By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Let's Talk About Religion

Louie on 14 March 2009
That Guy said:
No, its a valid hypothetical question. Just because a group claims to be a proponent of person X does not mean that thing X necessarily stands behind that group. Person X just happens to be God and the group happens to be a particular denomination. I could replace "group" with William Ayers and his fictional group "terrorists for Obama" and Person X to be Barack Obama.

If William Ayers decided to come out of the woodwork, started a Political action committee called "terrorists for Obama" and started blowing up buildings in the name of Barack Obama, do you really think Obama would approve or stand by Ayers? I think not.

 

Well that's true. I just mentioned it because it sounded like you were using it as proof for god's existance.



Around the Network
BTFeather55 on 14 March 2009

Hey, they're playing a Daniel O'Donnell concert on my pbs station tonight as part of the telethon. I don't know if it is also on your PBS stations. He sings many inspirational and religious songs.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

appolose on 14 March 2009
That Guy said:

The burden of proof always falls upon the positive statement. I can make the same argument on the existence of green men on mars and simply state "PROVE TO ME THAT GREEN MEN ON MARS DO NOT EXIST! LOL" No, the burden falls on me to provide positive evidence of green men; not to show the lack of negative evidence; if that makes sense or not.

 

 

 This idea really only exists in a courtroom:  To make a statement about reality without proof is an assumption, yes?  To say, "Aliens don't exist" is a statement about reality, and it's without proof.  Therefore, that statement is an assumption, just as much as its positive version.  Furthermore, a negative statement is no more likely to be true than its positive version, so there is no reason to automatically select it.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
FaRmLaNd on 14 March 2009

I'm an Atheist. I have absolutely nothing against religion aslong as its decentralised and kept private. My beefs with religion are very rarely with the actual texts but with the actual formalised groups that practice it.



highwaystar101 on 14 March 2009
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
I think that it is foolish to believe in a personal god because you have zero chance of getting it right. However, I wont dismiss the possibility of a creator per se, if someone could show me evidence for a creator I would be open to reading it, but it needs to be scientific and logical. Not just 'mr X said that he was son of god Y and it says this in book Z, which a fair few millenia old, follow it blindly sinner', which happens far too much and I'm sure most of you notice I go from nice to hostile when that happens.

Premise 1: We are soon on the verge of developing computers that will be able to recreate human minds

Premise 2: As such, we could develop computers that could recreate an entire world or even solar system.

 

Logical conclusion: If this technology became available, we would use it to create these "false" worlds for research, also likely for entertainment. These false worlds when technologically advanced enough would create there own false worlds.

Logical Conclusion 2: Therefore it's logical to assume that the odds of being a "real" world vs a "fake" world are very small even in a universe that wouldn't have a god.

Logical Conclusion 3: It's statistically probable we are living in a false world. AKA a world created by someone else. It is statistically probably a creator exists.

 

theoretically I agree that your premises and conslusion could one day be applicable. However, the laws of probability offer no proof for me on thisd matter as they have no bearing or practicality on the subject. I understand where you are coming from though.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 15 March 2009
FaRmLaNd said:
I'm an Atheist. I have absolutely nothing against religion aslong as its decentralised and kept private. My beefs with religion are very rarely with the actual texts but with the actual formalised groups that practice it.

 

I have no problems with groups. Most do very good work.

The only bad rap, is all the death that's attributed to religion (like the crusades). Holy wars have very little to do with religion. Religion is just the mechanism powerful people use to get someone to fight to the death.

All wars are for power, not god. God is just a tool to drive a man to die for something.

If god goes away, leaders will use something else to motivate people, like pride in your country, or protecting your way of life.



That Guy on 15 March 2009
Louie said:
That Guy said:
No, its a valid hypothetical question. Just because a group claims to be a proponent of person X does not mean that thing X necessarily stands behind that group. Person X just happens to be God and the group happens to be a particular denomination. I could replace "group" with William Ayers and his fictional group "terrorists for Obama" and Person X to be Barack Obama.

If William Ayers decided to come out of the woodwork, started a Political action committee called "terrorists for Obama" and started blowing up buildings in the name of Barack Obama, do you really think Obama would approve or stand by Ayers? I think not.

 

Well that's true. I just mentioned it because it sounded like you were using it as proof for god's existance.

 

I don't think it would be SO horrible if God really DID exist. Why is that so hard to comprehend? You make it sound as if its intellectual suicide to believe in God or to attribute anything to God.

If God does exist, you can still be an atheist

If we accepted that God created the universe, that doesn't mean that our science textbooks would simply say "god created everything. the end." If someone were to think that and did not look into science, i would consider that ignorance.

The premise that the universe has a designer doesn't mean that we cannot appreciate or study how it works.

For example, we can examine buildings of the ancient romans or the pyramids and we KNOW that they were designed by engineers and whatnot. That doesn't mean that we cannot study those buildings and the architectual/engineering principles thereof.



That Guy on 15 March 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
FaRmLaNd said:
I'm an Atheist. I have absolutely nothing against religion aslong as its decentralised and kept private. My beefs with religion are very rarely with the actual texts but with the actual formalised groups that practice it.

 

I have no problems with groups. Most do very good work.

The only bad rap, is all the death that's attributed to religion (like the crusades). Holy wars have very little to do with religion. Religion is just the mechanism powerful people use to get someone to fight to the death.

All wars are for power, not god. God is just a tool to drive a man to die for something.

If god goes away, leaders will use something else to motivate people, like pride in your country, or protecting your way of life.

 

this.

+1 for distinguishing the difference between the actual texts and the organized groups that commit genocide in the name of said texts.



Khuutra on 15 March 2009

Depends on the interpretation of the Abrahamic God you're talking about. I know that some forms of Judaism (maybe all? I forget, and this was told to me by a guy who liked talking about his own religion a lot) say that God wants you to question the teachings of the Torah, and that following blindly is in itself a sin.

Yeah! That's a fun idea. Religion without reason being a sin.



Final-Fan on 15 March 2009

Sounds like a pet rock type of god.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!