The Manu Doesn't Believe in God Thread [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : The Manu Doesn't Believe in God Thread

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

hater

10-13-2008, 04:36 PM

Idiots and lack of proof. Let me rephrase the question. What led you to believe that you could convince of "idiots" to believe with out proof?

through FEAR. You can make someone beleive pretty much anything through fear.

There are tons and tons of examples throughout history of this. Let me give you one:

Spaniards came to South America and enslaved indians. Indians were used as slaves to mine gold, farm, etc. Then slaves started thinking, "why do we have to work for these lazy spaniards?" Spaniards realized this and started using religion to keep these slaves working. They said, "obey our laws, work and God will not punish you". Indians beleived this because they were scared.

I am not saying Indians were "idiots" but were immensely intellectually inferior than spaniards at the time.

tmtcsc

10-13-2008, 04:37 PM

Take this statement in which ever way brings a smile to your face:

Manu doesn't believe in God. God believes in Manu.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 04:37 PM

So if you knew he was not an atheist, then why did you bring him up as a rebuttal to Pascal? Perhaps rather than being ignorant, you are just intellectually dishonest?

Because what Pascal said applies both to agnostic and atheists the same. As explained by Einstein himself, he did not view God in the same vein that Pascal did at all. Calling people that do not believe in God intellectually lazy is a theory that does not hold water at all when you see somebody like Einstein, an agnostic that had nothing of intellectual laziness.

But you knew that when you read it... you're just trying not to look like a fool...

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 04:41 PM

through FEAR. You can make someone beleive pretty much anything through fear.

There are tons and tons of examples throughout history of this. Let me give you one:

Spaniards came to South America and enslaved indians. Indians were used as slaves to mine gold, farm, etc. Then slaves started thinking, "why do we have to work for these lazy spaniards?" Spaniards realized this and started using religion to keep these slaves working. They said, "obey our laws, work and God will not punish you". Indians beleived this because they were scared.

I am not saying Indians were "idiots" but were immensely intellectually inferior than spaniards at the time.

Just like I inferred that intelligent people are the opposite of idiots. If idiots can be convinced with lack of proof and fear than intelligent people would need proof and could not be bullied by fear.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 04:42 PM

Just like I inferred that intelligent people are the opposite of idiots. If idiots can be convinced with lack of proof and fear than intelligent people would need proof and could not be bullied by fear.

Hmmm... that's exactly his point...

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 04:42 PM

Would you say the opposite is true?
:stirpot:

The statement was

intellegence and faith go hand in hand.

So yes, the opposite (converse) is true, the converse being:

there exists an intelligent person who is a non-believer

This is obviously true as Einstein was an atheist

Hemotivo

10-13-2008, 04:43 PM

Take this statement in which ever way brings a smile to your face:

Manu doesn't believe in God. God believes in Manu.

:lol

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 04:44 PM

The statement was

So yes, the opposite (converse) is true, the converse being:

there exists an intelligent person who is a non-believer
- or -
there exist a non-believer who is intelligent

This is obviously true as Einstein was atheist

There are intelligent people who do not believe and ones that do.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 04:46 PM

Hmmm... that's exactly his point...

No, because there are intelligent people that believe as well as intelligent people that do not. So what about the intelligent people that believe? You would have to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt and that cannot be done. It all depends on where you place the burden of proof, that was my point.

hater

10-13-2008, 04:47 PM

whottt

10-13-2008, 04:51 PM

This is obviously true as Einstein was an atheist

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."[54]

In case you're wondering...that's a big fuck you from old Alby as he rolls over in his grave.

PS: I'm pretty sure Edison wasn't an atheist either.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 04:51 PM

So, things come full circle. The default folk philosophy which was Christian in previous ages is now based upon a rationalism that itself is obsolete. Pascal described this a long time ago. He agreed that God does not reveal himself through objective evidence. He called the atheist intellectually lazy because he refuses to consider whether God might reveal himself through other means.

The intellectual lazy blame god every time they don't know the answer to something.

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 04:51 PM

Funny, that reason is exactly why i disdain many religious adherents.
I'm going to guess you're taking the "other means" phrase out of context to mean, rather than "besides objective evidence," which is the sense Pascal meant, instead to mean "besides your own faith."

This doesn't work if your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, at least not in the sense I think you would like.

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 04:51 PM

:clap @ Baseline Bum for taking my comments out of context.

You should pursue a career in politics. :rolleyes

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 04:52 PM

I did not say anything about proof. You brought that up on your own.

My apologies then. I just assumed that is what you meant when you said "believe or burn", meaning you would not have to show proof just instill fear.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 04:52 PM

Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

In case you're wondering...that's a big fuck you from old Alby.

PS: I'm pretty sure Edison wasn't an atheist either.

Einstein repeatedly said he did not believe in a personal god, and got tons of hate mail from preachers and believers nationwide to take his ass back to Germany when they killing every Jew in sight.

whottt

10-13-2008, 04:54 PM

Einstein repeatedly said he did not believe in a personal god,

That doesn't make him an atheist. He just flat out said he didn't like it when atheists quoted him to support their views.

In fact he said it makes him angry when they do that.

and got tons of hate mail from preachers and believers nationwide to take his ass back to Germany when they killing every Jew in sight.

That still doesn't make him an atheist.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 04:55 PM

:clap @ Baseline Bum for taking my comments out of context.

You should pursue a career in politics. :rolleyes

What do you mean out of context? You said 'intellegence' and faith go hand in hand. I.e., one requires the other.

whottt

10-13-2008, 04:57 PM

Knowing what I know of Einstein...I'd be willing to bet were he alive today there are many aspects of intelligent design he'd agree with.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 04:58 PM

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I
do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.

A big 'you're a dumbass' from Einstein to whott.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 04:58 PM

Knowing what I know of Einstein...I'd be willing to bet were he alive today there are many aspects of intelligent design he'd agree with.

What do you know? Another "Trust Me, I know(TM)" moment?
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 04:59 PM

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 05:00 PM

Knowing what I know of Einstein...I'd be willing to bet were he alive today there are many aspects of intelligent design he'd agree with.

Like an untestable hypothesis with no supporting evidence being put on an equal footing with a testable scientific theory with tons of evidence backing it? I doubt it.

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:01 PM

Can someone provide the cliff notes to Manny's monologue?

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 05:03 PM

:lmao @ intelligence and faith going hand in hand.

Why does anyone even bother arguing with Whottt anymoer? Would you argue with a retarded child on the street who told you the Easter Bunny was the Antichrist who was goign to kill us all by ticlking us to death with a demonic feather?

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 05:04 PM

Can someone provide the cliff notes to Manny's monologue?

I hope this is a joke and not a true sign of laziness.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 05:04 PM

Like an untestable hypothesis with no supporting evidence being put on an equal footing with a testable scientific theory with tons of evidence backing it? I doubt it.

He just heard Palin say that Dinosaurs walked the Earth 4000 years ago and had to jump into the bandwagon... or you didn't hear? Palin is smarter than Einstein himself!
:lmao

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:08 PM

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 05:11 PM

I think there is enough evidence to conclude that Einstein believed in a Creator.

I believe the question Einstein sought to answer was the relationship between the Creator and His creation.

Therefore, Einstein wasn't even agnostic, in so much that he did believe in Creationism.

As Einstein declared, in response to a rabbi who asked him directly whether or not he believed in God:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists...not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

:bang :bang :bang

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I
do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 05:14 PM

IRRELEVANT

Thats what Einstein's beliefs are one way or another. If you want to prove intelligence and faith go hand in hand you're not ever going to do it by pointing out smart atheists and believers. Try pointing out a few large scale psychological or sociological studies instead. At the very least back away from foolish anecdotal evidence which doesn't prove things one way or another.

PixelPusher

10-13-2008, 05:15 PM

I'm going to guess you're taking the "other means" phrase out of context to mean, rather than "besides objective evidence," which is the sense Pascal meant, instead to mean "besides your own faith."

This doesn't work if your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, at least not in the sense I think you would like.

If your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, you forfeit the "besides objective evidence" part...unless you want to wander into the sibling of intellectual laziness; intellectual dishonesty.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 05:16 PM

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:17 PM

:bang :bang :bang

Do you have trouble reading your own quote....

Einstein did not believe that God shared a personal relationship with His creation, as you've brought up. However, I've brought you evidence that Einstein did believe in a Creator.

There's a difference.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 05:19 PM

Man, throughout reading this thread I've become so sick of DPG's analogies. In the course of his trainwreck discussion he's compared Manu's statements with:

-Hilter and the Nazis
-The KKK
-racism in general
-Obama being confused as a Muslim.

I never compared Manu's statements with that of racism, Nazi's or the KKK. That was a direct reference to someone saying that people have freedom to say what they want. I said if one does then all do. In the case of the Nazi's and KKK it shows that things can get taken to the extreme.

He's done is best to say that Manu's statement does not bother him, but if thats the case why does he compare it directly with the most vile things he can think of? Its so ridiculous to sit here and try to paint a case where Manu will see some sort of Christian backlash as a result of his statements when a) most of the people who will find out about this already have through this forum and Manu's - NBC isn't going to run this on the nightly news and Katy Couric isn't going to sit down for a four part interview series on what Manu fucking Ginobili thinks - and b) (this should have given him a fucking clue) THE ONLY PERSON UPSET IN ANY MANNER OVER THESE STATEMENTS IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DPG!!!! How one does not automatically rethink their stance when the target demographic is the one thats arguing AGAINST is a sign of complete idiocy. It shows that you're not paying attention and doing your best at ignoring the reality that keeps repeatedly slapping you in the face.

I never said he would get a backlash and I even said that it is no where near what Josh Howard said because YouTube is much more popular than Manu's forum. I said it caught me off guard because the other questions where so light-hearted, I just though he would avoid it because you do not see stars open up that frequently. So I am not upset at all, just more confusion on your part.

I know that he kept saying that everyone in the thread mis understood him but never once did he stop to think that it wasn't a comprehension problem on the part of anyone else (although he did his best to through that out every chance he got) but maybe a communication error on his own part. Here's a hint: if almost everyone is coming to the same conclusion based on what you write its not a comprehension problem but a clarity problem.

I agree whole-heartedly I did not do a good job of making clear what I said. Which led to mass confusion and then off-topic debates.

In any event he also failed to take into consideratino at any point that people also understood his view but still throught it was completely retarded. Why does he continously compare Manu's statments to those of Josh Howard and the backlash Howard has recieved but never brought up an athletee like John Ameechee who came out and said he was gay and did not recieve a negative backlash but a POSITIVE one. His argument is also fundementally one of cowardice. To censor what you say because you are a public figure is a stance that Americans in general shy away from because we have been able to grow as a country due to the exact opposite!!!!! How can one sit there and continously defend such a gutless position without feelng gross?

There are two sides to every coin of course. There are examples of stars that opened up and it turned out good. Being gay falls into religious beliefs sometimes so it does encompass it. See, people like you turn it into an "America is founded on..." argument when that is not the point. The point is that he should not lie or hide, the point was that it SURPRISED me that when most famous people do hide, that he just answered so honestly and directly in context of the rest of the light-hearted questions.

And to finish off, I think Bo is completely incorrect. He got what he deserved in this thread because once you start calling people uneducated (which is ironic because I know for a fact that Baseline Bum is smarter than DPG and has had more education) and you start throwing around your intelligence as a shield all bets are off. I can't remember if its Travis or EHJ that says but one of them says the forum is self correcting. This thread is an excellent example of that at work.

Bum could be smarter than me, but to state that you know this as fact is wrong. Unless Baseline has a doctorate (which baseline could) then it is untrue about education.

