'm amazed at how picky christians are.
Aren't you supposed to follow a religion as a whole? And not pick and choose what you like/don't like according to you own morals?

It's not possible to completely follow any set of religious ideas. people are not perfect, and will form their own personal oppinions and judgements, reguardless of whatever general views religion has.

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:If god killed a couple million of innocent people you have to accept that and follow it, if he had infants slaughtered and countless women raped and put to death your supposed believe that women really are the property of their husbands and follow it. Its like.... contradicting your religion by not fully believing said religion.

God doesn't encourage randomly killing people, and it is a belief that women are the property of their husbands, but it's also the husband's duty to take care of his wife and treat her with respect.

SoulRiser Wrote:
Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:
Quote:but if science was the explanation for natural morality, people would have no motivation to be good, because people would do the right thing only because it's the right thing to do, and not with any real reason or focus.
The bible tells us to do good or else we will burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Well, if people are just being moral because of that they're really not being moral at all. And no reason or focus? Why the hell do we need one? Your telling me that being benevolent because of the fear of burning in hell is better then going the right thing only because its the right thing?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say in response to that

And I officially don't give a shit about whether or not we evolved from apes or how we got here... I'm here now, I'd rather spend time on what I'm going to do with the time I have rather than figure out the details of how I got here.

that's just what gets people interested in Christianity, curiousity and fear of hell. after a while (supposedly) it developes into a sincere love for God and mankind.

and I see what you mean about too much earth time being wasted on figuring out how we got here.

SoulRiser Wrote: If he was a crazy delusional idiot, I'll take that as a compliment from now on. I don't get why people obsess over the details of the whole resurrection thing and ignore all the cool stuff he did...

haha true. but that's the story with most Biblically related issues- too many confusing details.

Will · 09-07-2007 10:24 AM

Hayley44 Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:I certainly did over-simplify that. If you compile all of the rules about when you can kill, you'll get some really complicated rule with lots of exceptions that may sound something like this. Even assuming that there are no contradictions, should you follow this really complicated rule to determine whether you should kill someone? Why shouldn't you decide for yourself? I'm not saying that you shouldn't seek help, but you shouldn't follow anything absolutely.

But The Bible does encourage using your own judgement, and trusting in God that you make the right decision. I think God has mercy on people if their intentions are good but their decision doesn't match up with some complicated rule.

wsgosset Wrote:I was going to show how a random bible verse also had a prophecy, but I realized that it would be better if I took a line from another old book. This'll take me a while, but I'll come up with something. In case you value the Bible code at all, I'll mention that those codes exist in Moby Dick as well. But I'll make my own prophecy now, and I'll prove that it was correct when it occurs. I can't actually tell you directly what it means, though. I'm not sure why though. (If I make a lot of these, one of them will come true. Maybe I should publish a list of prophecies and then gain publicity when one comes true.) So, here it is:

The thing from the East will bring bad stuff to Tennessee and punish lazy people.

And now I'll rip apart the prophecy you gave:

What happened to the third angel? What about the first two?
Where's the great star, the burning and the falling?
Chernobyl is not at the "fountains of waters"--the source (How did you make that real em dash?
I think Chernobyl is quite close to the mouth of the Pripyat river, which would mean that much more than a third of the river got contaminated.
I don't know much about the incident, but based on what I've been reading, I'm not sure whether the contamination of the river had a significant impact on human health compared to the impact of the fallout that just fell on people. All of this stuff is hard to measure, though, so I don't consider this last point totally valid.[/list:u]

Oi! by ripping apart my prophecy, you're only proving my argument. If you read what I said above, I wasn't trying to say that the prophecies were true; I was trying to say that it's pointless to go around arguing about prophecies, because everyone interprets them differently. there's no way to prove whether a prophecy is real or not, because christians and athiests will interpret them differently.

wsgosset Wrote:That's a completely different discussion. I completely believe that nothing matters. Even saying people should generally not kill is a moral statement. Any judgement on what to to is moral. According to Wikipedia, there has to be an idea of something like right/wrong or good/bad for something to be moral. These ideas are like habits. You should choose the optimal answer in any situation, and that should not be based on some absolute definition of what is right or wrong, good or bad.
[list=]

I think these moral ideas/judgements would have to come from somewhere first, because if they were just habits, the first people ever born wouldn't have had anyone to learn them from. (if I'm following what you're saying. sorry if I completely misinterprated that.)

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:Ok, on another note. I'm amazed at how picky christians are.
Aren't you supposed to follow a religion as a whole? And not pick and choose what you like/don't like according to you own morals?

It's not possible to completely follow any set of religious ideas. people are not perfect, and will form their own personal oppinions and judgements, reguardless of whatever general views religion has.

Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:If god killed a couple million of innocent people you have to accept that and follow it, if he had infants slaughtered and countless women raped and put to death your supposed believe that women really are the property of their husbands and follow it. Its like.... contradicting your religion by not fully believing said religion.

God doesn't encourage randomly killing people, and it is a belief that women are the property of their husbands, but it's also the husband's duty to take care of his wife and treat her with respect.

SoulRiser Wrote:
Freak-of-nature14 Wrote:
Quote:but if science was the explanation for natural morality, people would have no motivation to be good, because people would do the right thing only because it's the right thing to do, and not with any real reason or focus.
The bible tells us to do good or else we will burn in the fiery pits of hell for eternity. Well, if people are just being moral because of that they're really not being moral at all. And no reason or focus? Why the hell do we need one? Your telling me that being benevolent because of the fear of burning in hell is better then going the right thing only because its the right thing?

That's pretty much what I was gonna say in response to that

And I officially don't give a shit about whether or not we evolved from apes or how we got here... I'm here now, I'd rather spend time on what I'm going to do with the time I have rather than figure out the details of how I got here.
Quote:that's just what gets people interested in Christianity, curiousity and fear of hell. after a while (supposedly) it developes into a sincere love for God and mankind.

and I see what you mean about too much earth time being wasted on figuring out how we got here.

If he was a crazy delusional idiot, I'll take that as a compliment from now on. I don't get why people obsess over the details of the whole resurrection thing and ignore all the cool stuff he did...

haha true. but that's the story with most Biblically related issues- too many confusing details.

I should have read your previous posts more carefully. If you can't prove prophecies either way, what's the point? It's not surprising that any book contains prophecies if you want to interpret it as having them.

One acquires habits by doing something over and over. One doesn't need to think about habits, which makes them easier to perform but also makes it harder to do things in different ways.

Even you agree that a lot of the things you say can be interpreted in different ways, some of which would support the idea that there is a god and some of which would support the opposite. I'm not saying that you should accept another religion; I"m saying not to choose a religion yet. Wait until you have sufficient information to prove that a god exists before you decide that he does. You can should still consider it though.

If it is true that a particular religion is always right, there exists no situation in which the religion is wrong. If one situation exists, that religion is not always right, so I'm explaining some of the flaws in your ideas about Christianity to show that it's not always right and thus convince you that there is no reason to believe that there is a God. I'm not trying to convince you of much actually.

But if you say that you're not supposed to follow all of Christianity, how do you know which parts to follow? Isn't the same thing not believing in religion? You only believe what you think is right.

Another thing about prophecies: Any good novel with some message can be interpreted as a prophecy of what will happen in the future to someone in the same situation. Add in a few details, and the prophecy has support. Can we think of the Bible as just another old novel?

Happy Camper · 09-07-2007 11:01 AM

Hayley44 Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything, and it shows up in many places. Maybe it's just a random number, and maybe Douglas Adams purposely chose a number like that. If the Bible was written by humans without the intervention of a god, they could have chosen the number 7 in the same way that Douglas Adams chose those the number 42, whatever way that is.

Ooh: 7 * <number of work days in a week> = 42

I see your point. numbers don't really prove or disprove anything, so I shouldn't have even brought that up.

off topic but when you mention 42, is that something like 1.61803399? 'cause I always thought phi was the answer to life, and I've never heard that about 42. do you know what the difference is between the two?

Why did I not catch this earlier?

No, 42 isn't anything like phi. Phi is a mathematically significant number that is especially present in nature. 42 being the answer to life, the universe, and everything is one of the biggest inside jokes of all time. I mean...just google it. But I originally read back through the topic to try and figure out who made this quote so I could read the context of it. I couldn't find it but it seems really poorly based.

Quote:that's just what gets people interested in Christianity, curiousity and fear of hell. after a while (supposedly) it developes into a sincere love for God and mankind.

I think that could be one interpertation. Since I very rarely think of a judgemental God who will send people to eternal damnation, almost as much as I think of eternal damnation--which is pretty damn rare--I would say the above is mostly false. Out of all the Christians that I know, they developed a sincere love of God without all the fire and brimstone. I have heard of people who attend church or have their kids baptized solely for the purpose of "fire insurance" but I consider them to sort of be agnostic with insecurities. Not necessarily Christian.

09-07-2007 11:46 AM

wsgosset Wrote:Darn, a moral definition of optimal

But "moral" still connotes the type of thing that I dislike. Maybe I should come up with a better definition.

Maybe this explains it better: I should base decisions on what I want to do. What I want to do generally follows other people's "morals," but I like to analyze everything. What many people consider "morals" should really just be considered guidelines.

Not all judgements are moral. The answer to the question, "What will make me more happier, sex or chocolate?" is not a moral statement. But the answer to "What should I do, have sex or eat chocolate?" is a moral statement.

What an optimal situation is depends on what is good and bad. What is optimal in a more specific is not always moral, such as what the most optimal oil there is for lubricating your car.

