This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell...and stuff
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skyfire
And how does your religion make more sense to you than say... Greek mythology? They're both about as likely.
You missed the point. You can believe in any god or God or gods that you wish. Just don't let that belief come between you and realizing the
world
universe
around us through science.
Post by
Sagramor
What you're mistaking is that you think you either believe in religion or science, not both at the same time. That's where you're wrong. I, for one, believe in God, but that doesn't, in any way, cloud my judgment about scientific facts.
And how does your religion make more sense to you than say... Greek mythology? They're both about as likely.
To me it makes more sense. See (shortening it, of course), I believe that God isn't omnipotent, or all knowing. Sure, the guy(or girl, or thing, don't get me wrong) knows a heck of a lot, but he just put the first elements here (I don't know which they were and how it came to be) and what happened from there was just as much a surprise to him(or her, or it) as to us. In my point of view, that explains everything, and also means that I'm not gonna fall back on God when they ask me about war and stuff. When they do I just quote the best movie ever.
"People are evil, Mr. Constantine. People."
Post by
Skreeran
And how does your religion make more sense to you than say... Greek mythology? They're both about as likely.
You missed the point. You can believe in any god or God or gods that you wish. Just don't let that belief come between you and realizing the
world
universe
around us through science.
But it does. Nearly every religion in existance provides an alternate explanation for how the universe works. Most of them involving man being created rather than evolving. Evolution is a much stronger theory than spontaneous existance. Science supports evolution (most) religion(s) don't. Science and religion are in opposition, and I believe it is important to base ones judgement on falsifiable evidence, rather than feelings.
Post by
TheMediator
And how does your religion make more sense to you than say... Greek mythology? They're both about as likely.
You missed the point. You can believe in any god or God or gods that you wish. Just don't let that belief come between you and realizing the
world
universe
around us through science.
But it does. Nearly every religion in existance provides an alternate explanation for how the universe works. Most of them involving man being created rather than evolving. Evolution is a much stronger theory than spontaneous existance. Science supports evolution (most) religion(s) don't. Science and religion are in opposition, and I believe it is important to base ones judgement on falsifiable evidence, rather than feelings.
QFT. The whole reason why people are poking at religious people is because those who are religious say some of the most scientifically retarded things.No one has a problem with someone just thinking god exists in their head, but once it comes out into the open they think the world is less than 6000 years old, then people start calling them retarded.
Post by
Skreeran
Here's some nice links to explain my thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_evil
1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
3. (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_problem_of_hell
1. An omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God exists.
2. Some people due to their culture of belief alone may be penalized by God with everlasting punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
"God of the gaps" is sometimes used to describe the retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of additional scientific explanations. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As science found explanations for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the 'need' for a god to explain phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge. This line of reasoning commonly holds that since the domain of natural phenomena previously explained by God is shrinking, theistic or divine explanations for any natural phenomenon become less plausible.
And, specific to christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism#Hebrew_Bible
Plus some pics!
Propaganda
Old Testament God?
---------------------------
Being that niether science nor logic (in my opinion) supports Western Religion, I find that due to lack of evidence, religion is not valid in my point of view.
And bear in mind, I think about these things all the time. I converted from christianity to atheism, and I did it based on a great deal of thinking.
Post by
267115
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
152320
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
QFT. The whole reason why people are poking at religious people is because those who are religious say some of the most scientifically retarded things.No one has a problem with someone just thinking god exists in their head, but once it comes out into the open they think the world is less than 6000 years old, then people start calling them retarded.
So... I would like to challenge this. If I propose a way for it to be theoretically justifiable that my religion can agree with my scientific understanding, will you accept it as plausible, without calling me retarded?
If, say, I can produce a theoritical way for the universe to be 8K years old, and for the light recieved at the Hubble Space Telesope to be off of objects which are billions of light years away, and at the same time these two theories coexist... will you give me a little credit?