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 05:22 PM

Because what Pascal said applies both to agnostic and atheists the same. As explained by Einstein himself, he did not view God in the same vein that Pascal did at all. Calling people that do not believe in God intellectually lazy is a theory that does not hold water at all when you see somebody like Einstein, an agnostic that had nothing of intellectual laziness.

But you knew that when you read it... you're just trying not to look like a fool...

I refute the premise that what Pascal said applies equally to atheists and agnostics. The question at hand is where to go next upon realizing that empirical theism is false. The remaining options are either that God does not exist, or that he exists, but does not reveal himself to the senses.

The atheist regards empirical theism as the only kind. He is enslaved to his rationalism; if it cannot be observed and measured, it cannot exist.

The agnostic, at least, understands that the fork in the trail exists. He may at that point lose interest in exploring any further. Such a person is not lazy so much as indifferent.

Perhaps you may have in mind the agnostic who simply lays back and waits for some empirical evidence, which will never come, before exploring further. I would ascribe to him the same laziness on the subject as the atheist.

Can you with any honesty place Einstein in either of those two categories? In my perusal of his writings, I read a man who at least thought through the implications of a personal God, the interaction of a Creator with scientific theory, the religious experience of gaining understanding of the workings of the universe, all within an attitude of epistemic humility.

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:22 PM

Faith has very little to do with intellegence, no?

Okay, in the broad sense, intellegence and faith go hand in hand.

What I was implying is an individual's faith may not be proportionate to their intellegence.

I only used Einstein as the most famous example of an intelligent atheist to shoot down Bo's ridiculous assertion that 'intellegence and faith go hand in hand'.

Do have trouble with reading comprehension?

In order for Faith to be defined (as anything else), an individual/mankind must have some level of intellegece.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 05:24 PM

Do you have trouble reading your own quote....

Einstein did not believe that God shared a personal relationship with His creation, as you've brought up. However, I've brought you evidence that Einstein did believe in a Creator.

There's a difference.

If by Creator, you mean the laws of physics, then yes, Einstein may believe in a creator. The fact that you capitalized it means you're referring to the supernatural man in the sky you believe in.

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:26 PM

Like an untestable hypothesis with no supporting evidence being put on an equal footing with a testable scientific theory with tons of evidence backing it? I doubt it.

:lmao @ you thinking it's not testable. It's not that it's untestable, it's that the results of the testing aren't reportable.

Besides:

Originally Posted by einstein

If something is in me
which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.

Sounds like a budding intelligent design proponent to me.

One thing we do know...he wasn't an atheist, and he was offended at being quoted by atheists in support of their views.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 05:28 PM

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 05:30 PM

:lmao @ you thinking it's not testable. It's not that it's untestable, it's that the results of the testing aren't reportable.

Besides:

Sounds like a budding intelligent design proponent to me.

One thing we do know...he wasn't an atheist, and he was offended at being quoted by atheists in support of their views.

What's your test of god's existence? Stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger and see if you retain consciousness?

Stabbin' Cabin

10-13-2008, 05:30 PM

Go Rays!

:stirpot:

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:30 PM

Why does anyone even bother arguing with Whottt anymoer? Would you argue with a retarded child on the street who told you the Easter Bunny was the Antichrist who was goign to kill us all by ticlking us to death with a demonic feather?

Why am I retarded?

For using Eintstein's own words to refute the idea he was an atheist?

Tell me one untrue point I have made in this thread.

Every single thing in existence of zero intelligence is an atheist. There is not a single thing of zero intelligence that posseses spiritual beliefs.

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:31 PM

What's your test of god's existence? Stick a shotgun in your mouth and pull the trigger and see if you retain consciousness?

You'll definitely know the answer then...therefore it's not untestable.

Fact.

Edit: Retaining conciousness is not important.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 05:32 PM

Every single thing in existence of zero intelligence is an atheist. There is not a single thing of zero intelligence that posseses spiritual beliefs.

How exactly does that help your case that only an advanced mind could conceive of a higher power?

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:33 PM

There is not a single thing of zero intelligence that posseses spiritual beliefs.

+1

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 05:34 PM

oh really?

So in that case, since we can't scientifically disprove that hobbitts, trolls, mermaids and santa claus don't exist. Then we should conclude that they do exist?

:rolleyes

Isn't it accepted as a historical fact that Jesus did in fact exist. Even non Christians site Jesus as a great prophet.

So the real question when it comes to Jesus, it would appear, is not" Did He exist" but rather " Do you believe Jesus is who He said He was?"

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 05:34 PM

Intelligence is not the ability to conceive, it is the ability to choose.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 05:35 PM

It's like trying to explain to children how there isn't really a Santa Claus.

No being of zero intelligence is spiritual = god must exist because we can conceive of him/her/it

That makes a heap of sense

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 05:37 PM

Isn't it accepted as a historical fact that Jesus did in fact exist. Even non Christians site Jesus as a great prophet.

So the real question when it comes to Jesus, it would appear, is not" Did He exist" but rather " Do you believe Jesus is who He said He was?"

+1

:)

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 05:38 PM

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 05:39 PM

To my knowledge he is only seen as a prophet in Islam.

But it is widely regarded that he did exist. Is that the case with Santa or bigfoot?

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 05:39 PM

But it is widely regarded that he did exist. Is that the case with Santa or bigfoot?

No. I wasn't questioning whether he existed. Just stating that I think only Islam sees him as a prophet.

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 05:41 PM

If your faith system makes exclusive claims of itself, you forfeit the "besides objective evidence" part...unless you want to wander into the sibling of intellectual laziness; intellectual dishonesty.
I don't accept that at all. In starting down the path towards faith, we already have left Cartesian ideas of certainty behind. If one considers that God might exist, one then must consider whether God is revealed to mankind in any way. If one considers that God is revealed, then he must consider whether God is revealed uniquely to him, or also to others. If one considers that God is revealed also to others, then he must consider whether God is revealed in a similar fashion to others or not. If one considers that God is revealed is a similar fashion to others, then he must consider whether there is a faith system out there that might be correct. If he considers that a particular one might be correct, he should then evaluate its tenets. If he accepts them, then he should have faith. If he does not believe them, then he should back up a few steps.

The right spirit of humility to have in all this is to recognize that these steps are all inductive. The validation of this faith journey is first and foremost through noetic experience and not rational intellect. I do not believe it is necessary to bowdlerize my faith in order to treat others with respect if they make different choices.

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 05:42 PM

To my knowledge he is only seen as a prophet in Islam.
I believe some Hindus regard him as a sage, at least.

PixelPusher

10-13-2008, 05:46 PM

But it is widely regarded that he did exist. Is that the case with Santa or bigfoot?

The myth of Santa Claus (and the parallel myths in other European countries) has it's roots in a real life Bishop Saint Nicholas of Myra. Of course, he didn't live in the North Pole or ride in a sleigh powered by flying reindeer.

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:50 PM

How exactly does that help your case that only an advanced mind could conceive of a higher power?

? It's pretty obvious isn't it?

Anyway what I said was spirtual beliefs are the product of advanced intelligence...since man is the most advanced intelligence we know of, and it also the only creature on the planet possesing spiritual beliefs that we know of, and has done so for the entirety of his existence based on all the evidence...it's the easiest point in the world to make.

You'd have to be a total idiot to not concede the point.

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:52 PM

Put it this way...even if all spiritual beliefs are complete bullshit fairytales...they are still the product of advanced intelligence.

[/thread]

Xylus

10-13-2008, 05:52 PM

Put it this way...even if all spiritual beliefs are complete bullshit fairytales...they are still the product of advanced intelligence.

[/thread]

So is Paris Hilton's popularity.

Who gives a fuck?

Man has created millions of horrible ideas.

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 05:56 PM

Put it this way...even if all spiritual beliefs are complete bullshit fairytales...they are still the product of advanced intelligence.

[/thread]

Yeah if you use advanced intelligence in the most basic of ways. You don't mean people of high IQ, you mean higher brain function of humans compared to animals.

Wow, thats such a resounding statement Whottt. Thanks for such groundbreaking thought.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 05:56 PM

You'd have to be a total idiot to not concede the point.

I understand that human beings are the only animal on Earth capable of having spiritual beliefs, but I'm not sure what the point behind this assertion is. How does it advance or hinder this discussion?

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:57 PM

So is Paris Hilton's popularity.

Who gives a fuck?

You do you ignorant fuck stick...that's why you are asking the questions...DUH.

Man has created millions of horrible ideas.

First and foremost your parents thinking it would be a good idea to reproduce.

Fuck off...

whottt

10-13-2008, 05:59 PM

I understand that human beings are the only animal on Earth capable of having spiritual beliefs, but I'm not sure what the point behind this assertion is. How does it advance or hinder this discussion?

It proves my point pretty emphatically...since such beliefs are only found in the most intelligent of all creatures, it is therefore pretty obviously a product of advanced intelligence.

Do you need it explained further? Idiot?

If so let me put it another way...

The worst idea ever thought of by man is still better than the best one ever thought of by a rock...

Get it now fuckstick?

Edit: Except for atheism...because the Rock can do that one itself :tu

ploto

10-13-2008, 06:01 PM

To me- faith does not explain everything; it simply gives me peace when things are inexplainable. I am not one of those people who normally prays that God will make things be a certain way. Instead, I pray for the ability to accept life with grace and humility no matter how things turn out.

PixelPusher

10-13-2008, 06:02 PM

I don't accept that at all. In starting down the path towards faith, we already have left Cartesian ideas of certainty behind. If one considers that God might exist, one then must consider whether God is revealed to mankind in any way. If one considers that God is revealed, then he must consider whether God is revealed uniquely to him, or also to others. If one considers that God is revealed also to others, then he must consider whether God is revealed in a similar fashion to others or not. If one considers that God is revealed is a similar fashion to others, then he must consider whether there is a faith system out there that might be correct. If he considers that a particular one might be correct, he should then evaluate its tenets. If he accepts them, then he should have faith. If he does not believe them, then he should back up a few steps.

The right spirit of humility to have in all this is to recognize that these steps are all inductive. The validation of this faith journey is first and foremost through noetic experience and not rational intellect. I do not believe it is necessary to bowdlerize my faith in order to treat others with respect if they make different choices.
The steps you describe are what I had to do years after growing up in a faith preformed for me, like a great many others who's religious preference is largely a result of culture and geography, not of some journey started from a blank slated origin.

whottt

10-13-2008, 06:02 PM

Yeah if you use advanced intelligence in the most basic of ways. You don't mean people of high IQ, you mean higher brain function of humans compared to animals.

Wow, thats such a resounding statement Whottt. Thanks for such groundbreaking thought.

Put away your computer, your keyboard, your mouse and your monitor...

After all, they're fairytales first and foremost.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:03 PM

It seems logic has escaped young whottt.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 06:04 PM

Actually, Atheism is a belief that no God exists, so it's not possible for a rock to "believe" in Atheism since it has no brain. Dumbass.

I swear, for all the shit took DPG got in this thread for his opinion, you really take the cake for the worst argument.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:05 PM

and has done so for the entirety of his existence based on all the evidence

Just curious there Aristotle but what evidence are you referring to? Aww shucks he has me on ignore. Anyone else care to answer this question?

MannyIsGod

10-13-2008, 06:05 PM

whottt

10-13-2008, 06:10 PM

Actually, Atheism is a belief that no God exists, so it's not possible for a rock to "believe" in Atheism since it has no brain. Dumbass.

A person with zero brain activity has a brain...what do they believe?

I swear, for all the shit took DPG got in this thread for his opinion, you really take the cake for the worst argument.

At least I'm not the quoting non-atheists to back up my atheistic view point...against their express wishes.

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 06:11 PM

For your consideration:
Mark 10:13-16-People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.
When Jesus saw this, He was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And He took the children in His arms, put His hands on them and blessed them.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 06:13 PM

A person with zero brain activity has a brain...what do they believe?

