Gunny's Thread on Religion

[Avatar4321]

Christianity is based on something being made from noting- which they insist is totally impossible

Incorrect. Some Christian sects believe something was made from nothing.

The scriptures on the other hand indicate that the world was organized using pre existing material. It's lost quite a bit in the English translation, but its much more apparent in the original hebrew and some other languages.

The doctrine of creation out of nothing is actually a greek philosophical concept. It was welded with Christian theology after the Constanstine took over the Church.

In other words its not someone Christianity is based on. It's actually a later development.

How do they justify that? With a deity that, by definition can never be demonstrated to exist.

You've been given the experiment. If you are unwilling to seek for yourself the truth, why should we expect you to accept any other evidence we have presented?

'That's impossible, but it happened one because in undetectable thing that revealed itself to me said so in a book that I know is true because it's the word of the thing that the book says is real- or at least that's what the book says'

Who is arguing that? That's a straw man.

it''s circular reasoning at itrs worst, with reason and logic decalred anathema

Of course it is. But then no one has been arguing that.

 

[JBeukema]

Incorrect. Some Christian sects believe something was made from nothing.

The scriptures on the other hand indicate that the world was organized using pre existing material. It's lost quite a bit in the English translation, but its much more apparent in the original hebrew and some other languages.

Sources?

The doctrine of creation out of nothing is actually a greek philosophical concept. It was welded with Christian theology after the Constanstine took over the Church.

In other words its not someone Christianity is based on. It's actually a later development.

Again, source? You're the first I've heard make such a claim

You've been given the experiment.

You have offered no scientific experiments to test your hypothesis.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why does an omnipotent being care about us? Are we its play things?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Eternalism or nihilism?


Which are you promoting?

To whom are you speaking?

Everyone.

Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists. Buddhists choose the middle way.

 

[JBeukema]

Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists. Buddhists choose the middle way.

1) atheism does not necessitate nihilism
2) you are presenting a false dichotomy


That being said, I am a moral nihilist of a sort, insomuch as I hold that 'morality' does not exist as an objective reality beyond the moral instinct present in humanity. I am not a true existent because I do no posit that life is meaningless, but that life 'has meaning'* to the individual, according to what brings joy and contentment to the individual. I am a positivist of the breed Hawking describes, in that I hold that one can never know what is true, but only whether a given model accurately and effectively describes the observable universe as one (subjectively) experiences it and which what model is best given the aforementioned criteria plus Occam's razor.


*setting aside the point that 'what is the meaning of life' is not really a valid question

 

[Avatar4321]

What I find interesting, Kalam, is that the judeochristoislaimic creation myth states tat there was no time or matter (as we know it) and.., poof! there was spacetime and matter and light and energy and eventually the physical workd we know! yet when science concurs with that assertion- they attack it

That's merely because you are unfamiliar with the origins of the creation ex nihilo doctrine that is a late development to both Judaism and Christianity. Islam wasnt founded until after this doctrine was firmly established in the Western world.

In reality, Judeo-Christian creation myth doesn't support this at all.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Believers in God tend to be eternalists and non-believers, agnostics and atheists, tend to be nihilists. Buddhists choose the middle way.

1) atheism does not necessitate nihilism
2) you are presenting a false dichotomy

I am presenting what I consider to be trends. Tend to be is the phrase. You argue atheism, what do you think happens after death?

 

[Avatar4321]

That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.

Would we really?

If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?

My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.

So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.

 

[JBeukema]

what do you think happens after death?

The body decays and breaks down into composite elements and molecules, that generally go onto take part in other interactions and become part of other things.

If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?

My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.

So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.

Barring evidence, I would accuse you of insanity- but I'm sure a few fools would call you a prophet because that want to believe

 

["b0xcar*girl*]

I've not encountered anyone who has an interest in attacking religious belief simply because they consider it irrational or baseless; many beliefs retain such elements. It's because religious belief has traditionally primarily adopted the role of the basis of an openly hierarchical institution (the Roman Catholic inquisition, excessively theocratic Islamic states today, etc.), or the basis of other negative influences that have the effect of causing intrusions into non-religious elements of life, as noted by the cartoon, that there is opposition.

It's a sad thing to say but there have been more people killed on planet Earth in the name of God than for any other reason.

That is a totally false statement.

Tens of millions of people were killed in both WWI and WWII. And it had zero to do with religion.

Also, tens of millions of people were killed and murdered during both the Russian and Chineese communist revolutions and subsequent takeovers.

And again, it had zero to do with religion, because the revolutions were led by secular atheists.

None of it had to do with religion!!!!!!!!!?????? Then what to you call Jewish persecution???? Racism????? Racism can also include underlying reasons, such as religion, or even lack thereof. Most anti-Semitics don't like Jews because of their heritage and ancestory, which is of course deeply rooted in God. God meaning the God of the Bible, and therefore of Messianic Jews and Christians. Therefore, religion.

Maybe they were secular revolutions, but I would say killings involved race, religion, political belief, and Lord only knows what else.

What's the difference between secular society takeovers in general and atheistic ones?????????

