G.o.d (((((((((athiest)))))))))) [Archive]

lynx

08-15-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 20:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:

Atheistic or
Adeistic?

Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God

The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.

And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Atheist is from greek (theos - god), atheos means no god, atheist is one who believes there is no god.
Adeist, if it even exists as a word (it isn't in my dictionary), would be a mixture of latin and greek, but the deus part would still mean god, and presumably adeus would mean no god.

There is absolutely no reason why the universe could not operate perfectly well under chaos - this is in fact the primary scientific belief.

You seem to confuse religious belief with scientific belief, there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist side by side, unless you feel constrained to believe the bible verbatim.

Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?

I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't think and hypothesise about what a god would be like if one existed.

insanebassman

08-15-2003, 10:39 PM

I was basing my verbage on the use of theology, being religion (or study of) and deism, dealing with Gods. The "A" infront of a latin word was short for Anti-

I beleive in God, but the bible is just a string of lessons and stories, not the truth. As is other holy books.

Chaos is a creative and destructive force and therefore a good tool. But chaos must be directed at some point or Entropy or destruction will ensue. That is where I base my statements... I can not explain it well as I do not have the full background with me to cite at the moment, but that is the gist. It all sounds better in my head with the other voices (hee hee).

If my verbage seems a bit strange, I base it on the time I studied with one of the deacons of my old church. He speeks several dead languages as well as Hebrew, Latin and Greek. He showed me that distinction as well as several common mis-translations from modern bibles to the older texts. If I still lived out that way, I would get his insights on paper and post them. It was interesting and Ironically what ultimately led me away from religion as a whole. I still know somehow there is GOD but do not have the conciet to say I know who he/she/it is

so, while skewed, there is logic behind my thoughts

insanebassman

08-15-2003, 10:45 PM

Also, Chaos is usually the most beautiful and dangerous thing...

balamm

08-15-2003, 10:49 PM

Since the calibur of the dicussion now merits it, Off to World News & Events >>

I.am

08-16-2003, 12:25 AM

Lies between the two extremes is agnostic. Lets not forget that.

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 01:07 PM

Being a dyslexic agnostic I do not accept that the existence of dogs has been satisfactorily proven.

That's not to say that they don't exist, I just will not accept it without proof.

lynx

08-16-2003, 01:27 PM

WOOF!

thewizeard

08-16-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@16 August 2003 - 15:07
Being a dyslexic agnostic I do not accept that the existence of dogs has been satisfactorily proven.

That's not to say that they don't exist, I just will not accept it without proof.
I think this is heading back to the lounge!

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 01:30 PM

Did I hear WOOF

There is a dog - I knew it all along.

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by nigel123+16 August 2003 - 14:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nigel123 @ 16 August 2003 - 14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 August 2003 - 15:07
Being a dyslexic agnostic I do not accept that the existence of dogs has been satisfactorily proven.

That's not to say that they don't exist, I just will not accept it without proof.
I think this is heading back to the lounge! [/b][/quote]
Yeah - now you are here.

Biggles

08-16-2003, 01:41 PM

JPaul

As long as you believe you heard WOOF that is all that matters.

The ineffability of dogs is such that they can only be heard by those with faith that a WOOF can be heard.

Whether we hear it or, indeed, whether it objectively occurred is neither here nor there. Consequently, there is little that one can say for or against the existence of dogs outwith your own personal experience.

I am prepared to concede that wolfs as a precursor to dogs may exist but I find Dachshunds stretch my incredulity. :blink:

thewizeard

08-16-2003, 01:42 PM

...walks away despondently with tail between the legs.

chalice

08-16-2003, 01:43 PM

We've opened up a big canine of worms now.

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Biggles@16 August 2003 - 14:41
JPaul

As long as you believe you heard WOOF that is all that matters.

The ineffability of dogs is such that they can only be heard by those with faith that a WOOF can be heard.

Whether we hear it or, indeed, whether it objectively occurred is neither here nor there. Consequently, there is little that one can say for or against the existence of dogs outwith your own personal experience.

I am prepared to concede that wolfs as a precursor to dogs may exist but I find Dachshunds stretch my incredulity. :blink:
LOL

That's all

just LOL

lynx

08-16-2003, 01:59 PM

Why have a god and be barking yourself ?

Rat Faced

08-16-2003, 03:24 PM

You lot playing ping pong with this thread?

RGX

08-16-2003, 04:19 PM

lol, my last comment seems to have been contradicted :D

oh well

there is no spoon

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 04:53 PM

The circle is complete.

As ever nigel joining in is a shortcut to the lounge.

:D :P :lol:

bigboab

08-16-2003, 05:48 PM

I am sorry I cant take part in this thread because I do not have up to date speakers.

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 05:51 PM

You can get some at speakers corner.

I assume it's woofers you need.

fugley

08-16-2003, 05:52 PM

:blink:

bigboab

08-16-2003, 05:52 PM

I cant find the park :D

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by fugley@16 August 2003 - 18:52
:blink:
fugley - haven't seen you about for a while - are you well - lost your voice perhaps ?

bigboab

08-16-2003, 06:03 PM

JP I thought FUGLEY had disappeared too. I was working on a Braille monitor for him. So its back to the drawing board.

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Spindulik@15 August 2003 - 06:05
Some people need an "invisible guy" to keep them stright. In the meantime, I'll continue on as a good person with good moral values without the aid of a "security blanket".
hey wtf u stole this logo from me dude not kewl i made it and stole it
ffrom 1 of my other post

THIS 1

|===============================================|
|= plzzz ppl dont post anything that doesnt relate to my "subject" =|
|===============================================|

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Assultsniper@15 August 2003 - 09:57
I am an Atheist too but at least Im not illiterate, I dont know why but if you say that you're an atheist people look at you like you've just commited a crime!
i know and this 1 time some gurl in my skewl had a cross with her and i told her whatever and shes all ew look its gona burn u i was like yea..what eveer
any wayz im not "illiterate" dont even know what it means but im not :)
and it best not to go blabberen ur beliefs or non beleifs about this kinda stuff 2 ur friends cause they start 2 act wierdOz

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by RGX@15 August 2003 - 10:05
Why? Because we all have opinions, yours is no more important than anyone elses, despite what your mom might have told you

and learn how to spell "ex" rather than "X"

This is one of the few forums out there that still amazes me with their maturity and put-downs :D

keep it up
??? what u mean

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 11:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:

Atheistic or
Adeistic?

Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God

The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.

And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Atheistic or
Adeistic? .....well im a lil bit a both but more of the 1st one
and ur the kinda mind im looking for to chat about this stuff cause u R fucken way smarter cause u read those books
anywayz

i also belive in darwens theory of evolution the random mutation in nature
because if scientist cant proove it then we cant asume anything

like my friend told me hes seen some strange things but then he say he belives in god how could he believe in god just because he said he saw some thing like a spirit what if its something else seing things and knowing things are different things

anywayz when a scientist prooves that there is a god im gona SHIT in my panziez

and read my um.. signature i think it makes some sense but dont ever let ppl make u belive in anything!!

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by lynx+15 August 2003 - 12:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 15 August 2003 - 12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 20:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:

Atheistic or
Adeistic?

Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God

The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.

And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Atheist is from greek (theos - god), atheos means no god, atheist is one who believes there is no god.
Adeist, if it even exists as a word (it isn't in my dictionary), would be a mixture of latin and greek, but the deus part would still mean god, and presumably adeus would mean no god.

There is absolutely no reason why the universe could not operate perfectly well under chaos - this is in fact the primary scientific belief.

You seem to confuse religious belief with scientific belief, there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist side by side, unless you feel constrained to believe the bible verbatim.

Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?

I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't think and hypothesise about what a god would be like if one existed. [/b][/quote]
yup yup yup cause if there were such a being that could C ALL hear ALL and do ALL
how the fuck could he focus [SIZE=7]ALL this :blink: in his head or what ever it is to do such things

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by lynx+15 August 2003 - 12:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 15 August 2003 - 12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-insanebassman@15 August 2003 - 20:39
Ok, first, I was able to follow some of the flow in ADD's post... second.. are you:

Atheistic or
Adeistic?

Atheist means anti-religion
Adeist means anti God

The two are not the same. I beleive in pourposful evolution as well as random mutation in nature. I think there is a higher power beyond the physical, but can not prove it. Stephen Hawking, likely the most intelligent human in contemporary existance, believes there is a god. He found god in the numbers. The universe is far too directed for just Chaos to have produced the results we see today. Read his books to clarify as my limited mental capabilities are not up to the task of explaining it.

And please, learn to use proper sentence struture, punctuation and capitalization. Spelling is optional as I suck at that.
Atheist is from greek (theos - god), atheos means no god, atheist is one who believes there is no god.
Adeist, if it even exists as a word (it isn't in my dictionary), would be a mixture of latin and greek, but the deus part would still mean god, and presumably adeus would mean no god.

There is absolutely no reason why the universe could not operate perfectly well under chaos - this is in fact the primary scientific belief.

You seem to confuse religious belief with scientific belief, there is no reason why the two cannot co-exist side by side, unless you feel constrained to believe the bible verbatim.

Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?

I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't think and hypothesise about what a god would be like if one existed. [/b][/quote]
yup yup yup cause if there were such a being that could C ALL hear ALL and do ALL
how the fuck could he focus [SIZE=7] ALL this :blink: in his head or what ever it is to do such things

i_have_a.d.d.

08-16-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.

I assume it's woofers you need.
2 words "RADIOSHACK"

lol

RGX

08-16-2003, 09:57 PM

I meant that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, their own beleifs.

Ive given up from explaining this, work it out yourself

J'Pol

08-16-2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.+16 August 2003 - 19:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (i_have_a.d.d. @ 16 August 2003 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.

I assume it's woofers you need.
2 words "RADIOSHACK"

lol [/b][/quote]
THAT'S ONE WORD.

RGX

08-16-2003, 10:44 PM

:D

I wasnt sure

Inevitable

08-16-2003, 10:57 PM

A logical answer for this is no one knows for sure if there really is a god. Some people do believe some don't.

lynx

08-16-2003, 11:36 PM

I'm sure.

There isn't

hobbes

08-17-2003, 01:00 AM

From my old forum, in response to a post there (for the parts that don't make sense). It is in response to Lynx, but also another poster who wondered why people disliked atheists.

I don't get you athiests.

You state that religions are societal delusions created to give the believers a sense of comfort. Life is hard, believe what I say and you will ultimately receive eternal rewards. Faith is belief without proof.

On the otherhand, Atheism is a faith of disbelief. Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof? What is your criterion? A gut feeling, a lack of satisfaction from the provided religions. Whatever, at some point you must deny the existence of God without proof or evidence, which is the definition of faith.

Now, if I had to chose one over the other, I would go for the pain killer. What would motivate one to have the faith of Athiesm. Sounds like someone who is rather angry at the world. One who would rather draw the ire of others, over being ignored. (Most who claim to be Atheists are actually just rebellious teenagers looking to shock people with their defiance.)

Are you sure your not an agnostic? Agnostics question the existence of God in the absence of material proof. They do not have to rely on some intangible thing such as faith.

I believe, as you do, that religions are painkillers and I do not accept them at face value. How can one be right and thousands of others wrong? This becomes more tricky when one contradicts another.

It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything.

titey

08-17-2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 20:00
How can one be right and thousands of others wrong?
Virtually all the ancient Greeks and Romans believed there were many gods.

Does that mean they were right? :blink:

hobbes

08-17-2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 02:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 20:00
How can one be right and thousands of others wrong?
Virtually all the ancient Greeks and Romans believed there were many gods.

Does that mean they were right? :blink:[/b][/quote]
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.

So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.

And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on". My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<

Petri

08-17-2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 04:00
Atheism is a faith of disbelief.
Atheism is not a faith of anything. It's the absence of faith in the existence of gods.

Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (such as "gods exist"). It's not necessary to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.

titey

08-17-2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 21:03
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.

So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.

And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on". My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<
Religions may require "belief systems" and "gods", but one need not be "religious" to have beliefs. <_<

If you believe in god... then he exists... in your mind.

(Say hello to Aphrodite for me.... I just love her! http://www.klboardimages.ath.cx/style_images/1/icon12.gif)

hobbes

08-17-2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Petri+17 August 2003 - 03:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 17 August 2003 - 03:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@17 August 2003 - 04:00
Atheism is a faith of disbelief.
Atheism is not a faith of anything. It's the absence of faith in the existence of gods.