Post by
TheMediator
QFT. The whole reason why people are poking at religious people is because those who are religious say some of the most scientifically retarded things.No one has a problem with someone just thinking god exists in their head, but once it comes out into the open they think the world is less than 6000 years old, then people start calling them retarded.
So... I would like to challenge this. If I propose a way for it to be theoretically justifiable that my religion can agree with my scientific understanding, will you accept it as plausible, without calling me retarded?
If, say, I can produce a theoritical way for the universe to be 8K years old, and for the light recieved at the Hubble Space Telesope to be off of objects which are billions of light years away, and at the same time these two theories coexist... will you give me a little credit?
If you could propose a hypothesis that made sense that didn't conflict with the evidence that was there, I would be impressed.
Post by
MyTie
I would be impressed.
I'm tingling at the opportunity to explain my views. Ok. This is simply hypothesis, but it is possible hypothesis. I admit upfront that I have no proof. However, it does pose the possibility that God created the universe without conflicting with science. Here goes:
We understand that the light reaching us from far off galaxies is at least 100K years old. This is a modest figure, based on what we know about the size of the universe. Our understanding of physics states that it is impossible for light to reach us over that distance in less time than the maximum speed of light will allow.
Keeping this in mind, we can examine the Bible, and come up with a rough estimate that dates the universe at a meer 8K years old. If we were to take a literal translation, that God created the earth in 6 days, and take the geneologies provided in the Bible, along with the ages provided, we tally up to roughly 8K years.
When I saw the evidence, in particular, the Hubble Ultra Deep field, I was astonished, and wanted to know how it could even be possible for the Bible to be taken literally. Obviously, there was something amiss.
I found my answer using common sense. The Bible says that God created the universe. It also says that He created Adam and Eve. If we are to assume that Adam was created by God, we have an image in our mind of God molding a human being. Would He create a sperm and an egg, have them fertalize mid air and then grow a baby? Well, I suppose if God were omnipotent, that is possible, but infeasible and unneccessary. It makes much more sense that God created Adam able to sustain his life, at an optimal time for him. He created the garden not seeds in the dirt, but all at once. He made the life at appropriate age.
Why not the whole universe? Why wouldn't God make the universe at a time when the universe is optimal to support life?
I realized the reason I didn't consider this was because I was so used to looking for a beginning to the universe. When did God claim to create ANYTHING from step 1? Why would He?
Does my theory hold any credibility in the realm of possibility? Or am I 'retarded'.
Post by
TheMediator
I would be impressed.
I'm tingling at the opportunity to explain my views. Ok. This is simply hypothesis, but it is possible hypothesis. I admit upfront that I have no proof. However, it does pose the possibility that God created the universe without conflicting with science. Here goes:
We understand that the light reaching us from far off galaxies is at least 100K years old. This is a modest figure, based on what we know about the size of the universe. Our understanding of physics states that it is impossible for light to reach us over that distance in less time than the maximum speed of light will allow.
Keeping this in mind, we can examine the Bible, and come up with a rough estimate that dates the universe at a meer 8K years old. If we were to take a literal translation, that God created the earth in 6 days, and take the geneologies provided in the Bible, along with the ages provided, we tally up to roughly 8K years.
When I saw the evidence, in particular, the Hubble Ultra Deep field, I was astonished, and wanted to know how it could even be possible for the Bible to be taken literally. Obviously, there was something amiss.
I found my answer using common sense. The Bible says that God created the universe. It also says that He created Adam and Eve. If we are to assume that Adam was created by God, we have an image in our mind of God molding a human being. Would He create a sperm and an egg, have them fertalize mid air and then grow a baby? Well, I suppose if God were omnipotent, that is possible, but infeasible and unneccessary. It makes much more sense that God created Adam able to sustain his life, at an optimal time for him. He created the garden not seeds in the dirt, but all at once. He made the life at appropriate age.