 

[AVG-JOE]

That being said, if there were a 'smoking bush' (like the one that addressed Moses - get your mind out of her pants!) proving the existence of God we would all know about it and there would be only one faith on this planet.

Would we really?

If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?

My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.

So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.

Why would God not speak to ALL of us? If God spoke to you through a burning bush, why would you not be impressive enough for me to listen to?

I'm skeptical. Why is that wrong? Have you never been skeptical of something that would make such a huge difference in your life? Did you sign your mortgage on faith?

All the non-believer asks is that the rules we live by be dictated by current popular consensus instead of by out of touch ancient literature. Why is that wrong? Are We, The People that perverted in our thinking? Christians can still live by more stringent rules if they want to, no skin off our nose...

What is the point if we are not free?

-Joe

 

[JBeukema]

He's on a roll - Gunny.

 

[Al Gunn]

Ok, then why?

 

[xotoxi]

I don't have any problem with people being religious. I just don't want it shoved down my throat.

One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible. True - they believe that God wrote the Bible. But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.

If I was to discuss evolution and I quoted Darwin, creationists would jump on me for quoting a work of fiction and promoting the Theory of Evolution.

Why not the Theory of God?

 

[Yukon]

Xotoxic,

You are so wrong, so out of touch, so ignorant of the facts. I am extremely religious in fact Im a formed Priest of the Roman Catholic Church (Praise the Pope). I dont shove religion down anyone's throat. I dont believe God wrote the Bible, man wrote the Bible and it is based on God and His Son.

"Creationist". What is a creationist? Obviously you dont know. One can believe in creation and evolution through creation. But you would not understand that for you are just too narrow minded. How sad.................

I don't have any problem with people being religious. I just don't want it shoved down my throat.

One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible. True - they believe that God wrote the Bible. But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.

If I was to discuss evolution and I quoted Darwin, creationists would jump on me for quoting a work of fiction and promoting the Theory of Evolution.

Why not the Theory of God?

 

[Againsheila]

I've learned to ignore religious threads here. I've been attacked to the point that I've been in tears and I won't let that happen again. I've even taken time off this board because of threats to Christians. Sadly, I've never really gotten back into this board that much. I wish people would learn to discuss things without hatred but I don't think that can be done by some here. Well, that's it for me in this thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

If I told you God spoke to me from a Burning Bush, would you believe me?

My guess is most people would scoff, some would mock. A few might listen.

So what makes you so certain that we would all know bout it? Im curious. Because I dont see how the position can be taken.

Barring evidence, I would accuse you of insanity- but I'm sure a few fools would call you a prophet because that want to believe

And this is exhibit number 1 why if God appeared to people, not everyone would accept it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why would God not speak to ALL of us? If God spoke to you through a burning bush, why would you not be impressive enough for me to listen to?

I think He does speak to all of us. Most people simply haven't prepared themselves to listen, let alone prepared ourselves to be in His presence.

How many people would see God and think they are hullicinating? Or going insane?

God in His mercy doesnt condemn people with knowledge they aren't prepared to handle.

I'm skeptical. Why is that wrong? Have you never been skeptical of something that would make such a huge difference in your life? Did you sign your mortgage on faith?

I dont think there is anything wrong with being unsure, as long as you dont let it prevent you from seeking out knowledge and accepting it once your questions and doubts have been answered.

There also comes a time in life where we cant be sure of what will happen. At those times we can either do nothing until we get all assurances, which likely will never happen. Or we can live life believing things will work out even if we cant see it for certain at the moment.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of doing something rather than doing nothing.

All the non-believer asks is that the rules we live by be dictated by current popular consensus instead of by out of touch ancient literature. Why is that wrong? Are We, The People that perverted in our thinking? Christians can still live by more stringent rules if they want to, no skin off our nose...

And what if the popular consensus accepts the ancient literature? Why is it out of date? Because you say so? Why is it wrong for those who have values to speak out for them just because you dont like them?

What is the point if we are not free?

How are we free if all we are doing is changing one set of chains for another?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't have any problem with people being religious. I just don't want it shoved down my throat.

And when has it ever been shoved down your throat? What the heck does that mean anyway? Who around here is saying believe or die?

One thing that bugs me about many religious people is that they are continuously quoting the Bible. True - they believe that God wrote the Bible. But some of us believe that men wrote the Bible, not God.

What is wrong with quoting the Bible? There is thousands of years of wisdom in there. People quote the Quran and Confucious too. Why shouldnt they?

Also, i dont know a single informed person who claims that God wrote the Bible. Because its obvious that men wrote it.

If I was to discuss evolution and I quoted Darwin, creationists would jump on me for quoting a work of fiction and promoting the Theory of Evolution.

No the wouldnt. Because Darwin would be completely on topic when discussing evolution. And Darwins work is scientific in nature. Simply because people may think he is wrong on some of his theories doesnt mean the work is fiction.

Why not the Theory of God?

call it what you want. But it seems silly not to discuss religious texts when discussing religion.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm sick and tired of zealots destroying religious threads so no one else can even have a discussion...Okay, discuss ....

and discussion should consist in discussion of dogmas of Christianity - which from these complete nonsenses is more true - I will answer straight off, all of it is false

Which Christian dogma do you think is false and nonsense?