Without proof, you aver that God does not exist. How can one deny (to declare untrue) the existence of God without proof?
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (such as "gods exist"). It's not necessary to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place.[/b][/quote]
Athiesm: (from Merriam-Webster)

A: a disbelief in the existence of deity B : the doctrine that there is no deity

So a denial of God without proof- aka "faith"(belief without proof)

We exist, how did we come to be?

One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God". How do they know, faith.

The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here. Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.

An agnostic feels that religions are manmade panaceas, and searches for answers in threads such as these.

hobbes

08-17-2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 03:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 03:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 21:03
A religion is a "belief system" and any particular religion can have as many Gods as it wants.

So, how can "one religion" be correct, and the others incorrect.

And "yes", the ancient Greeks and Roman were "spot on".  My parents Gaea and Cronos told me so. <_<
Religions may require "belief systems" and "gods", but one need not be "religious" to have beliefs. <_<

If you believe in god... then he exists... in your mind.

(Say hello to Aphrodite for me.... I just love her! http://www.klboardimages.ath.cx/style_images/1/icon12.gif)[/b][/quote]
Would that not be your "religion".

If you believe it alone, you are delusional.
If you can convince your buddies, you are a cult.
If you can promise eternal happiness and convince the world, you are a religion.

If your beliefs don't require a divine creator, then you live by philosophy, not religion.

I showed Aphrodite your picture and she was totally turned on by your "Cooter" from the "Dukes of Hazard" look, and went to find her "daisy dukes". Maybe you will get lucky tonight?

titey

08-17-2003, 02:29 AM

We exist, how did we come to be?Ask your parents. <_<

One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God".  How do they know, faith.They don't know... they believe... there is a difference. :P

Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.The theory of evolution was intended to explain how things change... not how they came to be. That's like saying the bible fudges the whole baseball thing. :rolleyes:

hobbes

08-17-2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 03:29

One faction asserts that we were created by a divine being, they label him "God". How do they know, faith.They don't know... they believe... there is a difference. :P

Yes, exactly my point. Faith is belief without proof. My point all along has been that both Athiesm and Organized Religions must both ultimately rely on the same thing, faith.

Evolution is effective at describing modification over time, driven by geographic separation and climatic parameters, but it really just fudges the whole creation thing.The theory of evolution was intended to explain how things change... not how they came to be. That's like saying the bible fudges the whole baseball thing. :rolleyes:

The above was posted to anticipate the "duh, we are here because of evolution" I expected from Petri. Trust me, I have gotten that response before in other threads, so I thought I would be pro-active.
hello, your hat is backwards

titey

08-17-2003, 02:40 AM

hello

No, the hat's ok.... it's my head that's backwards. http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/smilies/kid.gif

Petri

08-17-2003, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by "Atheism"+ Wikipedia.org--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("Atheism" @ Wikipedia.org)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).[/b]
Most atheists do not claim that gods don't exist. They just don't believe that they do.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here.[/quote]
Ever heard of the "Big Bang" theory? Anyway, "an invisible man in the sky made us" is hardly what I would call an explanation...

Assultsniper

08-17-2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Petri+16 August 2003 - 22:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 16 August 2003 - 22:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by "Atheism"@ Wikipedia.org
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).
Most atheists do not claim that gods don't exist. They just don't believe that they do.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here.
Ever heard of the "Big Bang" theory? Anyway, "an invisible man in the sky made us" is hardly what I would call an explanation... [/b][/quote]
And why would god be human? or a man? or a personalety at all! doesent make sence!

hobbes

08-17-2003, 03:41 AM

From Wikipedia

"The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).

However, in common usage, "atheism" is the denial of the existence of god(s), or the position that the concept of god is nonsensical or meaningless. And the term agnosticism (coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869) is the claim that the existence of god(s) cannot be decided, either because there is not a preponderence of evidence, or because the question is inherently undecidable, and that therefore one must suspend judgement, possibly indefinitely"

So, from your source you omitted the next line. Why did you do this? You are, therefore, charged with intellectual dishonesty and dismissed.

As for the "big bang theory", a theory is defined as "an unproven assumption". Yes, I have heard of it, BTW. Like most of us, I read "A brief history of time" and Hawkings explanation of the creation of matter and the universe.

titey

08-17-2003, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:41
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
:blink: So then belief in god is a theory then?

So it should be called the "Catholic Theory" or the "Christian Theory" - no? ;)

*sigh*

titey

08-17-2003, 03:46 AM

No, I wasn't repeating myself to try and prove a point... it's just that this board HATES ME!!! <_<

hobbes

08-17-2003, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 04:46
No, I wasn't repeating myself to try and prove a point... it's just that this board HATES ME!!! <_<

These are what we call "technical moments".

No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.

May I be of assistance in correcting your craniocerivcal mal-alignment. I'm really good with torque!

titey

08-17-2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:51
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof.  The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)

According to your definition of a theory:
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption". belief in god would then be a theory... since there is no proof... only an assumption... regardless of whether you wish to call that assumption "faith".

Powdered Water

08-17-2003, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by titey@17 August 2003 - 04:00

Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)

Thank you titey! Is this thread closed now or is this gonna go on all night?
Because I have some valuable information on this subject. :rolleyes:

hobbes

08-17-2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 05:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 05:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:51
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)

According to your definition of a theory:
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption". belief in god would then be a theory... since there is no proof... only an assumption... regardless of whether you wish to call that assumption "faith". [/b][/quote]
Yes, most devout religious fanatics, interchangablely refer to their beliefs as "assumptions".

Titey, I can't keep up, my endurance is fading. I have three DVDs to watch: Blair Witch Project, The Fog, and 13th Warrior. I may have to concede this discussion to you, drink beer and stare blankly at my TV.

Petri

08-17-2003, 04:20 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 06:41
So, from your source you omitted the next line.  Why did you do this?
Because the "common usage" of the word is inaccurate.