A person with zero brain activity is as smart as the rock...since they'd be fucking dead.

whottt

10-13-2008, 06:13 PM

Wow that's a tremendous non sequitor even for you. But, with these posts I'm reaching dangerously into arguing with a retarded child about the demonic feather wielding Easter bunny territory so I'm going to stop.

Take a different path then...feel free to point me to any successful atheistic civilization...

whottt

10-13-2008, 06:14 PM

A person with zero brain activity is as smart as the rock...since they'd be fucking dead.

A horse has a brain, what do they believe?

It's only going to get worse...

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:15 PM

Take a different path then...feel free to point me to any successful atheistic civilization...

I just can't fathom how dumb you truly are...it's astounding

Xylus

10-13-2008, 06:16 PM

A horse has a brain, what do they believe?

It's only going to get worse...

A horse does not have the capacity to believe in God or in atheism. It is similar to the rock in that its brain does not contain the ability to consider such things.

whottt

10-13-2008, 06:23 PM

A horse does not have the capacity to believe in God

True....because they have limited or no intelligence. Like rocks, and horses, and vegetables.

or in atheism.

False, A horse, like a rock, or a vegetable, does not believe in gods. The fact that they lack the minds to do so proves my point about it being a product of advanced intelligence.

What about an infant human, what do they believe?

tp2021

10-13-2008, 06:25 PM

Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved :lol

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 06:25 PM

jT7vRrZETuc

ElNono

10-13-2008, 06:25 PM

I refute the premise that what Pascal said applies equally to atheists and agnostics. The question at hand is where to go next upon realizing that empirical theism is false. The remaining options are either that God does not exist, or that he exists, but does not reveal himself to the senses.

No, there's no question at hand. Pascal thought that those who didn't think God would present itself in different forms were committing intellectual laziness. In order to believe that God would present itself in various forms, you first must ABSOLUTELY believe that there's a God out there. Something that Einstein (repeated here over and over again, in many quotes) did not believe in. And Albert Einstein was the exact opposite of intellectual laziness, making Pascal theory completely false.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 06:25 PM

Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved :lol

Because I cleared the air.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:26 PM

False, A horse, like a rock, or a vegetable, does not believe in gods. The fact that they lack the minds to do so proves my point about it being a product of advanced intelligence.

What about an infant human, what do they believe?

A horse cannot be atheist because atheism is the belief that there is no god. If a horse isn't intelligent enough to conceive of a god, then how can that horse believe god doesn't exist?

ElNono

10-13-2008, 06:27 PM

A horse has a brain, what do they believe?
It's only going to get worse...

What do they believe? I mean really... Do you read horse brains now?

ElNono

10-13-2008, 06:28 PM

False, A horse, like a rock, or a vegetable, does not believe in gods. The fact that they lack the minds to do so proves my point about it being a product of advanced intelligence.

Link?

smeagol

10-13-2008, 06:29 PM

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:29 PM

What do they believe? I mean really... Do you read horse brains now?

He does apparently as he is implying babies don't believe in god either. He also said something whotttish a page or two ago about humans believing in god for their entire existence. I'd like to see evidence of that. One piece of evidence to the contrary is early humans not burying their dead. Might be nothing but it sure as shit seems to go against The Theory of Whottt.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 06:31 PM

He does apparently as he is implying babies don't believe in god either. He also said something whotttish a page or two ago about humans believing in god for their entire existence. I'd like to see evidence of that. One piece of evidence to the contrary is early humans not burying their dead. Might be nothing but it sure as shit seems to go against The Theory of Whottt.

What's even worse is basically comparing a horse or an infant to Manu. I mean, this all started when he disputed that Manu did not believe in god because he wasn't smart enough... I mean... REALLY?
:lmao

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 06:34 PM

DPG:

I cannot understand how you got all worked up about Manu saying he does not believe in God. As if him saying that, ironically, was some kind of sin.

And what amazes me the most is that you keep defending your position.

I did not get all worked up in the context of what he said. I got surprised that he even bothered to answer a question that seems to be personal on a fan forum. Most stars are not that open or honest. That is all. I did not say it was a sin, I said I do not care about his beliefs. I said good for him for being honest, but I thought it was surprising, and he might get grief about it from some fans.

E20

10-13-2008, 06:38 PM

:tu to Manu. He is one of the rational. I love him more every day. :)

I wonder how many other agnostics/athiests there are on the Spurs?

So being a believer makes you rational as opposed to being a believer?

tp2021

10-13-2008, 06:38 PM

jT7vRrZETuc

WTF?! :lol

That movie looks so stupid.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 06:40 PM

What's even worse is basically comparing a horse or an infant to Manu. I mean, this all started when he disputed that Manu did not believe in god because he wasn't smart enough... I mean... REALLY?
:lmao

It's obviously jealousy. Manu's a millionaire with a relatively hot wife and has millions of people who adore him. Whottt is a loser with no money (his own admission) who has at least a few people who think he has the intellect of a field mouse.

Disclaimer - I mean no disrespect to field mice the world over.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 06:41 PM

WTF?! :lol

That movie looks so stupid.

Surprisingly funny if you take it for what it is worth. There is a lot of one liners.

tp2021

10-13-2008, 06:43 PM

Yeah I like some shitty movies that don't try too hard. Dickie Roberts cracks me up, and it is TURRUBLE.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 06:49 PM

Yeah I like some shitty movies that don't try too hard. Dickie Roberts cracks me up, and it is TURRUBLE.

Exactly. This is nucking futs

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 06:58 PM

No, there's no question at hand. Pascal thought that those who didn't think God would present itself in different forms were committing intellectual laziness. In order to believe that God would present itself in various forms, you first must ABSOLUTELY believe that there's a God out there. Something that Einstein (repeated here over and over again, in many quotes) did not believe in. And Albert Einstein was the exact opposite of intellectual laziness, making Pascal theory completely false.
No, you have misunderstood Pascal. The intellectual laziness is not in failing to declare that God presents himself in non-empirical ways. The laziness is in failing to ask whether, if God exists, how he might present himself. The skeptic is always questioning, and not taking shortcuts to a preconceived answer. The fallacy of the modern man is to fashion himself a skeptic simply because he refuses the indoctrination of his elders, not recognizing his own penchant for self-deception.

Of course, you have committed another fallacy which is not germane to the question at hand and therefore is only of secondary importance. While I do not believe Einstein was intellectually lazy in coming to his agnostic conclusions, because he obviously put some consideration into them beyond mere empiricism, it does not follow that simply because he is Albert Einstein and formulated the Theory of General Relativity, that he necessarily would put the same rigor into all his thoughts. For example, Richard Dawkins is a knowledgeable evolutionary biologist who tends toward cheap polemic when discussing his atheism. Your use of Einstein in this argument threatens to become an exercise in simple name-dropping.

whottt

10-13-2008, 07:06 PM

Xylus go home?

Just in case you decide to browse old stump.

Feel free to tell me what a Feral Child believes...

The Franchise

10-13-2008, 07:11 PM

This entire thread isn't about Manus' beliefs but everyone elses who disagree with him. Be real with yourselves and this can go a lot smoother.

whottt

10-13-2008, 07:11 PM

Why are people arguing with Whott now? This thread should be closed for the sake of all involved :lol

Right...arguing with me will you owned at the most personal level.

You see even if I were to not humor Xylus' terming of a limited ability to conceive as any sort of actual belief system, when in truth it's pretty much a certainty that every atheist in this thread has a perception of God as being some old man up on a throne in the cloud, a perception learned in childhood that they are unable to reconcile with their more mature perception of reality and a lack of provable evidence as to the existence of higher beings based on that immature perception, the fact of the matter is it ultimately boils down to a lack of a imagination and actual study, imgaination being itself a product of advanced intelligence, although not to the degree that Spiritual beliefs are.

IOW...what these guys reject is their vision of religion...it's ironic though because all that proves me to me is that they have never actually gone to any great length to read the bible, and it's their own retarded view they reject.

You see even in Christianity, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God is most definitely not some old man sitting on throne in the clouds, or anything of that sort, the bible makes it pretty clear that a normal human being would not be able to understand what they saw if they were to see God.

And yet the assholes think they are smart because they have cleverly figured out that God does not exist, because they have never seen him....or some shit like that.

They poo poo the lack of a scientific explanation or description in these ancient texts, ignorant of the fact that these texts were written before the existence of science...

Ignorant of the fact that science itself is the child of religion...not the sibling.

tp2021

10-13-2008, 07:14 PM

Right...arguing with me will you owned at the most personal level.

Yep.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 07:15 PM

Xylus go home?

Just in case you decide to browse old stump.

Feel free to tell me what a Feral Child believes...

Again, an infant is without the capacity to make such decisions.

Your whole point is made moot by this point that I made earlier:

Actually, Atheism is a belief that no God exists

A conscious belief.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 07:20 PM

They poo poo the lack of a scientific explanation or description in these ancient texts, ignorant of the fact that these texts were written before the existence of science...

:lmao

That is so wrong I don't know where to begin.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 07:20 PM

Paging rapping David Robinson, paging rapping David Robinson

tp2021

10-13-2008, 07:22 PM

Rappin' Shaq and some P<S photoshops would elevate this thread to legendary win.

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 07:23 PM

Paging rapping David Robinson, paging rapping David Robinson

:lol

Only to set the stage for the rapping prophets.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 07:26 PM

Ha ha

whottt

10-13-2008, 07:31 PM

Again, an infant is without the capacity to make such decisions.

A feral child is not an infant. A feral child is a child that developed largely outside of human contact.

A feral child has the same brain capacity as a normal child who believes in religion...

They have brains, they have brain activity, they have human brains with the capacity to believe in god...

So why don't they?

Your whole point is made moot by this point that I made earlier:

A conscious belief.

No, my point of it being a product of advanced intelligence is made valid by you, every single time you point out my examples are lacking in intelligence or mental capacity one way or another...

Ultimately, it doesn't take a mental capacity to not believe in something...

But let's keep going with this...

I await your response on why the Feral Child does not believe in God or posses spiritual beliefs...

Xylus

10-13-2008, 07:33 PM

A feral child is not an infant. A feral child is a child that developed largely outside of human contact.

A feral child has the same brain capacity as a normal child who believes in religion...

They have brains, they have brain activity, they have human brains with the capacity to believe in god...

So why don't they?

No, my point of it being a product of advanced intelligence is made valid by you, every single time you point out my examples are lacking in intelligence or mental capacity one way or another...

Ultimately, it doesn't take a mental capacity to not believe in something...

But let's keep going with this...

I await your response on why the Feral Child does not believe in God...

Give up, whottt. I've already beaten you, much like the dead horse you rode in on.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 07:35 PM

No, you have misunderstood Pascal. The intellectual laziness is not in failing to declare that God presents himself in non-empirical ways. The laziness is in failing to ask whether, if God exists, how he might present himself. The skeptic is always questioning, and not taking shortcuts to a preconceived answer. The fallacy of the modern man is to fashion himself a skeptic simply because he refuses the indoctrination of his elders, not recognizing his own penchant for self-deception.

Of course, you have committed another fallacy which is not germane to the question at hand and therefore is only of secondary importance. While I do not believe Einstein was intellectually lazy in coming to his agnostic conclusions, because he obviously put some consideration into them beyond mere empiricism, it does not follow that simply because he is Albert Einstein and formulated the Theory of General Relativity, that he necessarily would put the same rigor into all his thoughts. For example, Richard Dawkins is a knowledgeable evolutionary biologist who tends toward cheap polemic when discussing his atheism. Your use of Einstein in this argument threatens to become an exercise in simple name-dropping.

I disagree. I believe I understood Pascal very clearly, and his dislike for non believers is crystal clear. And I think we all do, throughout our lives, take a moment to reflect and review our beliefs. I'm fairly sure Einstein was not alien to this. So I'm fairly sure he had contemplated the 'If god exists' question many times over throughout his life, and always reached the same conclusion.