Why not the whole universe? Why wouldn't God make the universe at a time when the universe is optimal to support life?
I realized the reason I didn't consider this was because I was so used to looking for a beginning to the universe. When did God claim to create ANYTHING from step 1? Why would He?
Does my theory hold any credibility in the realm of possibility? Or am I 'retarded'.
I mean it totally goes against Occam's Razor, but I suppose you could say something like, the universe was constructed in such a way that it appears older than it really is, just like the earth could have been constructed in a way that a lot of the isotopes appear older than they are. Like I said, it goes against occam's razor - not that its always right, its just easier to say something that looks and quacks like a duck is more than likely a duck. It may actually be a swan, but I think I'll keep calling it a duck.
Post by
MyTie
I mean it totally goes against Occam's Razor, but I suppose you could say something like, the universe was constructed in such a way that it appears older than it really is, just like the earth could have been constructed in a way that a lot of the isotopes appear older than they are. Like I said, it goes against occam's razor - not that its always right, its just easier to say something that looks and quacks like a duck is more than likely a duck. It may actually be a swan, but I think I'll keep calling it a duck.
Comparing the origions of the universe to a duck is a little shallow, in my opinion. We cannot tell that it 'looks like a duck' because we have a very hard time constructing and understanding it. Our limited understanding of the universe is truely humbling. To make it out that we are the experts, and the answer is obvious, seems whimsical, but ultimately untrue.
I'd like to say that all theories for the beginnings of the universe are far fetched, becaues we do know so little. More like "It looks kind of like an animal, so maybe it is a duck".
But I digress. Since you admit that, however difficult to accept according to Occam's Razor, there is still the possibility. You promised you would be impressed. So, I wanna hear you sound impressed. You have admitted I showed how science and religion could coexist in theory.
Post by
TheMediator
I mean it totally goes against Occam's Razor, but I suppose you could say something like, the universe was constructed in such a way that it appears older than it really is, just like the earth could have been constructed in a way that a lot of the isotopes appear older than they are. Like I said, it goes against occam's razor - not that its always right, its just easier to say something that looks and quacks like a duck is more than likely a duck. It may actually be a swan, but I think I'll keep calling it a duck.
Comparing the origions of the universe to a duck is a little shallow, in my opinion. We cannot tell that it 'looks like a duck' because we have a very hard time constructing and understanding it. Our limited understanding of the universe is truely humbling. To make it out that we are the experts, and the answer is obvious, seems whimsical, but ultimately untrue.
I'd like to say that all theories for the beginnings of the universe are far fetched, becaues we do know so little. More like "It looks kind of like an animal, so maybe it is a duck".
But I digress. Since you admit that, however difficult to accept according to Occam's Razor, there is still the possibility. You promised you would be impressed. So, I wanna hear you sound impressed. You have admitted I showed how science and religion could coexist in theory.
I am impressed. Good job. And you're right, we can't really say at this point "it looks like a duck", but you have to admit, we do have enough science to say its a small bird.
Post by
MyTie
I am impressed. Good job. And you're right, we can't really say at this point "it looks like a duck", but you have to admit, we do have enough science to say its a small bird.
Thanks TheMediator. Despite your obvious conflicting opinions against me, you are a big enough person to take into account other possibilities. I gained a lot of respect for you just now.
I'm used to Laihendi just exiting the conversation after I make a good point.
As for your 'small bird' comparison... Based on what I understand, which is infintecimil in a pool of human knowledge which itself is infintecimil in the ocean of facts... I would say that we have no idea how vast our lack of idea is.
Post by
Queggy
The "eternal torture/lake of fire" imagery common in modern society was derived from a different work of fiction (possibly Dante's "Inferno" but I don't recall), but was never actually mentioned in the Christian Bible.
Oh really?
The beast was captured, along with the false prophet who had performed signs on its behalf. By these signs the false prophet had deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image.
Both of them were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur
.
Notice the bolding.
Post by
266586
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.