As for the "big bang theory", a theory is defined "an unproven assumption".
Well, you wanted an explanation and that's the best science can give you at the moment.

titey

08-17-2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@16 August 2003 - 23:15
Titey, I can't keep up, my endurance is fading. I have three DVDs to watch: Blair Witch Project, The Fog, and 13th Warrior. I may have to concede this discussion to you, drink beer and stare blankly at my TV.
No concession necessary... we can always continue when your schedule is less demanding. :P

brotherdoobie

08-17-2003, 08:45 AM

You May be a Agnostic you may be an Athiest...........But when we orgasm we are
all believers ;)

By the way most of this is You say Potato I say Tomatoe
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.

You either believe or you dont.
I dont.

Peace brotherdoobie

titey

08-17-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 03:45
You say Potato I say Tomatoe

Peace brotherdoobie
You been taking spelling lessons from Dan Quayle, doob? http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/LOL.gif

brotherdoobie

08-17-2003, 09:08 AM

<_< I was trying to produce the effect of pronouncing the words differntly
If I were Dan Quale I would of spelled Potato Potate :P

Peace brotherdoobie

titey

08-17-2003, 09:11 AM

I didn't say you were DQ.... just that the spelling was reminiscent. :rolleyes:

lynx

08-17-2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by brotherdoobie+17 August 2003 - 09:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brotherdoobie @ 17 August 2003 - 09:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist. [/b]
There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything.[/quote]Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(

Hundreds (thousands ?) of years of persecution of non-believers have resulted in an unwillingness to challenge the 'authority' of religions, it is only relatively recently that there has been a freedom to speak openly against the unthinking dogma's imposed on the masses. The result is that the number of 'ardent' followers is rapidly diminishing.
There are still many who, if asked, state a preference to follow the norm of believing in some form of deity, but in practice the majority do nothing to follow up that stated belief. Remove those who profess belief for the sake of appearances and you are left with a realtively small core, what most would call a cult. The rest are merely the result of brainwashing from an age at which they know no better.
If children were exposed to the same sort of high pressure salesmanship with regards to junk fairies, elves, aliens from mars, etc there would rightly be an uproar, yet we here nothing when they are exposed to a constant litany exhorting them to believe in deities. Stop teaching bunkum to children and the religions will die out in less than a century.

Riddler

08-17-2003, 11:13 AM

Good point lynx. As an historical source of bloodshed, persecution, paranoia, ethnic atrocities, moral hypocricy and all out war, religion is tough to beat. I have a few quotes from a very interesting book that I'd like to share with all of you. The book is called " The Harlot By The Side Of The Road ", and I type at a blistering, snail-like pace so I'll start pecking away at it now. Hopefully, some of you will still be members here when I finally click the ' add reply ' button. :P

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 11:17 AM

The theories on how the big bang came about are even more fascinating than the big bang itself.

My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.

Prof Hawking, who people often quote when attempting to put forward a scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything, believes there is a God.

As an aside why do we find it so easy to accept his big bang theory, which let's be honest few of us really understand. But if we see a sign which says wet paint, we have to touch it to check.

lynx

08-17-2003, 11:51 AM

Why is it that Stephen Hawking is often quoted when trying to convince others of the existence of God. So he has an IQ of about 160.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares3.jpg

I personally do not believe the big bang theory in it's present form.

By this theory, the universe is about 15 billion years old, and has been expanding ever since.
So lets imagine conditions 14,999,999,999 years ago. The universe would have been tiny, and consequently the gravity would have been enormous. So enormous that time itself would have been affected (as in a black hole). The consequence of this is that the previous 'year' (in our current terms) would have taken billions of years to pass in terms then present. So you could go back several more billion years, and guess what, time would be even more distorted.

Since this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the universe is infintely old, it has always existed and consequently creation theories are not necessary.

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 11:56 AM

What drivel.

The most intense activity directly after the big bang was in the first few fractions of a second, not year.

You post sir is preposterous and it does you no credit.

Go to your room and come down when you have thought about what you have done.

But me no buts - just go.

titey

08-17-2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:17
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
But couldn't the same be said of "god"?

If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"?

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 12:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:17
My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.
But couldn't the same be said of "god"?

If nothing existed before "god" created it.... who created "god"? [/b][/quote]
No - omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence cover all of that.

There cant be a nearly God, that's how infinite works, it's an all or nothing deal.

God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.

Riddler

08-17-2003, 12:02 PM

Whew ! Here's the first quote.......regarding the origins of the Bible; ( sorry if this doesn't exactly fit into the appropriate spot in this thread )

" For some true believers today, the Bible is the Revealed Word Of God and nothing else need be said about its authorship.......
......A century of modern Bible scholarship suggests otherwise. Today, the Bible is regarded by most scholars as a patchwork
of legend, lore and law that was created over a thousand years or so in distant antiquity by countless unknown chroniclers,
lawgivers and storytellers, collected, compiled and corrected by generation after generation of editors ( or ' redactors ' ).............
Thus, even if we regard what we find in the bible as divinely inspired, the words themselves were spoken aloud by human voices
and set down in writing by human hands............some of the stories are so old that no one remembers when or why they were
first told; some are borrowed from the faith and folklore of travelers and sojourners, allies and enemies, invaders and conquerors;
some are concocted by bards whose motives are not much different from those of Homer or Shakespeare, Mark Twain or
Rudyard Kipling. Over the centuries, the storytelling traditions were expanded upon by priests and scribes whose goal was to
formalize the stories and make them fit into the official faith of ancient Israel. "
From THE HARLOT BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. By Jonathan Kirsch

titey

08-17-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.
Pish! :P

Then by that "logic" lynx can merely say that the universe is "god" and his supposition is suddenly fact.

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 06:58
God always was, always is and always will be. No rules, no limits.

God, to put it simply is God.
Pish! :P

[/b][/quote]
Try telling him that.

Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind

titey

08-17-2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind
Pfffft... I'll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I'll be a talkative corpse.

And I'm sure I'll burn once I'm gone... I'll be cremated. :P

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by titey+17 August 2003 - 13:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 17 August 2003 - 13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:12
Oh you will - when your 3 score and 10 is done.

Oh and pish posh to you. See you in heav .... oh never mind
Pfffft... I'll croak long before I reach 70 JP... but I doubt very much I'll be a talkative corpse.

And I'm sure I'll burn once I'm gone... I'll be cremated. :P [/b][/quote]
See you don't have the choice mate.