I also think it's very dishonest to try to imply that because Einstein might not have put the same rigor in his scientific research than on his religious beliefs he can be construed as being intellectually lazy, which is basically what you're implying. The reality is that the man did not believe in God, much to your despair, and had much better things to do as a scientist than sit down and try to analyze why that was.

Lastly, you dropped the Pascal name first, along with his theory, and I simply brought Einstein as a person that refuted such theory.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 07:35 PM

Give up, whottt. I've already beaten you, much like the dead horse you rode in on.

Whottt never gives up when defeated. He's the master of the filibuster here at Spurstalk.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 07:39 PM

Fine. I'll play this game.

A child's brain is developed in its infancy through interaction with other human beings. This is how it picks up the ability to speak a language, how it develops social behavior, how it learns to do "human" things. I think we can both agree that spirituality is a human creation, and thus must be learned. A Feral Child, if it hasn't been taught what spirituality/religion is, will simply not think of it. Thus, the capacity to make decisions about faith or atheism isn't programmed into the child's brain.

This doesn't make the child an atheist. It makes the child completely ignorant of such matters, since atheism is a conscious belief that no God exists.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 07:41 PM

IOW...what these guys reject is their vision of religion...it's ironic though because all that proves me to me is that they have never actually gone to any great length to read the bible, and it's their own retarded view they reject.
You see even in Christianity, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God is most definitely not some old man sitting on throne in the clouds, or anything of that sort, the bible makes it pretty clear that a normal human being would not be able to understand what they saw if they were to see God.

Years of cathecism beg to differ... but keep on ranting and making a fool of yourself. :lol

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 07:42 PM

ElNono

10-13-2008, 07:44 PM

I guess it just boils down to if you are a believer and are wrong then you are no worse off. If you are a non-believer and are wrong you will be worse off. Just with regards to the proposition that is religion.

This is actually a fallacy that I rebutted a long time ago... I can rehash it if you're curious...

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 07:51 PM

This is actually a fallacy that I rebutted a long time ago... I can rehash it if you're curious...

I did not catch it, please do!

whottt

10-13-2008, 07:57 PM

ElNono

10-13-2008, 07:58 PM

I did not catch it, please do!

Well, basically, there are certain things you are forbidden to experience in life in order to ensure you're going to have that imaginary parcel of heaven when you die. People that do not believe in life after death have no problem living life at it's fullest, without preset religious limitations.

Xylus

10-13-2008, 07:59 PM

Doesn't have the capacity(being raised apart from humans)...got it.

So then how did religious as spiritual beliefs come into existence, since by your own words, they must be learned?

Well religion didn't just pop up out of nowhere, just like the jet engine didn't pop out of nowhere. Probably through a series of ideas spread over centuries.

whottt

10-13-2008, 07:59 PM

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:00 PM

Doesn't have the capacity(being raised apart from humans)...got it.

So then how did religious as spiritual beliefs come into existence, since by your own words, they must be learned?

What part of 'I think we can both agree that spirituality is a human creation' you didn't understand? :lol

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:00 PM

Anyway...

So what you are saying is, you have the capacity to have spiritual beliefs, to conceive of higher beings and believe they exist, you just elect not to do so? Am I right on that?

I mean, you could do it if you wanted to...right?

Sure, if I wanted to believe, I would.

To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about feral children, and according to a couple of sources I've just consulted, there isn't a whole lot known about how the brain of a feral child works.

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:02 PM

Sure, if I wanted to believe, I would.

Why don't you want to believe?

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:03 PM

Why don't you want to believe?

Because I think the belief in God is as rational as the belief in a humongous invisible purple elephant with wings that flies through the sky and farts out wind.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:03 PM

Anyway...

So what you are saying is, you have the capacity to have spiritual beliefs, to conceive of higher beings and believe they exist, you just elect not to do so? Am I right on that?

I mean, you could do it if you wanted to...right?

So what you are saying is, you have the capacity to kill other human beings, to steal, murder and rape, you just elect not to do so? Am I right on that?

I mean, you could do it if you wanted to...right?

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 08:05 PM

Well, basically, there are certain things you are forbidden to experience in life in order to ensure you're going to have that imaginary parcel of heaven when you die. People that do not believe in life after death have no problem living life at it's fullest, without preset religious limitations.

I kind of get what you are saying, but it seems like you are talking about things like fornication, drinking... being forbidden. I was referring to the principles outlined in the bible (love, respect...). You are saying people that do not engage in the "sins" are not living life to the fullest, I do not believe that is true. I believe that for society, if people just at least acted in accordance with the bibles principles, even if they do not believe in God, would make the world and life more enjoyable. There is noting forbidden really, especially because you are free to learn and do things. You can always ask for forgiveness. It is like the teenager who wants to have sex with every girl, but as you get older you realize that sex without love is fruitless. They still got to experience things, but realize that happiness changes as you grow up.

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:05 PM

Because I think the belief in God is as rational as the belief in a humongous invisible purple elephant with wings that flies through the sky and farts out wind.

So are you saying you could believe in the existence of a purple elephant with wings that flies through the sky and farts out wind if you wanted to do so?

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:06 PM

So are you saying you could believe in the existence of a purple elephant with wings that flies through the sky and farts out wind if you wanted to do so?

Absolutely.

But I consciously choose to believe that no such thing exists.

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:07 PM

Could you also believe that something like say..an automoble doesn't exist?

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:08 PM

Could you also believe that something like say..an automoble doesn't exist?

I have ample evidence to prove that automobiles definitely exist.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:09 PM

I can't wait to see where this is going.

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 08:10 PM

I also think it's very dishonest to try to imply that because Einstein might not have put the same rigor in his scientific research than on his religious beliefs he can be construed as being intellectually lazy, which is basically what you're implying. The reality is that the man did not believe in God, much to your despair, and had much better things to do as a scientist than sit down and try to analyze why that was.
Somehow you have managed to construe the exact opposite of what I said. I am confident that I wrote in clear and unambiguous English. I suspect that while Einstein was probably not intellectually lazy, you are.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:12 PM

I kind of get what you are saying, but it seems like you are talking about things like fornication, drinking... being forbidden. I was referring to the principles outlined in the bible (love, respect...). You are saying people that do not engage in the "sins" are not living life to the fullest, I do not believe that is true. I believe that for society, if people just at least acted in accordance with the bibles principles, even if they do not believe in God, would make the world and life more enjoyable. There is noting forbidden really, especially because you are free to learn and do things. You can always ask for forgiveness. It is like the teenager who wants to have sex with every girl, but as you get older you realize that sex without love is fruitless. They still got to experience things, but realize that happiness changes as you grow up.

I'll give you one concrete example that has nothing to do with fornication or drinking... Take a person who is not fertile enough to conceive a child by his own means, but could go the route of IVF in order to have one or more children and enjoy having a family. But the church does not allow that, and a religious person would rather save his little parcel in heaven than to experience the joy of having a family. How about a raped woman, who does not want to conceive the child of her abuser? That's another example. How about those who got married, and then realized they made a mistake?
There are many, many topics that religious people struggle with. Some of them end up losing their beliefs over it...

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:14 PM

I have ample evidence to prove that automobiles definitely exist.

So that's a no I'm guessing.

So ultimately you can't disbelieve in something you know exists...and you struggle to believe something you don't know exists? To believe in something you don't know exists would be irrational to you?

Extra Stout

10-13-2008, 08:16 PM

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:17 PM

So that's a no I'm guessing.

So ultimately you can't disbelieve in something you know exists...and you struggle to believe something you don't know exists? To believe in something you don't know exists would be irrational to you?

I don't struggle to believe in something that could or could not exist: I simply choose not to. But yeah, believing in something for which there is no evidence to prove its existence, that would be irrational to me.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:17 PM

I can't wait to see where this is going.

I know exactly where this is going.. thus my refuting his argument with the 'killing'... basically, I'm venturing he's going to present the theory that because he chooses not to believe, he's missing out on the stuff. That because he's not exercising a spiritual beliefs, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, he's just choosing to ignore that it's there.
Which is obviously a complete fallacy. The fact that we can spend all of our days dreaming and thinking of imaginary things don't automatically make them 'real'.

Anyways, I have better things that comment on whottt's idiocy. I think Xylus has this under control...

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:19 PM

I know exactly where this is going.. thus my refuting his argument with the 'killing'... basically, I'm venturing he's going to present the theory that because he chooses not to believe, he's missing out on the stuff. That because he's not exercising a spiritual beliefs, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, he's just choosing to ignore that it's there.
Which is obviously a complete fallacy. The fact that we can spend all of our days dreaming and thinking of imaginary things don't automatically make them 'real'.

See I thought he was gonna go with the intelligence argument. He asked if it would be irrational to believe in something that we don't have proof of. Only intelligent beings could have the concept of rationality. Of course that proves absolutely nothing regarding intelligence leading to faith.

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:22 PM

I don't struggle to believe in something that could or could not exist: I simply choose not to. But yeah, believing in something for which there is no evidence to prove its existence, that would be irrational to me.

So if you were to tell a story, or write one, about an automible for an individual that had no prior concept of an automobile...

What would be the more intelligent response...

If he believes what you are telling him and that they exist...

Or if he doesn't because he hasn't seen one with his own eyes?

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:24 PM

Somehow you have managed to construe the exact opposite of what I said. I am confident that I wrote in clear and unambiguous English. I suspect that while Einstein was probably not intellectually lazy, you are.

I said I disagreed with what you said, and stated my point of view. I'm fairly sure I also wrote in plan, unambiguous English. I actually don't think you're intellectually lazy, just dishonest at times...

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:25 PM

So if you were to tell a story, or write one, about an automible for an individual that had no prior concept of an automobile...

What would be the more intelligent response...

If he believes what you are telling him and that they exist...

Or if he doesn't because he hasn't seen one with his own eyes?

I think it would be silly for him to believe that it exists based on my story alone, so I guess the more intelligent response would be skepticism.

But either way, faith and skepticism (or a desire for a rational evidence) are two traits that only human beings possess.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:25 PM

So if you were to tell a story, or write one, about an automible for an individual that had no prior concept of an automobile...

What would be the more intelligent response...

If he believes what you are telling him and that they exist...

Or if he doesn't because he hasn't seen one with his own eyes?

He would bring a fucking picture and a matchbox car... fucking idiot...
how stupid is this this guy?

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 08:25 PM

I'll give you one concrete example that has nothing to do with fornication or drinking... Take a person who is not fertile enough to conceive a child by his own means, but could go the route of IVF in order to have one or more children and enjoy having a family. But the church does not allow that, and a religious person would rather save his little parcel in heaven than to experience the joy of having a family. How about a raped woman, who does not want to conceive the child of her abuser? That's another example. How about those who got married, and then realized they made a mistake?
There are many, many topics that religious people struggle with. Some of them end up losing their beliefs over it...

Well everything in the world involves sacrifice. Give and take. There are other options. Say for example the couple adopts? Also, like I said, even if the woman gets an abortion, she is not damned. She can ask for forgiveness (if she feels she has to). This does not prove that not believing involves more "perceived risk" than believing.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:26 PM

He would bring a fucking picture and a matchbox car... fucking idiot...
how stupid is this this guy?

:lol

Xylus

10-13-2008, 08:32 PM

I'm not sure where this is going, but I'm going to go eat dinner now... so some other Atheist can continue where I left off. :lol

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:33 PM

I'm not sure where this is going, but I'm going to go eat dinner now... so some other Atheist can continue where I left off. :lol

I would but he makes it abundantly clear he has me on ignore.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:35 PM

Well everything in the world involves sacrifice. Give and take. There are other options. Say for example the couple adopts? Also, like I said, even if the woman gets an abortion, she is not damned. She can ask for forgiveness (if she feels she has to). This does not prove that not believing involves more "perceived risk" than believing.