It is the difference between "A causes B" and "I should do A".

You say that "I should base decisions on what I want to do." That means your morality is to do whatever you want to do.

youvebeenthunderstruck · 09-07-2007 12:10 PM

"what will make me more happier"?

09-07-2007 12:19 PM

Yes..... STFU. Smile

youvebeenthunderstruck · 09-07-2007 12:22 PM

No.

Will · 09-07-2007 01:14 PM

Kirby Wrote:
wsgosset Wrote:Darn, a moral definition of optimal

But "moral" still connotes the type of thing that I dislike. Maybe I should come up with a better definition.

Maybe this explains it better: I should base decisions on what I want to do. What I want to do generally follows other people's "morals," but I like to analyze everything. What many people consider "morals" should really just be considered guidelines.
Not all judgements are moral. The answer to the question, "What will make me more happier, sex or chocolate?" is not a moral statement. But the answer to "What should I do, have sex or eat chocolate?" is a moral statement.

What an optimal situation is depends on what is good and bad. What is optimal in a more specific is not always moral, such as what the most optimal oil there is for lubricating your car.

It is the difference between "A causes B" and "I should do A".

You say that "I should base decisions on what I want to do." That means your morality is to do whatever you want to do.

That seems quite close to what I was saying. I used "optimal" because there are so many different situations, but happiness is a more precise way to say it.

And the morality is the part where I say that I assume that I should do something. I should do whatever makes me happy.

But this still feels different from what other people consider morality. Maybe there's a way to separate their definitions.

09-07-2007 01:21 PM

Moral = what is good. It does not equal what other people think is good.

I refer you to my previous post about morality:

Kirby Wrote:I notice that a lot of people on this forum have kept saying that they stay away from morality or that it doesn't matter. The problem is that morals are what we base our actions on and the act of saying "I don't need no morals" is itself a moral judgment.

Freak · 09-08-2007 08:53 AM

OK, everyone has fucking morals. EVERYONE. (As Kirby said its what bases are actions) Now shut up that is the most retarded argument ever. D:

And again, the purpose of religion is to follow the indoctrination. If your not following it, your not following the religion your not being said [religion]-ist

And with the prophecies, he pwned you, admit it.

Mista Conspiracy · 09-08-2007 11:13 AM

Hey all, this is my first post. Been reading stuff on the anti-school site for a while now, even visited the forums a couple times, but never bothered signing up. Well, this topic is what got me to. By the way, before I get into my argument, I'd just like to say that, without going into details, I hate school, and always have.

Ok, I find it funny how Kirby claims as fact, that there is no God. I mean, you don't know for sure. At least say it's what you believe. Don't go passing it off as fact. You also say that the prophecies pertain to the Jews. Well, the New testament ones are for the Christians, fyi. Also, thanks Hayley, for bringing up those prophecies. But you are not helping your arguments by doubting what you are saying.

A lot of you are turned off by Christianity because of what you view as the church does/thinks/says/etc. Well, you want a prophecy? Here's one...

"Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." -Matthew 24 : 4-5

Those "churches" and "preachers" or "televangelists" that you see on tv aren't the real Church that was set up by Jesus Christ.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... anches.svg

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, I'm just clearing up some stuff.

And to get back on topic, yes, I believe in the God of the Bible.

09-08-2007 11:55 AM

Quote:Ok, I find it funny how Kirby claims as fact, that there is no God. I mean, you don't know for sure. At least say it's what you believe. Don't go passing it off as fact.

I don't know anything for sure. Nothing is fact and everything is opinion. There is truth but we cannot know for certain when we are right. We can be pretty sure but never 100%. I am very certain that there is no God but I could be incorrect. I "pass it off as fact" because God probably does not exist.

Freak · 09-08-2007 01:25 PM

Freak Wrote:which brings me back to my first point, science= proven your godzeses wrong

wsgosset Wrote:Science has not proven religion wrong; God really planted those fossils to test our faith, and only those who still believe in God anyway will be saved.

Which brings me to my next point, people make lots and lots of excuses to give arguments for the existence of god credibility.
And its not just fossils, the evolutionary line, observing how planets are created, ect.

**SoulRiser** · 09-09-2007 01:40 AM

How's this one? I believe there is a God because my gut feeling says so. There. Laugh

Freak · 09-09-2007 03:05 AM

Great one.

Mista Conspiracy · 09-09-2007 07:55 AM

About fossils...

It's been proven that multiple layers of rock can form at the same time. So they didn't necessarily form over millions of years. They could've formed during the flood. But science for the most part nowadays is biased towards evolution, so the millions of years is how they have to interpret the evidence.

Happy Camper · 09-09-2007 08:19 AM

...there is good reason science is "biased" toward evolution.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode Do You Believe there is a God?
Author	Message