Eternal life isn't an opt in, opt out thing.

Unless your particular heaven is to not exist anymore, perhaps He arranges that as well.

Never looked at it that way before - thanks for that.

titey

08-17-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 07:20
See you don't have the choice mate.

Eternal life isn't an opt in, opt out thing.
Life isn't eternal JP... rather it's regenerative.

Perhaps some of the molecules from my ashes will someday be a part of another creature, plant or person... that's as near as I will come to living once I die.

lynx

08-17-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 12:56
What drivel.

The most intense activity directly after the big bang was in the first few fractions of a second, not year.

You post sir is preposterous and it does you no credit.

Go to your room and come down when you have thought about what you have done.

But me no buts - just go.
You are quoting from the irrational big bang theory when you refer so the first few seconds.
But as I have explained, I reject that theory, because time would have been so expanded due to the immense gravitational effects that those 'first few seconds' would have had to have happened billions of years before.

Assuming a constant rate of expansion, at one year old (in our current time frame), the universe would have to fit into a volume approximately 3*10^^-28 of it's current size. The nearest star (if they existed at that time), excluding the sun, would have been 2500 kilometers away. The sun would have been 9 metres away.

Before you dismiss my post as drivel, perhaps you should research some of Einstein's thinking on the matter, much of which was originally also dismissed as nonsense, but which is now being re-examined as perhaps having more merit than at first realised.

Perhaps it is you who should go to your room, or better still a library, and do a little research on the subject before pronouncing on other people's theories.

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 01:43 PM

No need to get upset.

Obviously I am not aware of your qualifications on the matter. So apologies for any offence caused. I thought it was apparent I was being light hearted, my mistake if it wasn't.

However I do know that this subject is way above my head, so I have to rely on people who appear to understand it.

Given that I do know that this is very much the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community I tend to accept it. Until it is, almost inevitably, proven to be incorrect and replaced.

No point in my reading more about it, I wouldn't understand anyway.

Spider_dude

08-17-2003, 02:16 PM

i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.

titey

08-17-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Spider_dude@17 August 2003 - 09:16
i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.
Go ahead... if you're age 13 or younger, I'm sure he'll set you on his lap and teach you a whole lot. :lol:

lynx

08-17-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 14:43
No need to get upset.

Obviously I am not aware of your qualifications on the matter. So apologies for any offence caused. I thought it was apparent I was being light hearted, my mistake if it wasn't.

However I do know that this subject is way above my head, so I have to rely on people who appear to understand it.

Given that I do know that this is very much the theory favoured by the majority of the scientific community I tend to accept it. Until it is, almost inevitably, proven to be incorrect and replaced.

No point in my reading more about it, I wouldn't understand anyway.
Gotcha! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 02:23 PM

:lol: <_< :P :lol:

imnotanaddict

08-17-2003, 02:27 PM

titey Posted on 17 August 2003 - 14:18
QUOTE (Spider_dude @ 17 August 2003 - 09:16)
i think we should all consult our local priest on this topic.

Go ahead... if you're age 13 or younger, I'm sure he'll set you on his lap and teach you a whole lot.

titey there you go getting your topics mixed up again

create a ride
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=62470

Spider_dude

08-17-2003, 02:31 PM

i was chief alterboy. i got to watch.

lynx

08-17-2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:23
:lol: <_< :P :lol:
I think 'bar steward' is the phrase you were looking for. :P

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 02:32 PM

I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.

Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.

Spider_dude

08-17-2003, 02:35 PM

yeah who likes the jews? brebners just been sent off.

lynx

08-17-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:32
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.

Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.
You have to be careful how you phrase those things when the kids are around.

@ Spider_dude: I suggest you make a note of the rules:

3. There will be no racial, ethnic, or gender based insults or any other discriminatory comments or content.

J'Pol

08-17-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 15:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@17 August 2003 - 15:32
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here.

Does the same go for members who are Muslim, Jewish etc, or is it just us who are fair game.
You have to be careful how you phrase those things when the kids are around.

@ Spider_dude: I suggest you make a note of the rules:

3. There will be no racial, ethnic, or gender based insults or any other discriminatory comments or content. [/b][/quote]
I did try to.

However titey's last comment was distinctly anti-catholic.

I doubt very much if they would have been considered acceptable had they ben aimed at various other groups.

lynx

08-17-2003, 03:28 PM

I tend to think that in light of recent revelations, titey's posts are more topical comment.

hobbes

08-17-2003, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 11:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 09:45
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.
There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything.Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(

Absolutely there was need for that. Being Agnostic, I have no Bible or scripture to define my rules of conduct (morals), so I have to decide for myself, what is right and wrong. I was defining my approach to life.

As you accuse me of implying this subconciously, I will accuse you of reading things into my post based on your personal "spin".

I have enough trouble taking my own foot out of my mouth, don't make me take your shoe out of my mouth as well. ;)

[/b][/quote]
Agree with first part. Most people who declare themselves to be Atheists are actually Agnostic.

Atheist can be literally translated "without God", but the meaning used in practice (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, etc) is defined as one who believes that God does not exist. Not all words are used in practice as their literal translations.

i_have_a.d.d.

08-18-2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by JPaul+16 August 2003 - 14:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 16 August 2003 - 14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.@16 August 2003 - 19:32
<!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@16 August 2003 - 09:51
You can get some at speakers corner.

I assume it's woofers you need.
2 words "RADIOSHACK"

lol
THAT'S ONE WORD. [/b][/quote]
NO SHIT its A joke u lamo

i_have_a.d.d.

08-18-2003, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Petri+16 August 2003 - 19:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 16 August 2003 - 19:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by "Atheism"@ Wikipedia.org
The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a- (meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism, meaning a belief in a god (or gods). The literal meaning of the term is therefore without a belief in a god or gods, making any person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods an atheist -- including both those who believe that no god exists and those who do not take a position on the existence of god(s).
Most atheists do not claim that gods don't exist. They just don't believe that they do.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
The other side asserts that God does not exist and did not create us. How do they know this, faith. They offer no explanation as to how we got here.
Ever heard of the "Big Bang" theory? Anyway, "an invisible man in the sky made us" is hardly what I would call an explanation... [/b][/quote]
:P :P :P LOL :blink: invisible :blink: :D :D :lol: :lol:

i_have_a.d.d.