Adoption can take years, and sometimes it just simply does not happen. I actually know a couple that cannot conceive, even through IVF, that have applied for child adoption, but they know their chances are very slim.

For a non-believer, there's no 'perceived risk', because we're not thinking of what we're going to miss when we kick the bucket.

But as an ex-Christian, I know you HAVE to repent in order to ask for forgiveness. Faking it doesn't work. But what happens if you don't regret such action? Should you struggle the rest of your life? Should you abandon your faith?

ElNono

10-13-2008, 08:36 PM

I'm not sure where this is going, but I'm going to go eat dinner now... so some other Atheist can continue where I left off. :lol

:lol I'm on ignore too... sucker doesn't have the balls...

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:39 PM

:lol I'm on ignore too... sucker doesn't have the balls...

Yet he flaunts it like it's a good thing. I've never seen someone be proud of placing people on ignore.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 08:41 PM

Adoption can take years, and sometimes it just simply does not happen. I actually know a couple that cannot conceive, even through IVF, that have applied for child adoption, but they know their chances are very slim.

For a non-believer, there's no 'perceived risk', because we're not thinking of what we're going to miss when we kick the bucket.

But as an ex-Christian, I know you HAVE to repent in order to ask for forgiveness. Faking it doesn't work. But what happens if you don't regret such action? Should you struggle the rest of your life? Should you abandon your faith?

No not at all. That is the difference between believing and not believing. Either you really believe or you do not. If you do, you are not damned, you can ask for forgiveness. If you do not, there is nothing to forgive. I was purely saying at the most basic level, if you look at believers vs non-believers believers have no risk (if they are wrong). I do not feel that if you are a believer and you could theoretically die and consciously see there is no God, that you would have said "damn, I should of done this, this and this". Also, whether you believe or not, the principles (for the most part) are universally good to follow and would increase the happiness on earth between people whether you are a believer or not.

whottt

10-13-2008, 08:44 PM

I think it would be silly for him to believe that it exists based on my story alone, so I guess the more intelligent response would be skepticism.

But nontheless...the less primitive the guy, the greater his mental capacity, the greater the chance he'd believe you. The more things he was aware of...the greater the chance he'd believe you.

I mean you tell that story to a rock or a vegetable you will get no response, you tell it to an infant, a horse, a feral child, they will not understand you, you tell it to a primitive man, he may or may not understand you but there's a chance he would, you tell that story to man with the most basic knowledge of propulsion, like say someone who had seen bottle rockets. there'd be a greater chance he'd believe you...you tell it to a man who has lived in a village or town with say electricity, again he might not believe you but chances are he'd believe you...

But either way, faith and skepticism (or a desire for a rational evidence) are two traits that only human beings possess.

Well being a skeptic isn't being an atheist...it's being agnostic. By your own definition...being an atheist is chosing not to believe. You say it's a choice...but again by your own words, you have no choice but to believe in something you know exists. That doesn't sound like a choice to me.

So basically you can't believe in something you don't know exists, even though every branch of humanity, every civilization, from every corner of the globe independly concluded that things of such nature do indeed exist, that great civilizations have been built upon those beliefs?

Simply put...you don't know it exists, so you can't believe it exists....how is that different from a horse again?

possessed

10-13-2008, 08:49 PM

Manu is the man. :toast

remingtonbo2001

10-13-2008, 08:50 PM

I'll give you one concrete example that has nothing to do with fornication or drinking... Take a person who is not fertile enough to conceive a child by his own means, but could go the route of IVF in order to have one or more children and enjoy having a family. But the church does not allow that, and a religious person would rather save his little parcel in heaven than to experience the joy of having a family. How about a raped woman, who does not want to conceive the child of her abuser? That's another example. How about those who got married, and then realized they made a mistake?
There are many, many topics that religious people struggle with. Some of them end up losing their beliefs over it.

The Church may/may not allow something.

Which is of greater importance, the Word of God, or the doctrine of a church?

As DPG concluded, it isn't about commiting a forbidden act. With Christianity, it's accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It's a commitment to the teachings of Jesus. It's the admission that as humans, we are born in sin, but through Christ we are forgiven of our sins.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 08:50 PM

I'm still wondering what his point is.

Only intelligent beings can comprehend god therefore god must exist? Is that what you're saying moron?

tp2021

10-13-2008, 08:52 PM

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1341/1193838025470pd4.jpg

tp2021

10-13-2008, 08:52 PM

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/d0/I_like_where_this_thread_is_going.jpg

ElNono

10-13-2008, 09:04 PM

No not at all. That is the difference between believing and not believing. Either you really believe or you do not. If you do, you are not damned, you can ask for forgiveness. If you do not, there is nothing to forgive. I was purely saying at the most basic level, if you look at believers vs non-believers believers have no risk (if they are wrong). I do not feel that if you are a believer and you could theoretically die and consciously see there is no God, that you would have said "damn, I should of done this, this and this". Also, whether you believe or not, the principles (for the most part) are universally good to follow and would increase the happiness on earth between people whether you are a believer or not.

I think church puts unrealistic bounds on certain items. Notice that I said church. I know plenty people that would have no problem doing IVF, yet be believers and think they did nothing wrong. Same with accepting homosexuals as just another normal human being.
I agree that certain values in Christianity are universally good. But I don't think they're exclusive to Christianity. I think you can be good, be happy, and make other people happy without necessarily having to believe in god.

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 09:06 PM

I think church puts unrealistic bounds on certain items. Notice that I said church. I know plenty people that would have no problem doing IVF, yet be believers and think they did nothing wrong. Same with accepting homosexuals as just another normal human being.
I agree that certain values in Christianity are universally good. But I don't think they're exclusive to Christianity. I think you can be good, be happy, and make other people happy without necessarily having to believe in god.

I agree and I would rather someone renounce God and live by good principles rather than someone say I believe and act like a jerk.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 09:08 PM

I agree and I would rather someone renounce God and live by good principles rather than someone say I believe and act like a jerk.

Man that sounds like someone familiar. I can't put my finger on it....

ElNono

10-13-2008, 09:09 PM

The Church may/may not allow something.

Which is of greater importance, the Word of God, or the doctrine of a church?

This I agree with. Exactly what I just posted to DPG.

As DPG concluded, it isn't about commiting a forbidden act. With Christianity, it's accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It's a commitment to the teachings of Jesus. It's the admission that as humans, we are born in sin, but through Christ we are forgiven of our sins.

This is where religion lost me...

DPG21920

10-13-2008, 09:23 PM

Man that sounds like someone familiar. I can't put my finger on it....

?

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 09:25 PM

?

Not you if that's what you're thinking. I was alluding to whottt.

ElNono

10-13-2008, 09:32 PM

But nontheless...the less primitive the guy, the greater his mental capacity, the greater the chance he'd believe you. The more things he was aware of...the greater the chance he'd believe you.

I mean you tell that story to a rock or a vegetable you will get no response, you tell it to an infant, a horse, a feral child, they will not understand you, you tell it to a primitive man, he may or may not understand you but there's a chance he would, you tell that story to man with the most basic knowledge of propulsion, like say someone who had seen bottle rockets. there'd be a greater chance he'd believe you...you tell it to a man who has lived in a village or town with say electricity, again he might not believe you but chances are he'd believe you...

FAIL. The odds of somebody believing your story are exactly the same on all cases, because it's equally unknown for all of them. There's actually no proof whatsoever, other than another of your 'hunch' that it would be otherwise.

Well being a skeptic isn't being an atheist...it's being agnostic. By your own definition...being an atheist is chosing not to believe. You say it's a choice...but again by your own words, you have no choice but to believe in something you know exists. That doesn't sound like a choice to me.

He said people could be skeptic. People can also chose not to believe the story period.

So basically you can't believe in something you don't know exists, even though every branch of humanity, every civilization, from every corner of the globe independly concluded that things of such nature do indeed exist, that great civilizations have been built upon those beliefs?

Hordes of flies fly around shit every day, does that mean we need to plaster shit all over ourselves?

Simply put...you don't know it exists, so you can't believe it exists....how is that different from a horse again?

Changing his words again. He said he can believe if he wanted to. He choses not to.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 09:55 PM

Well being a skeptic isn't being an atheist...it's being agnostic. By your own definition...being an atheist is chosing not to believe. You say it's a choice...but again by your own words, you have no choice but to believe in something you know exists. That doesn't sound like a choice to me.

Almost any atheist is technically an agnostic. I would believe in the supernatural if there was any real evidence for it, but there isn't and I don't.

So basically you can't believe in something you don't know exists, even though every branch of humanity, every civilization, from every corner of the globe independly concluded that things of such nature do indeed exist, that great civilizations have been built upon those beliefs?

Christian laws came about because people have evolved moreso to cooperate with instead of destroying each other, just like the chimps we're descended from. Religious laws came from our evolved morality; not the other way around. Natural selection is way more of a factor in having civilized society than are the 10 Commandments or any religious text. Lots of species of animals cooperate despite not having the mental capacity to conceive of the idea of religion.

Simply put...you don't know it exists, so you can't believe it exists....how is that different from a horse again?

Being an atheist isn't about being 100% sure. It's about doubting an explanation that has insufficient evidence to make it reasonably believable.

Is it ridiculous to say there is no microscopic teapot orbiting the sun just because we don't have a telescope that could see something so small that is so far away to answer the question in the affirmative or negative?

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 10:03 PM

It's the admission that as humans, we are born in sin

This is also one of the main reasons I stopped being a Catholic. A story that tells me humans are evil because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge is pretty ridiculous. I have that original sin because I want knowledge too? Bullshit.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 10:04 PM

This is also one of the main reasons I stopped being a Catholic. A story that tells me humans are evil because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge is pretty ridiculous. I have that original sin because I want knowledge too? Bullshit.

You forgot the talking snake. Which makes me wonder. For the people who believe the bible to be 100% true, how do you guys explain that one? God just took away the biological features necessary for speech and cognition from snakes?

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 10:07 PM

Philosophy is great, it just stinks we are finite.

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 10:09 PM

You forgot the talking snake. Which makes me wonder. For the people who believe the bible to be 100% true, how do you guys explain that one? God just took away the biological features necessary for speech and cognition from snakes?

The Bible refers to the snake as a normal animal at first. Then God curses the snake for letting itself be used by Lucifer so he curses it that it should travel on its belly for now on.

It sounds illogical, but there have been stories about demon possession unto animals before.

Its like i tell a friend of mine. If you want to find out Truth.....get out of San Antonio.

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 10:09 PM

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 10:10 PM

I don't think many Christians believe Genesis is a literal account.

No I know. But some people do. I wasn't really seeking an answer. More rhetorical than anything.

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 10:14 PM

I don't think many Christians believe Genesis is a literal account.

Many "Christians" dont know what to believe. Its pathetic. Im a Christian and i can defend my faith. Im not one of those people who just say "I believe, now go away"

im willing to discuss and debate. Im just not so willing to do it over the CPU for hours.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 10:16 PM

The Bible refers to the snake as a normal animal at first. Then God curses the snake for letting itself be used by Lucifer so he curses it that it should travel on its belly for now on.

It sounds illogical, but there have been stories about demon possession unto animals before.

Its like i tell a friend of mine. If you want to find out Truth.....get out of San Antonio.

Well there is actual truth to snakes having limbs in their history but it sounds like you're confirming what I believed.

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 10:19 PM

Well there is actual truth to snakes having limbs in their history but it sounds like you're confirming what I believed.

