Religion thread...

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
I'm arguing against the basis of your religion.
That might be origins, but it sure ain't the basis of my religion. The basis of my religion is that their is an all encompassing god, who we are all connected to through the Holy Spirit, and of whom we were taught about by Jesus Christ.

That is my unshakeable foundation.
 

fortsbest

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,741
That might be origins, but it sure ain't the basis of my religion. The basis of my religion is that their is an all encompassing god, who we are all connected to through the Holy Spirit, and of whom we were taught about by Jesus Christ.

That is my unshakeable foundation.
:towel:happydance:buddy
 

kidd

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
2,377
That might be origins, but it sure ain't the basis of my religion. The basis of my religion is that their is an all encompassing god, who we are all connected to through the Holy Spirit, and of whom we were taught about by Jesus Christ.

That is my unshakeable foundation.
And boom! That's it.

Debate over.

You either believe or you don't.

Disproving the story of how Cain found his wife does nothing to disprove God's existence.
 

DCUDoomsday

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
229
The point of debating it is thinking of other possible solutions to the questions above.
I go with Sir William of Occam and look for the simplest solution.

It is much simpler to realize mankind is self important and vain. He also creates alot of fiction. And that's why mankind in his vanity and self importance, created the deities, demons, angels, prophets and all other such religious cast and characters in his own image just like he later created Superman, Batman, the Tooth Fairy and all other such fictions.

"God" does exist - in the human heart. The same way Superman, Batman, the Tooth Fairy and all other such fictions, exist. Creations by man, of man, for man and in man's own image. That also explains why there's so many of them.

By the way, it seems now they're saying the "big bang" never happened, and the universe has no beginning.

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

Old ideas revisited

The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.
Much more at link.

Brings to mind the passage in the bible where God explains it has no beginning and no end, has always existed. Wasn't created, essentially.

One of my religious friends said he couldn't wrap his mind around this latest, and asking, 'how can the universe have no beginning?' I'm like, 'you wrap your mind around it just fine when "God" says he has no beginning, what's the problem?'
 

DCUDoomsday

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
229
So furthermore, and also recent is this nugget:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-fry-explains-what-he-would-say-if-he-was-confronted-by-god-10015360.html

Staunch atheist Stephen Fry left a television host stunned when he explained what he would say if he was “confronted by God”.

“Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God,” asked TV host Gay Bryne. “What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?”

The 57-year-old replied: “I’d say, 'bone cancer in children? What’s that about?'

“How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.

“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That’s what I would say. ”

Byrne’s second question, “And you think you are going to get in, like that?” only served to fuel his fervour.

"But I wouldn't want to," Fry insisted. “I wouldn't want to get in on his terms. They are wrong.

"Now, if I died and it was Pluto, Hades, and if it was the 12 Greek gods then I would have more truck with it, because the Greeks didn’t pretend to not be human in their appetites, in their capriciousness, and in their unreasonableness… they didn’t present themselves as being all-seeing, all-wise, all-kind, all-beneficent, because the god that created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac… utter maniac, totally selfish.

“We have to spend our life on our knees thanking him? What kind of god would do that?

"So, atheism isn’t not just about not believing there’s a God, but on the assumption there is one, what kind of God is he?”

Visibly staggered by Fry’s answer, Byrne said: “That sure is the longest answer to that question I ever got in this entire series.”
Video clip:


We see here a example of what I've always said - the most vociferous, militant "atheists" aren't atheists at all, they're simply anti-Christian anti-Jew bigots who label themselves "atheist" as a cover for their bigotry. And of course they're all also carefully PC, this is why you never see any of them going after "Allah" in any way.

Were he a actual Atheist, he would have had a actual answer to the question instead of a idiotic, emotional rant about why the god he claims to not believe in would allow children to suffer. And such.

So we see here he is like all militant atheists - he's as much or more of a true believer than even the most devout of the faithful. He believes the deity exists as a all powerful omnipotent being, and has given alot of thought to how angry he is at this being and why.

And like all true believers, he has the vanity to believe that this all powerful being created everything, and therefore its most "important" creation - mankind - should be looked after and cared about. He truly believes that tiny, insignificant humankind would somehow be all important to such a being.

Humankind is only important to itself.

A true Atheist who isn't a bigot and who isn't hateful and vociferous, and who truly doesn't believe the all powerful deity exists as anything other than a fictional character created by man, for man and in man's own image, would have answered the idiotic query this way:

Q: “Suppose it’s all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God - what would you say to him/her/it?"

A: "It wouldn't happen, unless of course you believe I may someday be confronted by Superman, Batman, or the Tooth Fairy - or any other fictional character we've created..."

And then go on to explain how mankind in his vanity and self importance, created the deities, demons, angels, prophets and all other such religious cast and characters in his own image just like he later created Superman, Batman, the Tooth Fairy and all other such fictions.

Fry is a Poster Boy example of the fake Atheist. He is not a Atheist at all, he is a bigot and is actually Anti-Theist. Atheists don't profess to not be religious - that's Anti-theism not Atheism. They profess that Deities don't exist as they are proposed. They propose Deities and all associated implements, characters, stories, and so on, are fictions of mankind's making.

We have vast evidence of mankind's tendency to create fiction, in fact it still happens every day. To assume mankind hasn't created fiction since his ability to communicate, is what would take alot of faith.

Again, Fry is not a Atheist, he is actually a true believer who is mad at "god" for letting children suffer, and allowing evil in the world. But he is perfectly okay with Allah and the evil it represents, because, picked on Muslims ya know?

This is what makes him simply a bigot, hiding behind the comfortable "atheist" label.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Occam's razor and God is made up like the tooth fairy.