08-18-2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by titey+16 August 2003 - 20:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 16 August 2003 - 20:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@16 August 2003 - 22:51
No,(in regard to the first post, not the quoted one) because a theory admits that the proposer is "talking out of his ass" and working on proof. The Catholic church hardly takes such a stance.
Just because the Catholic church won't admit they're talking out their asses doesn't mean they're not. (That is when they're not violating someone else's ass.)

According to your definition of a theory:
a theory is defined "an unproven assumption". belief in god would then be a theory... since there is no proof... only an assumption... regardless of whether you wish to call that assumption "faith". [/b][/quote]
i knew something was kinda um.... shity
lol ASS

i_have_a.d.d.

08-18-2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by lynx+17 August 2003 - 02:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 17 August 2003 - 02:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by brotherdoobie@17 August 2003 - 09:45
semantics when talking about the difference between Agnostics
and Atheist.
There is a big difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

In other words, an agnostic is a fence sitter, one who is not going to believe one way or the other without proof.
You could certainly not accuse an atheist of being a fence sitter.

<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
It seems that those who believe, and those who deny, both must rely on faith. I prefer to hope there is something, treat others with dignity and respect, and enjoy my life, as I'm not expecting anything.Was there any need for that, it implies (perhaps subconciously) that people who do not concur with your views do not treat others with dignity and respect. But I doubt that you write anything without carefully considering the implications. :(

Hundreds (thousands ?) of years of persecution of non-believers have resulted in an unwillingness to challenge the 'authority' of religions, it is only relatively recently that there has been a freedom to speak openly against the unthinking dogma's imposed on the masses. The result is that the number of 'ardent' followers is rapidly diminishing.
There are still many who, if asked, state a preference to follow the norm of believing in some form of deity, but in practice the majority do nothing to follow up that stated belief. Remove those who profess belief for the sake of appearances and you are left with a realtively small core, what most would call a cult. The rest are merely the result of brainwashing from an age at which they know no better.
If children were exposed to the same sort of high pressure salesmanship with regards to junk fairies, elves, aliens from mars, etc there would rightly be an uproar, yet we here nothing when they are exposed to a constant litany exhorting them to believe in deities. Stop teaching bunkum to children and the religions will die out in less than a century. [/b][/quote]
yes thats why ppl R so dam into there beliefes cause they think that the parents would never Ly to them

dam those brain washing sons Of guns :blink:

i_have_a.d.d.

08-18-2003, 03:42 AM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - 03:17
The theories on how the big bang came about are even more fascinating than the big bang itself.

My big difficulty with a purely scientific explanation is that it always leaves the question - but what made that happen ..... ad infinitum.

Prof Hawking, who people often quote when attempting to put forward a scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything, believes there is a God.

As an aside why do we find it so easy to accept his big bang theory, which let's be honest few of us really understand. But if we see a sign which says wet paint, we have to touch it to check.
""wet paint, we have to touch it to check""

this prooves some ppl R to curios to be normal

theprisoner

08-18-2003, 03:44 AM

i do believe in God(not a big church goer though), but if you think about, something had to come from nothing. How did the first gas and matter to start the big bang to happen? How did the bacteria(life) come to be? I believe in evoultion and the big bang happened but not without cause.

Alucard1475

08-18-2003, 03:54 AM

theprisoner Posted on 18 August 2003 - 13:44
  i do believe in God(not a big church goer though), but if you think about, something had to come from nothing. How did the first gas and matter to start the big bang to happen? How did the bacteria(life) come to be? I believe in evoultion and the big bang happened but not without cause. 

Agree with that one. :ph34r:

lynx

08-18-2003, 04:04 AM

So who made god ?
And why ?

Xilo

08-18-2003, 04:12 AM

What about this:

People who believe in God say that humans were created in God's image. Other people believe humans evolved from single celled organisms... But what if both were true? What if this "God" is really a single celled being that created us but then we evolved over time? :lol:

lynx

08-18-2003, 04:20 AM

Start of a prayer: Dear Blob,
Sign of amazement: Oh, Blob!
Expression of anger: For Blob's sake what did you do that for.

Nah, I don't think it's going to catch on.

brotherdoobie

08-18-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by lynx@17 August 2003 - 23:04
So who made god ?
And why ?
Bill Gates was bored.

thewizeard

08-18-2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 06:04
So who made god ?
And why ?
Actually I did.

Why? Simple I was bored.

Petri

08-18-2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@17 August 2003 - 18:42
Atheist can be literally translated "without God", but the meaning used in practice (Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, etc) is defined as one who believes that God does not exist. Not all words are used in practice as their literal translations.
No matter what you or a couple of dictionaries (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_dict.htm) say, this is not the definition atheists themselves use.

Since I'm a crappy debater, I'll just keep quoting what others have written before... :P

From The Atheism Web: Introduction to Atheism (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

"What is Atheism?"

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of 'god': Whether they are 'atheists' or not is a matter of debate. Since you're unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it's not a very important debate...

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the non-existence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.

From Atheism FAQs: What is Atheism? (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathd_what.htm)

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.

The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Unfortunately, misunderstandings arise because many theists imagine that all atheists fit this most narrow, limited form of the concept of atheism. Reliance upon dishonest apologists and cheap dictionaries only exacerbates the problem. So, when someone identifies themselves as an atheist, all you can do is assume that they lack belief in the existence of any gods. You cannot assume that they deny any gods or some particular god - if you want to find out about that, you will have to ask.

Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.

There is also a tendency among some theists to make the error of focusing only on the specific god in which they believe, failing to recognize the fact that atheists don't focus on that god. Atheism has to involve all gods, not simply one god - and an atheist can often approach different gods in different ways, depending upon what the is necessitated by the nature of the god in question.

Thus, when someone claims that a person is an atheist because they "deny the existence of God," we can start to see some of the errors and misunderstandings that statement involves. First, the term "God" hasn't been defined - so what the atheist thinks of it cannot be automatically assumed. The theist cannot simply assert that whatever they have in mind must also be something which the atheist has in mind. Second, it is not true that whatever this god turns out to be, the atheist must automatically deny it. This concept might turn out to be too incoherent to justify either belief or denial.