Although i dont believe it took billions of years to happen.....if Evolution were true.....the earth would not be able to contain a population that never stopped multiplying for billions of years.....think about it.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 10:23 PM

Although i dont believe it took billions of years to happen.....if Evolution were true.....the earth would not be able to contain a population that never stopped multiplying for billions of years.....think about it.

Huh?

tp2021

10-13-2008, 10:26 PM

tp2021

10-13-2008, 10:39 PM

I think this is a really good lecture about evolution. I was able to watch it on my PC, but not on my Mac. You have to download a program, but I think the intellectual gain is worth it.

http://www.esi.utexas.edu/outreach/ols/lectures/Miller/

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 10:45 PM

Which is of greater importance, the Word of God, or the doctrine of a church?

With Christianity, it's accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. It's a commitment to the teachings of Jesus. It's the admission that as humans, we are born in sin, but through Christ we are forgiven of our sins.

:tu :tu

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 10:51 PM

I don't think many Christians believe Genesis is a literal account.

I know it is literal.

In the Bible, when something is figurative, it is identifed as such with a " like" or " as".
Genesis plainly states " God created" " God spoke" , " The serpent said" etc.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 10:54 PM

I know it is literal.

In the Bible, when something is figurative, it is identifed as such with a " like" or " as".
Genesis plainly states " God created" " God spoke" , " The serpent said" etc.

So you believe a few thousand years ago a snake spoke?

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 10:58 PM

I know it is literal.

In the Bible, when something is figurative, it is identifed as such with a " like" or " as".
Genesis plainly states " God created" " God spoke" , " The serpent said" etc.

Ok, but I'd be shocked if the majority of Christians believe it is.

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 11:01 PM

So you believe a few thousand years ago a snake spoke?

I know the snake spoke. I don't understand how, but God is truthful so I believe it occurred just as He said.

Also, many years after the serpent spoke to Eve in the garden, a donkey spoke to Baalam, and saved Balaam's life.

Numbers 22: 21- 35 -
Balaam got up in the morning, saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab.
But God was very angry when he went, and the angel of the LORD stood in the road to oppose him. Balaam was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him.
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, she turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat her to get her back on the road.
Then the angel of the LORD stood in a narrow path between two vineyards, with walls on both sides.
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she pressed close to the wall, crushing Balaam's foot against it. So he beat her again.
Then the angel of the LORD moved on ahead and stood in a narrow place where there was no room to turn, either to the right or to the left.
When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, she lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat her with his staff.
Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"

Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now."
The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?"
"No," he said.
Then the LORD opened Balaam's eyes, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.
The angel of the LORD asked him, "Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.
The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her."
Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back."
The angel of the LORD said to Balaam, "Go with the men, but speak only what I tell you." So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 11:03 PM

I know the snake spoke. I don't understand how, but God is truthful so I believe it occurred just as He said.

Also, many years after the serpent spoke to Eve in the garden, a donkey spoke to Baalam, and saved Balaam's life.

Just curious but why do you believe these things? I mean that in a philosophical sense.

atxrocker

10-13-2008, 11:07 PM

i wonder if people realize how crazy they sound sometimes.

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 11:19 PM

i wonder if people realize how crazy they sound sometimes.

People will always sound crazy no matter what side you stand on. Christians think Atheists sound crazy and vice versa. But what is TRUTH??

that is the question.

Jesus said "I am the Truth"

If you honestly search for Truth you will find it. I guarantee it. Me and my friend were both atheists at one point. My friend used to get a kick out of contradicting the Bible and making fun of the logic of Christians. Until we started to put away our opinion of Truth and actually searched the scriptures and read it for ourselves and opened up our hearts to it, then it all began to make sense.

Its easy to be a skeptic. theres nothing to carry. nothing to lose. right?

Truth is there people whether you like to admit it or not. Our goal in life is to find it. AT all costs.....

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 11:20 PM

If you honestly search for Truth you will find it. I guarantee it. Me and my friend were both atheists at one point. My friend used to get a kick out of contradicting the Bible and making fun of the logic of Christians. Until we started to put away our opinion of Truth and actually searched the scriptures and read it for ourselves and opened up our hearts to it, then it all began to make sense.

Reading the bible is what brought me to the truth. I was a Catholic until then.

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 11:24 PM

Ok, but I'd be shocked if the majority of Christians believe it is.

Then honestly, that is their bad.

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 11:40 PM

Just curious but why do you believe these things? I mean that in a philosophical sense.

I believe them because I have accepted Jesus and believe that His Word
( the Bible) is true.
2 Timothy 3:1-17-
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Also, I have experienced a real life blessing every time I obey the Word of God.
For example, every time I tithe money is somehow returned to me- be it through a promotion and raise or an unexpected gift, I always get back more than I give out.
God promises that will be the case.

Malachi 3:10 - Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

1 John 2:27-28 -As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in Him.
And now, dear children, continue in Him, so that when He appears we may be confident and unashamed before Him at his coming.

timvp

10-13-2008, 11:45 PM

Angel if you had to advise Manu and his two options were to be happy and atheist or slightly less happy and a devout Christian, which road would you tell him to take?

Thanks.

:stirpot:

angel_luv

10-13-2008, 11:46 PM

This is one of my favorite Bible passages.

These are the sentences with which John, one of Jesus disciples, concludes the Gospel of John- John's testament of his time with Jesus.

John 21:24-25-
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

baseline bum

10-13-2008, 11:47 PM

That's not how you do it, timvp...

Angel, is Manu going to burn in hell after he dies?

:stirpot:

whottt

10-13-2008, 11:49 PM

Almost any atheist is technically an agnostic. I would believe in the supernatural if there was any real evidence for it, but there isn't and I don't.

Dude...it takes a hell of a lot more intelligence to prove or disprove the existence of of something than it does to conceive of it...or believe in it.

It's been 20 years since I took any astronomy classes but the last time I checked, we still haven't proven any theory of the origin of the Universe...

Does that mean there isn't one?

And that reminds me...20 years ago in an Astronomy course I had a debate with Professor that there must be something like a black hole at the center of galaxies...

He asked what my reasoning was and I said...because the spiral galaxies look exactly like the swirls in water when you drain the bathtub....

sidenote: and please don't even attempt to claim that doesn't sound like something I would think of :smokin

Needless to say my IMO, brilliant theory was met with a great deal of amusment by my classmates, as well as my Prof, at that point my Prof asked me if I could come up with any sort of test to prove my theory...to which I responded, no, I don't have enough knowledge to come up with anything to test that...I just know what they look like, why would they look so similar unless there were similar principles behind both of them?

Lo and behold, now it's a commonly accepted theory:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

Doesn't take a genius to think a man can fly, but it just about does to prove he can. I imagine man has conceived of man flying since just about the first time he saw a bird doing it...took millenia from that point to finally prove it could be done.

That doesn't mean the first guy who thought we could do it was stupid...on the contrary, he was right.

What about gravity? Prior to Newton, pretty much even the biggest asshats knew if you jumped out of a tree you'd go down..eveyrone knew it existed...proving it was another matter entirely.

What you have here is a similar conception in terms of simplicity...but an even more difficult one to prove, it stands to reason it will be the very last thing we prove...we will have to have all encompassing near godlike intellect, knowledge, and understanding of everything to prove that.

Be patient...that one is going to take a while.

But the evidence is all over the place man...take a look at our history sometime...any of it, anywhere. You will see the conception of higher life forms and planes of existence everywhere...often with similar themes arising totally independent of one another.

Christian laws came about because people have evolved moreso to cooperate with instead of destroying each other, just like the chimps we're descended from. Religious laws came from our evolved morality; not the other way around. Natural selection is way more of a factor in having civilized society than are the 10 Commandments or any religious text. Lots of species of animals cooperate despite not having the mental capacity to conceive of the idea of religion.

What Christian Laws do you speak of?

IF you are talking about the 10 commandments these basic themes pre-date Christianity and Judaism and are not unique to the Abrahamic Religions...or even the Dharmic. They are ancient...pre-dating all current organized schools of religion. Advanced civilizations with similar laws to our own existed thousands of years before Christianity...built around similar rules.

Being an atheist isn't about being 100% sure. It's about doubting an explanation that has insufficient evidence to make it reasonably believable.

Well we've gotten into this debate before...

Let's look at the bible...the bible says if man saw god he would not be comprehend what he was seeing.

This could easily be a being from another dimension a higher plane of existence, one who looks at us similar to the way we look at figures in a painting....

Now I ask you...how would the figures in that painting perceive us...

We can't comprehend looking out from a simpler dimension than our own into our own, how in the hell can we perceive of one more complex?

Long long way to go on this one....

We'd have to do that before we can prove jack shit...

Extra dimensional is they key word here...

Is it ridiculous to say there is no microscopic teapot orbiting the sun just because we don't have a telescope that could see something so small that is so far away to answer the question in the affirmative or negative?

Our imagination works two ways...one is to tame or understand, laws of nature that already exist, the other one is the creation of things that don't.

There is scant little born in our minds that doesn't or can't exist...

Not even Xylus purple figure...could be just around the corner with genetics.

Or let's look at a cellphone....cutting edge tech...in a way, but the frequencies it uses are not of our invention, indeed, they are ancient beyond all comprehension.

My laws:

#1. There's always something bigger, smarter, faster, etc. And if there isn't yet...there will be. Of course there's something bigger...higher. And it stands to reason that if we can create so can we be created. If we create so many things...who's to say nothing else can? That's a ludicrous notion.

#2. No dominant bigman will win an NBA championship without 3 point shooters who can hit their open shots.

xtremesteven33

10-13-2008, 11:54 PM

Reading the bible is what brought me to the truth. I was a Catholic until then.

i guess these guys are all crazy then huh?

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vsqlbc.jpg

Shastafarian

10-13-2008, 11:54 PM

Dude...it takes a hell of a lot more intelligence to prove or disprove the existence of of something than it does to conceive of it...or believe in it.

It's been 20 years since I took any astronomy classes but the last time I checked, we still haven't proven any theory of the origin of the Universe...

Does that mean there isn't one?

And that reminds me...20 years ago in an Astronomy course I had a debate with Professor that there must be something like a black hole at the center of galaxies...

He asked what my reasoning was and I said...because the spiral galaxies look exactly like the swirls in water when you drain the bathtub....

sidenote: and please don't even attempt to claim that doesn't sound like something I would think of :smokin

Needless to say my IMO, brilliant theory was met with a great deal of amusment by my classmates, as well as my Prof, at that point my Prof asked me if I could come up with any sort of test to prove my theory...to which I responded, no, I don't have enough knowledge to come up with anything to test that...I just know what they look like, why would they look so similar unless there were similar principles behind both of them?

Lo and behold, now it's a commonly accepted theory:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/active/smblack.html

Oh man...this one takes the cake. Our very own SpursTalk poster thought of Supermassive Black Holes. I'm gonna go nominate you for the fucking Nobel Prize in Physics (not Astronomy you fucktard).

Xylus

10-13-2008, 11:57 PM

i guess these guys are all crazy then huh?

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vsqlbc.jpg

Those men were mostly, if not all, secularists.

baseline bum

10-14-2008, 12:02 AM

i guess these guys are all crazy then huh?

http://i33.tinypic.com/2vsqlbc.jpg

Brilliant people can still be wrong on a lot of things. Aristotle is one of the greatest geniuses to ever live, many of the major things he argued turned out false.

xtremesteven33

10-14-2008, 12:02 AM

Those men were mostly, if not all, secularists.

George Washington quotes:

A Portion of George Washington's personal prayers:

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”
“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..."
[from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752]

http://www.eadshome.com/GeorgeWashington.htm

xtremesteven33

10-14-2008, 12:07 AM

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |
.......click here to see this quote in its context and to see John Adams' quotes taken OUT of context!
Samuel Adams: | Portrait of Sam Adams | Powerpoint presentation on John, John Quincy, and Sam Adams
“ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776. Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]

“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61

Elias Boudinot: | Portrait of Elias Boudinot
“ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”

On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."