Dazzling and original.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Right. Can't even begin to refute it.
I can't refute your disjointed name-dropping of a heuristic and comparison of an entity the search for whom has driven the most brilliant art and scholarship throught the ages to fictional characters based on the fact that you feel it is so. I suppose you're correct, technically. William of Occam was a Catholic monk and theologian, FYI.

Oh, and you should use more italics. Italics are persuasive.
 

DCUDoomsday

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
229
I can't refute your disjointed name-dropping of a heuristic and comparison of an entity the search for whom has driven the most brilliant art and scholarship throught the ages to fictional characters based on the fact that you feel it is so. I suppose you're correct, technically. William of Occam was a Catholic monk and theologian, FYI.

Oh, and you should use more italics. Italics are persuasive.
Must be, we get them every time we quote someone.

But seriously - on the math alone with trillions of stars out there, our existence makes it mathematically impossible we're the only ones. But, religious dogma teaches so.

It's not unreasonable to believe mankind creates fiction and always has, and it's alot more simple of a answer than to believe in some all knowing all powerful entity who created everything and centered it all around man, for mankind's benefit. Takes alot less vanity and hubris, alot less self importance, as well.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Must be, we get them every time we quote someone.

But seriously - on the math alone with trillions of stars out there, our existence makes it mathematically impossible we're the only ones. But, religious dogma teaches so.

It's not unreasonable to believe mankind creates fiction and always has, and it's alot more simple of a answer than to believe in some all knowing all powerful entity who created everything and centered it all around man, for mankind's benefit. Takes alot less vanity and hubris, alot less self importance, as well.
It takes less hubris and vanity to argue that the overwhelming majority of human beings who have ever drawn breath is fundamentally wrong about the fabric of our reality? If you say so. Mankind, when it writes fictions, tends to mark them as such.

And my Church's astronomers, in full compliance with the Church's teaching, have allowed for the possibility of extraterrestrial life for years. Not sure why the supposed problem of aliens has driven this thread. Oh well.
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Must be, we get them every time we quote someone.

But seriously - on the math alone with trillions of stars out there, our existence makes it mathematically impossible we're the only ones. But, religious dogma teaches so.

It's not unreasonable to believe mankind creates fiction and always has, and it's alot more simple of a answer than to believe in some all knowing all powerful entity who created everything and centered it all around man, for mankind's benefit. Takes alot less vanity and hubris, alot less self importance, as well.
Is that right? You mean some dude said that or are you referring to scripture that doesn't exist?
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Is that right? You mean some dude said that or are you referring to scripture that doesn't exist?
Seeing as most Protestants are sola scriptura, the only other "dogma" could be Catholic or Orthodox, and the lack of extraterrestrials is certainly not in the Catechism. I suspect it is just a popular meme in the scientism community, because EZ used to trot out the same idea. Somebody from a creationist think tank probably said it once, and now it is "dogma."
 

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Seeing as most Protestants are sola scriptura, the only other "dogma" could be Catholic or Orthodox, and the lack of extraterrestrials is certainly not in the Catechism. I suspect it is just a popular meme in the scientism community, because EZ used to trot out the same idea. Somebody from a creationist think tank probably said it once, and now it is "dogma."
That is exactly it.

I always get a chuckle when there are religious debates from people who don't actually argue from a perspective of knowing scripture. The only choice then is to argue about the arguments that have been put out there by others that like to argue. It is simply arguing over other commentary that is out there because those are usually the hot button issues that get the most attention.
 

DCUDoomsday

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
229
Mankind, when it writes fictions, tends to mark them as such.
Modern mankind does. Ancient mankind, not so much.
skidadl said:
Is that right? You mean some dude said that or are you referring to scripture that doesn't exist?
Religion isn't scripture, as I am sure you know.
skidadl said:
I always get a chuckle when there are religious debates from people who don't actually argue from a perspective of knowing scripture. The only choice then is to argue about the arguments that have been put out there by others that like to argue. It is simply arguing over other commentary that is out there because those are usually the hot button issues that get the most attention.
Umm, yeah. Which scripture, though. Out of the hundreds. I'm well versed on bible scripture. Not so much on some of the others.

Faith tells you to believe. My brain tells me it is all fiction. However I respect people's beliefs and am not one of these true bigots who hold disdain for at minimum, and attack vociferously and even kill, at maximum, those who hold spiritual beliefs. I don't argue that deities don't exist, because obviously they do. I merely recognize them for what they are - ancient fiction that over the centuries became accepted reality.

A good example is the Qur'an. Mohammed allegedly went into sabbatical and came out with the "Holy Word" of Allah. Coincidentally this "word" holds much in common with the characters, situations and stories of Judaism, but told from the Arab standpoint, for the Arab. It's a re-write of the original fiction, Allah in this case being created in the Arab image. Mohammed didn't present this as fiction - but clearly it is.

Man created God in his own image, not the other way around.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,131
That is exactly it.

I always get a chuckle when there are religious debates from people who don't actually argue from a perspective of knowing scripture. The only choice then is to argue about the arguments that have been put out there by others that like to argue. It is simply arguing over other commentary that is out there because those are usually the hot button issues that get the most attention.
That's why I like debating this subject with you. It remains civil, generally, and is grounded in facts.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
120,131
My side being the most factual, obviously. :unsure
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,132
As long as we all agree that dinosaurs are Jesus Horses then everything is cool.
 

DCUDoomsday

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
229
As long as we all agree that dinosaurs are Jesus Horses then everything is cool.
:lol

But, funny you should mention that. None of ancient mankind's fictional scribblings mentions dinosaurs - because none ancient knew about them, the fossils hadn't been discovered yet.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,702
We are all on board with aliens and abductions though, correct? Has anyone on here been probed?
 
Top Bottom