As a matter of fact, many exchanges between atheists and theists turn out to be frustrating and unsatisfactory because no one ever bothers to stop and explain what is meant by the key term "god." Unless and until that happens, no serious, productive, or rational discussion can take place. Unless we know what the theist means by "god," we'll never have any chance to judge if anything said in defense of belief is adequate. Only when we know what the theist means by "god," will we be able to seriously critique their concepts.

Sorry for taking such long quotes, but I didn't want to leave anything out in fear of being blamed of intellectual dishonesty again. <_<

Anyway... Whether or not you admit it, "weak" atheism does exist.

thewizeard

08-18-2003, 09:48 AM

What a lot of words!

Does it really matter?

If you do believe in God ...OK

If you don't believe in God...OK

lynx

08-18-2003, 11:38 AM

What a load of bollocks.

An atheist who only believes some gods don't exist, but that others do ?
Belief in any god automatically makes one a theist, and a theist is the exact opposite of an atheist so that person by definition cannot be an atheist. You don't have to have any sort of strongly held views on religion to be a theist as the articles seem to suggest, by definition any belief in any god makes one a theist.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. The 'ism' part implies the belief. the 'the' part means god, the 'a' part means not. But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.

Those who are merely 'without a belief in god' are people who are unsure, and often can't be bothered to think the argument through, though I would not use the word agnostic as the meaning of this has also been corrupted.

The prime reason why exchanges between atheists (in the true meaning of the word) and theists (unfortunately in the poor meaning of the word, but it is the word used in the article) is that the theists a) often believe that the atheists are those who are 'without a belief in god' and that therefore with a little persuasion can be converted, and B) are not willing to listen to other arguments as they don't fit with their bible, scripture, etc. They are usually unwilling to concede that their arguments, based upon human writings, have no basis without their own beliefs.

Edit: I should add that whichever category you feel you fall into, it doesn't make you a better or worse person, that is down to how you behave. I have no conflict between being an atheist and trying (but usually failing) to uphold Christian ethics.

thewizeard

08-18-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 13:38

The prime reason why exchanges between atheists (in the true meaning of the word) and theists (unfortunately in the poor meaning of the word, but it is the word used in the article) is that the theists a) often believe that the atheists are those who are 'without a belief in god' and that therefore with a little persuasion can be converted, and B) are not willing to listen to other arguments as they don't fit with their bible, scripture, etc. They are usually unwilling to concede that their arguments, based upon human writings, have no basis without their own beliefs.

So that's what this thread is all about!!

If someone can prove there's a god I will become a theist, if someone can prove there's not a god, I will become an atheist.

For the time being I will remain myself.

Skweeky

08-18-2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by lynx@15 August 2003 - 21:21
Why not consider this as a hypothesis:
God made the universe to be a self sustaining, freely developing entity.
Consider how much more complex that would be rather than to have created a universe which he is constantly having to control, and therefore how much more magnificant a creation it is. Why limit the capabilities of your god?

What you are describing is called deism. God as the big watch maker. He made it, no he doesn't interfere. It's an understanding that dates from the 18th century, it know some success among the philosophers of their time, probably because it was also the period on time scientific logic became popular.

I could not find the word adeism in Websters or Oxfords dictionary, but I have known it to be used.

Thought it was interesting to tell :)

Petri

08-18-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by lynx@18 August 2003 - 14:38
An atheist who only believes some gods don't exist, but that others do ?
Where the hell did you get that from? :huh:

You don't have to have any sort of strongly held views on religion to be a theist as the articles seem to suggest,
Where does it suggest this?

by definition any belief in any god makes one a theist.
Yep.

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.
I'd like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.

Skweeky

08-18-2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Petri@18 August 2003 - 13:27

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.
I'd like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.
It's very simple. The 'a' in front of the word just denies everything that comes AFTER it. Technically, it denies the belief in a god. It does not say it beliefs there is no god.

thewizeard

08-18-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Skweeky+18 August 2003 - 14:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 18 August 2003 - 14:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Petri@18 August 2003 - 13:27

But you have to understand how greek words were put together to grasp the true meaning of the word. The root of the word atheist is not theist with the prefix 'a' added, that would imply without a belief in god. The root is theos - god with the prefix 'a' added first, meaning no god, then the end change to 'ist' meaning having a belief, in other words having a belief that there is no god.
I'd like to know your source for this.

Not that it really matters, though. Even if you were correct, meanings of words change... and what I quoted is the definition currently used by the majority of atheists.
It's very simple. The 'a' in front of the word just denies everything that comes AFTER it. Technically, it denies the belief in a god. It does not say it beliefs there is no god. [/b][/quote]
That's interesting.... we are lucky to have any words at all, considering the word alfabet?

lynx

08-18-2003, 01:12 PM

Sorry, you can't just add 'a' to the beginning of a word and claim that to be the opposite, ancient greek, which is the source of these words, just doesn't work like that.
The 'a' at the start certainly denies what comes after, but you have to know which bit it denies. In ancient greek, if it meant not having a belief in god the 'a' would not come before god it would come before the belief (and I suppose the resulting word would become something like theaist). It's very positioning means that it is god which is being denied, not the belief.

@Petri: since you agree with my definition of a theist, surely you can see that the author of your second article misconstrues this meaning, and attributes more religious conviction to theists than necessarily exists, which was what I was refuting.
And I'm glad that you are able to speak for the majority of atheists without consulting them.

Lamsey

08-18-2003, 01:22 PM

Well, this looks to have gotten serious again, so let's shift it away from the hijackers once more... :rolleyes:

Petri

08-18-2003, 02:20 PM

@Petri: since you agree with my definition of a theist, surely you can see that the author of your second article misconstrues this meaning, and attributes more religious conviction to theists than necessarily exists, which was what I was refuting.
Nope, I honestly can't.

And I'm glad that you are able to speak for the majority of atheists without consulting them.
OK, you got me there. What I meant to say was "...a very large proportion (if not the majority) of atheists."