John Hancock:
• “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"

Patrick Henry:
"Orator of the Revolution."
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]

“The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed.”

John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.

“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.” [The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p.365]

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

[U]James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813 by Congress

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”

• A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford November 9, 1772]

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers." Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government
See also: pp.241-242 in Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater]

[B][U]James McHenry – Signer of the Constitution
Public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

Jedediah Morse:
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg
In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on Jan. 21, 1776, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3.
Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenberg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenberg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.

Thomas Paine:
“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”
“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.” “The Existence of God--1810”

Benjamin Rush:
• “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.” [Letter written (1790’s) in Defense of the Bible in all schools in America]
• “Christianity is the only true and perfect religion.”
• “If moral precepts alone could have reformed mankind, the mission of the Son of God into our world would have been unnecessary.”

"Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education”
Letters of Benjamin Rush, "To the citizens of Philadelphia: A Plan for Free Schools", March 28, 1787

Justice Joseph Story:
“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]
“ Infidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit.” [Life and letters of Joseph Story, Vol. II 1851, pp. 8-9.]
“ At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593]

Noah Webster:
“ The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.”

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
[Source: 1828, in the preface to his American Dictionary of the English Language]

Let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God [Exodus 18:21]. . . . If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted . . . If our government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws. [Noah Webster, The History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie and Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, 49]

“All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” [Noah Webster. History. p. 339]

“The Bible was America’s basic textbook
in all fields.” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5]

“Education is useless without the Bible” [Noah Webster. Our Christian Heritage p.5 ]

Xylus

10-14-2008, 12:25 AM

I didn't say they were atheists, I said they were secularists. They founded the country on secular ideas, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

I thought you were making the assertion that this is a Christian nation as envisioned by the founders, when that simply isn't the case.

whottt

10-14-2008, 12:28 AM

I didn't say they were atheists, I said they were secularists. They founded the country on secular ideas, regardless of their own personal beliefs.

Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and to God what is God's

Sin,

Jesus

Sounds pretty secular to me.

Xylus

10-14-2008, 12:30 AM

Give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's and to God what is God's

Sin,

Jesus

Sounds pretty secular to me.

I'm not sure what point you're making.

whottt

10-14-2008, 12:30 AM

So let's see...out of hater's atheist list:

Einstein wasn't atheist.
Bejamin Franklin wasn't an atheist.

I am almost certain Edison wasn't atheist...I believe I've researched that before.

Lincoln may have been an atheist but he suffered from depression and most people that suffer from depression tend to have atheistic beliefs(or at least they do when they are depressed).

So who's left from that list of great atheists that actually is an atheist?

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 12:31 AM

I am almost certain Edison wasn't atheist...I believe I've researched that before.

Picking your nose for an hour and then doing a google search doesn't equal research numbnuts.

remingtonbo2001

10-14-2008, 12:32 AM

Didn't you say that you would vote for the presidential candidate who was most Christian? How come something as simple as rooting interest isn't held up to the same standard? :)

:stirpot:

Would you say the opposite is true?

:stirpot:

Would you ever tell whottt if you were to agree with him?

:stirpot:

Are you going to have to come up with something else once Manu returns from injury?

:stirpot:

Angel if you had to advise Manu and his two options were to be happy and atheist or slightly less happy and a devout Christian, which road would you tell him to take?

Thanks.

:stirpot:

Can you smell what timvp's cooking?

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 12:34 AM

I am almost certain Edison wasn't atheist...I believe I've researched that before.

I guess your "research" wasn't too in depth. From a quick google search I found these helpful Edison quotes:

My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul; but I simply do not believe it. [Thomas Edison, Do We Live Again?]

All Bibles are man-made. [Thomas Edison]

So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk. [Thomas Edison]

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God. [Thomas Alva Edison, Columbian Magazine]

whottt

10-14-2008, 12:34 AM

I'm not sure what point you're making.

It's in the true spirit of christianity to be secular.

And BTW, the foundation of our constitution well Patrick Henry is the guy on that list that deserves the most credit, but not as much as Sam Adams does...

But the true credit for our contitution lies in the belief system of the Quakers...they also started the anti-slavery movement...in the 1600's.

White
Christians.

Incidentally, the first registered slave owner in the history of North America was an African American.

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 12:37 AM

And BTW, the foundation of our constitution well Patrick Henry is the guy on that list that deserves the most credit, but not as much as Sam Adams does...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry
After the Revolution, Henry was an outspoken critic of the United States Constitution and urged against its adoption, arguing it gave the federal government too much power.

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 12:39 AM

Shhhhh, you're refuting whottt's "research".

tmtcsc

10-14-2008, 12:39 AM

For what its worth..look at my avatar and tell me God doesn't exist....just kidding.

I believe that God exists and I believe in the after-life. I also believe that everyone has a different path to God. That is the reason that we have so many different religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, etc.

I believe that every soul on this planet is on a journey towards finding God. We do have a purpose and everyone is unique and special. I obviously don't have all the answers and most of my prayers include a request for faith but I sincerely believe that
there exists a God that cannot be quantified, dissected or formulated.

I believe the Bible is one of the most incredible collection of books ever compiled and that it was divinely inspired. I also don't believe that every word or story is to be taken literally. But hey, I could be wrong and hold open the possibility that it is literally correct.

To truely appreciate the fantastic stories in the Bible (those stories that lead some rational humans to believe that it is absurd and impossible) i.e. Genesis, one has to understand that these stories were written to appeal to all of mankind in the most simplest of terms. In other words, the point of Genesis was to explain that God created the Heavens, Earth and Man. The Bible says it took 7 days. Well, 7 days could represent x-million number of years. The point is, God did it. Why try to explain the minutia of evolution when you are trying to keep an audience's attention ?

Anyhoo.

Just out of curiosity, do some atheists believe in an after-life ? Without the existence of God ?

whottt

10-14-2008, 12:41 AM

Pix:

As a leading Antifederalist, he was instrumental in forcing the adoption of the Bill of Rights to amend the new Constitution.

Anything else?

xtremesteven33

10-14-2008, 12:42 AM

Xylus

10-14-2008, 12:43 AM

Just out of curiosity, do some atheists believe in an after-life ? Without the existence of God ?

I've never met an atheist who believed in an afterlife, but I don't see why it's not possible. You can conceivably believe that no god exists, but still believe that we're all granted a second life after we die in this one. Personally, I think you're simply dead after you die and that's that. As does every atheist I've come in contact with.

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 12:45 AM

Pix:

Anything else?

The Bill of Rights is not the "foundation of our constitution", they're amendments.

baseline bum

10-14-2008, 12:46 AM

Just out of curiosity, do some atheists believe in an after-life ? Without the existence of God ?

I believe the show's over once the physical processes that control our consciousness end at death, so no, I do not believe there is anything that comes after death.

xtremesteven33

10-14-2008, 12:46 AM

I've never met an atheist who believed in an afterlife, but I don't see why it's not possible. You can conceivably believe that no god exists, but still believe that we're all granted a second life after we die in this one. Personally, I think you're simply dead after you die and that's that. As does every atheist I've come in contact with.

If there is an after life than that means life has purpose and meaning. If there is no afterlife that pretty much means we were all an accident and have no purpose or absolute truth in life.

whottt

10-14-2008, 12:54 AM

The Bill of Rights is not the "foundation of our constitution", they're amendments.

Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the Bill of Rights.

I don't know about you..but I consider:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Right to bear Arms
4. Prohibition of unreaonable seach and seizure
5. Trial by jury

Etc...to pretty much be "our" Constitution.

Oh yeah.....it's also contains that whole Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State unimportant horseshit...

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 12:59 AM

Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the Bill of Rights.

I don't know about you..but I consider:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Right to bear Arms
4. Prohibition of unreaonable seach and seizure
5. Trial by jury

Etc...to pretty much be "our" Constitution.

Oh yeah.....it's also contains that whole Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State unimportant horseshit...

hmmmm, since the Bill of Rights isn't part of the original document, it's kind of hard to say they're part of the foundation of it.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:05 AM

hmmmm, since the Bill of Rights isn't part of the original document, it's kind of hard to say they're part of the foundation of it.

I didn't say they're the foundation of "it" or "the"...now did I idiot?

I said "our"

as in

o
u
r

...and I said it for a reason. Fuck stick.

tmtcsc

10-14-2008, 01:09 AM

I believe the show's over once the physical processes that control our consciousness end at death, so no, I do not believe there is anything that comes after death.

Thanks for your answer, but it brings up a whole new question.

Do you believe that people can die -- Loss of brain function and cardiopulmonary function and be brought back to life or do you think that science should add some time to its definition of death ? In other words, they weren't dead if they were able to be brought back to life ?

I read an interesting book entitled "What Happens When We Die". It was a study done on people who have died by science or medicine's definition of death and have had Near Death Experiences.

In some instances, patients were clinically dead and had no brain functionality. Yet, they had out of body experiences and were capable of thought during this time. One of the patients who was brought back to life saw that his dentures had been removed during the emergency surgery and had been placed in a drawer in the room -- All while showing flat line brain waves..

He was able to remember the nurse that removed the dentures and what she looked like too. He had never been conscious when she was called in to assist with his emergency procedure.

Pretty interesting stuff. He doesn't really explain his own beliefs either and leaves religion out of it. He only reports on the after life experiences. Most people are greeted by family and or friends that have passed on. They also experience a great sense of peace.

It has a section devoted to children who have died and been brought back to life as well and had NDE's.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2008, 01:11 AM

What point is Whottt trying to make at this point?

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 01:11 AM

I didn't say they're the foundation of "it" or "the"...now did I idiot?

I said "our"

as in

o
u
r

...and I said it for a reason. Fuck stick.

Perhaps you think giving it ownership changes the fact that those mean the same thing?

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 01:12 AM

What point is Whottt trying to make at this point?

Hard to say. I'm still reeling from his proclamation that he thought of Supermassive Black Holes 20 years ago.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:22 AM

What point is Whottt trying to make at this point?

Post 1:

It's in the true spirit of christianity to be secular.

And BTW, the foundation of our constitution well Patrick Henry is the guy on that list that deserves the most credit, but not as much as Sam Adams does...

But the true credit for our contitution lies in the belief system of the Quakers...they also started the anti-slavery movement...in the 1600's.

.

Post #2:

Spoken like someone completely ignorant of the Bill of Rights.

I don't know about you..but I consider:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of the Press
3. Right to bear Arms
4. Prohibition of unreaonable seach and seizure
5. Trial by jury

Etc...to pretty much be "our" Constitution.

Oh yeah.....it's also contains that whole Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State unimportant horseshit...

Exactly 3 mentions of the constitution, each time qualified with the word "our". I went to a lot of trouble to include the word "our" each time...

Since my initial post was about secularism being in the true spirit of Christianity and the Quakers influence on the foundation of our Constitution, in a thread about religion...and since as far as I know...the Quakers know exactly jack shit about bicameral legislature, houses of congress and different branches of government...

You tell me...what does the word "our" mean?

Xylus

10-14-2008, 01:27 AM

If there is an after life than that means life has purpose and meaning.

That's a very biased assumption you're making there. Why would you automatically equate an afterlife with some overarching goal in this life?

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 01:28 AM

MannyIsGod

10-14-2008, 01:33 AM

Post 1:

Post #2:

Exactly 3 mentions of the constitution, each time qualified with the word "our". I went to a lot of trouble to include the word "our" each time...

Since my initial post was about secularism being in the true spirit of Christianity and the Quakers influence on the foundation of our Constitution, in a thread about religion...and since as far as I know...the Quakers know exactly jack shit about bicameral legislature, houses of congress and different branches of government...

You tell me...what does the word "our" mean?

I honestly still don't know what the point you're trying to make is. I don't know if my brain is just completely shut down at the moment or if you're just rambling or if its something else but I have no idea what you're talking about whottt.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:39 AM

If you build an addition to a house someone else originally built, you are not instrumental in the "foundation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foundation)" of that house, no matter how many times you stamp your feet and scream "OUR house!"

If your forefathers built a somwewhat typical house 200 years ago and then 2 years after building it added a magnificent mansion, to the degree that it far outshines the original house, as the main addition that makes it unique and then they and your more immediate ancestors all the way up to your parents and grandparents added another 12 or so additions including several after your birth, and that first addition is the part your have always lived in and protects you the most, it most definitely qualifies as the foundation of your house under more definitions than not.

Edit: Especially in a thread about religion.

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 01:43 AM

If your forefathers built a somwewhat typical house 200 years ago and then 2 years after building it added a magnificent mansion, to the degree that it far outshines the original house, as the main addition that makes it unique and then they and your more immediate ancestors all the way up to your parents and grandparents added another 12 or so additions including several after your birth, and that first addition is the part your have always lived in and protects you the most, it most definitely qualifies as the foundation of your house under more definitions than not.

The Constitution (a document which broadly lays out the form and function of government) can exist without a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights (a series of amendments dealing specifically with individual liberties) can NOT exist without a Constitution as it's FOUNDATION.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:44 AM

I honestly still don't know what the point you're trying to make is. I don't know if my brain is just completely shut down at the moment or if you're just rambling or if its something else but I have no idea what you're talking about whottt.

What do you consider to be the most important part of the constitution? The bill of rights or the defining of the branches of government?

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 01:46 AM

What do you consider to be the most important part of the constitution? The bill of rights or the defining of the branches of government?

Without a government, a bill of rights amounts to precisely dick.

just a wish list.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:50 AM

The Constitution (a document which broadly lays out the form and function of government) can exist without a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights (a series of amendments dealing specifically with individual liberties) can NOT exist without a Constitution as it's FOUNDATION.

Our Constitution has always had a bill of rights, we have never known a Constitution without one...and since it's the part that has the most impact on our day to day lives...I think it's pretty easy to make a case that it is our Constitution. I mean are you a politician or a citizen? Our Constitution without the Bill of Rights isn't what makes American America...it's the Bill of Rights that does that my friend.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2008, 01:51 AM

What do you consider to be the most important part of the constitution? The bill of rights or the defining of the branches of government?

I believe they are equally important. The actual division of powers within our government has no doubt had a great deal in protecting our rights, but without the bill of rights those powers would be able to run over the rights that the first 10 amendments protect.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:53 AM

Without a government, a bill of rights amounts to precisely dick.

just a wish list.

:lmao and without a bill of rights our goverment would be precisely a dick.

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 01:55 AM

timvp

10-14-2008, 01:55 AM

I see what whottt is saying. Now whether that's what he meant from the beginning or whether he's covering his azz is the question . . .

But even if it was an azz covering, it was a nice recovery from what looked like a lethal blow from PixelPusher.

whottt

10-14-2008, 01:55 AM

I believe they are equally important. The actual division of powers within our government has no doubt had a great deal in protecting our rights, but without the bill of rights those powers would be able to run over the rights that the first 10 amendments protect.

Well I see nothing particularly benevolent or enlightened about the Constitution sans the Bill of Rights, yes the checks and balances are a bit ingenious...but you don't think of checks and balances when you think of America...you think of the freedoms, and they are contained wholly in the Bill of Rights.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2008, 01:59 AM

whottt

10-14-2008, 02:01 AM

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 02:05 AM

Our Constitution has always had a bill of rights, we have never known a Constitution without one...and since it's the part that has the most impact on our day to day lives...I think it's pretty easy to make a case that it is our Constitution. I mean are you a politician or a citizen? Our Constitution without the Bill of Rights isn't what makes American America...it's the Bill of Rights that does that my friend.
The Bill of Rights are indeed important. Horray for Civil Liberties! Horray for America!

...that still doesn't let you off the hook for asserting that Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist who utterly dispised the Constitution, was 2nd only to America's foremost cheerleader Sam Adams to the foundation of the/our(whatever) Constitution (that was ratified in spite of his opposition to it).

No mention of James Madison (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html)? He only wrote the damn thing.

PixelPusher

10-14-2008, 02:08 AM

Rights mean nothing unless they are protected. You can say they are protected all you want, but actually having a system that guards them is invaluable. The way the government was setup by the founding fathers has protected those rights you find so dear. Without it the Bill of Rights lose a lot of their meaning because they lose their protection.

They support one another, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation in a thread about religion and Manu.

Man I'm so fucking lost at this point.
My bad. I know whottt is a fountain of unfounded assertions, but that one just stuck in my craw and I couldn't let it go.

whottt

10-14-2008, 02:16 AM

Rights mean nothing unless they are protected. You can say they are protected all you want, but actually having a system that guards them is invaluable. The way the government was setup by the founding fathers has protected those rights you find so dear. Without it the Bill of Rights lose a lot of their meaning because they lose their protection.

They support one another, but I don't understand why we're having this conversation in a thread about religion and Manu.

Man I'm so fucking lost at this point.

The problem is that you are entirely cut off from your spiritual ancestry. You chown down on the liver of a buffo marinarus fed duck and you won't have any problems getting spiritual...ever again.

Spirituality dies in us the further away we get from these practices.

whottt

10-14-2008, 02:42 AM

The Bill of Rights are indeed important. Horray for Civil Liberties! Horray for America!

...that still doesn't let you off the hook for asserting that Patrick Henry, an anti-federalist who utterly dispised the Constitution, was 2nd only to America's foremost cheerleader Sam Adams to the foundation of the/our(whatever) Constitution (that was ratified in spite of his opposition to it).

No mention of James Madison (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jm4.html)? He only wrote the damn thing.

I made no unfounded assertion whatsoever my friend...

A pity you don't understand the Contistution would never have been ratified if it wasn't agreed upon that a Bill of Rights would be added to it later.

Thanks for playin'. :tu

And thank you Mr. Henry, and especially Mr. Adams.

Quakers too.

PS: Unfounded? No...Provocative? Yes. But damned if that was the part I expected to provoke.

And James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, didn't think it was important did it under pressure...so I don't know why I'd give him much credit for the foundation of our Constitution.

MannyIsGod

10-14-2008, 03:19 AM

The problem is that you are entirely cut off from your spiritual ancestry. You chown down on the liver of a buffo marinarus fed duck and you won't have any problems getting spiritual...ever again.

Spirituality dies in us the further away we get from these practices.

Oh I am? You profess to know what my spirituality is or are you just assuming?

whottt

10-14-2008, 03:27 AM

Oh I am? You profess to know what my spirituality is or are you just assuming?

I don't have a clue what your spiritual beliefs are...but I do know what your spiritual ancestry is...or at least part of it, your ancient ancestry. It is my field of expertise. I don't think you practice it...but if you do you're bad ass. :tu

timvp

10-14-2008, 03:40 AM

So do you Manu told David Robinson that he doesn't believe in God?

whottt

10-14-2008, 03:59 AM

So do you Manu told David Robinson that he doesn't believe in God?

Probably not...

Now my question...would you vote for David Robinson if he ran for President?

ElNono

10-14-2008, 06:25 AM

Reading the bible is what brought me to the truth. I was a Catholic until then.

+1

xeromass

10-14-2008, 06:40 AM

Don't have time or will to read whole 29 pages, but still, one question for DPG2192 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=13014)0 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=13014)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Europe_belief_in_god.png/655px-Europe_belief_in_god.png
Map shows percentage of positive responses to statement "I believe there is a God." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_belief_in_god.png

So in your opinion, in large part of Europe, believers should keep themselves closeted as not to insult any ubersensitive infidels?

/me takes bill of rights and wipes his ass

ElNono

10-14-2008, 06:40 AM

So do you Manu told David Robinson that he doesn't believe in God?

just when whottt was babbling again, timvp with the saving throw...:lol

ElNono

10-14-2008, 08:20 AM

The RPG version of this thread so far:
- Manu encounters God question.
- Manu casts disbelief.
- Manu damages God question for 10 HP, God question dies
- Band of believers encounter band of non believers.
- DPG casts innuendo. Casting fails.
- Mister Sinister attacks DPG with drama queen for 5 HP of damage.
- DPG drinks reality potion.
- ElNono summons Mercedes Benz.
- MaNuMaNiAc casts Visibility.
- ElNono runs over MaNuMaNiAc for 5 HP damage.
- MaNuMaNiAc blinds ElNono for 2 rounds.
- remingtonbo2001 casts Personal God. Casting fails.
- MaNuMaNiAc attacks remingtonbo2001 with Translation Table for 5 HP damage.
- timvp stirs Cauldron of Controversy. Everybody takes 3 HP damage.
- Extra Stout attacks ElNono with Pascal for 5 HP damage.
- whottt drink Intelligence +5 potion. Potion has no effect.
- whottt summons Horse.
- angel_luv attacks baseline_bum with Holy Bible for 5 HP damage.
- ElNono attacks Extra Stout with Albert Einstein for 5 HP damage.
- Xylus attacks whottt with Hammer of Bad Analogy for 10 HP.
- baseline_bum summons Shastafarian.
- baseline_bum attacks angel_luv with Shastafarian for 5 HP damage.
- whottt casts Constitution +10. Casting fails.
- PixelPusher attacks whottt with Spear of Knowledge.
- whottt summons Bill of Rights.
- timvp summons David Robinson.
- ?

EDIT: sorry if I missed some of you... feel free to add more entries! :lol

Shastafarian

10-14-2008, 08:23 AM

- whottt drink Intelligence +5 potion. Potion has no effect.

:lmao

xtremesteven33

10-14-2008, 09:06 AM

That's a very biased assumption you're making there. Why would you automatically equate an afterlife with some overarching goal in this life?

because it makes sense. If there is a God, then we were created right? And if something is created it happened for a reason. right?
Then our unwritten goal is to find out what that truth is. Even though most people dont really care for it. theyd rather spend thier life wasting it than seeking for truth and not necessarily purpose.

If Evolution is true. The core truth of it is we have no purpose on this earth. We are a product of slime billions of years ago that happened for no reason.
In that case, an after life wouldnt make any sense if there is no intelligent design to craft a heaven or hell or cultivate the human soul.

ElNono

10-14-2008, 09:33 AM

because it makes sense. If there is a God, then we were created right? And if something is created it happened for a reason. right?
Then our unwritten goal is to find out what that truth is. Even though most people dont really care for it. theyd rather spend thier life wasting it than seeking for truth and not necessarily purpose.

Not really, no. You set what your purpose in life is. You even set your purpose in life when you decided to follow God's direction. You say, 'OK, God says my purpose in life is this, that and the other', when you made the decision to agree and pursue that in life, you effectively decided what your purpose in life is going to be. Some other people decided otherwise. Some people agreed, then noticed that didn't work for them, so they went a different way. There's no Right or Wrong here, IMO. It's completely a personal choice, and it's very disingenuous to claim that because somebody opted for a different purpose in life than yours, they're automatically wasting their life.
There are a lots of people who have set their purpose in life to help others, to advance sciences for the greater good of humanity, to make other people happy, and they don't believe in God at all. Even when some of their actions align themselves with Christianity.

If Evolution is true. The core truth of it is we have no purpose on this earth. We are a product of slime billions of years ago that happened for no reason.
In that case, an after life wouldnt make any sense if there is no intelligent design to craft a heaven or hell or cultivate the human soul.

Purpose and evolution are two completely different animals. They're not mutually exclusive to begin with. And you don't need intelligent design to cultivate the human soul. You can absolutely feel good by helping somebody without needing to be a religious person.