Spider_dude

08-18-2003, 02:22 PM

god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals

not everything in this world cn be explained. faith is one of these things. some say faith is just a safety net to stop people going insane, either way people should be allowed to believe in what they want without fear of prejudice or persecution.

if people want to believe in god then let them but please don't mock our beliefs.

thanks

p.s i'll agree that there are some fucked up things about the church but to suggest that all priests are child molestors is completely absurd, and quite frankly utter bullshit.

Barbarossa

08-18-2003, 02:59 PM

When I was little I was led to believe that there were 3 "supreme beings" in my world:

1). The Tooth Fairy
2). Father Christmas
3). God

As I grew up I learnt that the first two don't exist, and I was lied to. I don't have any reason to believe that the existance of the third one is not a lie also.

People should be left alone to work out their own beliefs, and allowed to believe in what they want to believe, without persecution, I agree. However it seems that throughout history the most important thing for the church was to indoctrinate as many people as possible with their way of thinking, through fear and persecution.

It's something that still goes on today, and it's wrong.

hobbes

08-18-2003, 03:16 PM

Petri,

I understand what you are trying to say, via your quotes, and I feel that weak Atheists are more correctly called agnostics.

An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.

This is my logic:

Belief or Denial of God is absolute as these both require faith (belief without proof). These views occupy the opposite ends of the "belief" spectrum. Theists on one side and Atheists on the other. Agnostics spanning the grey zone in between.
A person can be a general Theist- Believes there is a God, but holds his own view as to what that means (religion as a personal interpretaion) or have a specific set of beliefs about God, as defined by his religion.
A general Atheist would believe that there is no God, and I suppose it could be broken down into Anti-Christains, Anti-Islamists, etc.

A "weak" theist (one who believes in the existence of God) is not one who "kind of" believes in God. You either believe or you don't. "Weak" theists cannot exist.
You can have a "weak" Catholic. One who does not go to church every Sunday and follow the exact rules of the Church, but this does not alter that he/she believes in God. This point is binary.
So by analogy that would mean that "weak" Atheists cannot exist.

So where do they belong? I would lump them into the Agnostic category. This protean group holds those who are searching for answers or are in doubt. We neither accept nor deny any religion. We allow the possibility that a God may exist, but do not feel that any Religion defines him properly. So we believe in no described God, but that does not mean that God does not or cannot exist.

Sorry about the "intellectual dishonesty" barb, it was a bit harsh. The problem is that when a discussion is placed in the "lounge" it is tainted with kids who just want to spout nonsense, rather than engage in a discussion. Since I did not know you, I let my expectations drive my observations.

Which leads to my next thread........

titey

08-18-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Spider_dude@18 August 2003 - 09:22
god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
If there were a god... and he were infallible... then how do you explain man?

If man were created by an infallable entity, man would be perfect.

Man is hardly perfect.

thewizeard

08-18-2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@18 August 2003 - 17:16

Which leads to my next thread........
Hobbes! Don''t leave me in such suspense... The thread please....

@ titey, God created man, as he is, to contrast with his/hers infallibility. ( Is that helpfull?)

hobbes

08-18-2003, 04:02 PM

Grrr, my follow-up post was eaten and I don't have the energy to type it again. Normally posts don't get lost, but I was hit by a forum error and loss of my ISP simultaneously. :angry: :angry: :angry:

My next thread is on the way.

lynx

08-18-2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Spider_dude@18 August 2003 - 15:22
god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals

not everything in this world cn be explained. faith is one of these things. some say faith is just a safety net to stop people going insane, either way people should be allowed to believe in what they want without fear of prejudice or persecution.

if people want to believe in god then let them but please don't mock our beliefs.

thanks

p.s i'll agree that there are some fucked up things about the church but to suggest that all priests are child molestors is completely absurd, and quite frankly utter bullshit.
I don't mind what you believe in, as long as your beliefs do not have an adverse effect on my lifestyle. I may think you are deluded, but that is my right and doesn't affect you at all.

But the 'Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals' ?
Get real. It has changed it's mind so many times it makes your head spin, so they can't all have been right.

And if I wish to mock your beliefs, I will do so, I don't believe in them so threats of eternal damnation mean nothing to me, my mockery only affects you if you are unsure of your belief in the first place. Equally you are free to mock my beliefs, but if you do, watch out for the boogie man.

Petri

08-19-2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by hobbes
An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.
Agnosticism takes no stance on the existence of gods. It is essentially saying "I do not know whether gods exist or not." It's about knowledge, whereas (a)theism is about belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

So basically, "weak atheism" could also be called "agnostic atheism" - not believing in the existence of gods without claiming to have absolute knowledge on the matter

"Strong atheism" would then be "gnostic atheism" - claiming to know that gods don't exist

"Strong/gnostic theism" - claiming to know that gods do exist

And finally, "weak/agnostic theism" - believing that gods exist, but acknowledging the possibility that they may not

After writing this, I noticed that atheism.about.com has an article (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_what.htm) that makes the same categorization... Maybe I should've just quoted it. :P

Spider_dude

08-19-2003, 12:18 AM

in·fal·li·ble
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
Roman Catholic Church. Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals

taken from www.dictionary.com when checking up correct spelling of infallible.

god didn't just make man, he made everything round us, if you think, it took him 6 days which in my opinion anything created in 6 days is gonna have certain flaws in the OS. this is what church(beta testing) is all about. making our lifes better. thank you and goodnight.

p.s. the bit about living without persecution was because for the most recent past the catholic church has been an easy target, when people get upset should you mock the jews/hindus/blacks, anti-sematic feeling and racism all fall into the same categorie as catholic-bashing, and are all wrong yet people feel its ok, its their right to say i'm off to the chinky. people have feelings.

thanks for listening/reading.

hobbes

08-19-2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Petri+19 August 2003 - 01:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Petri @ 19 August 2003 - 01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
An agnostic is one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So he accepts no God, be reserves the right to change is mind as new information is revealed.
Agnosticism takes no stance on the existence of gods. It is essentially saying "I do not know whether gods exist or not." It's about knowledge, whereas (a)theism is about belief. They are not mutually exclusive.

So basically, "weak atheism" could also be called "agnostic atheism" - not believing in the existence of gods without claiming to have absolute knowledge on the matter

"Strong atheism" would then be "gnostic atheism" - claiming to know that gods don't exist

"Strong/gnostic theism" - claiming to know that gods do exist

And finally, "weak/agnostic theism" - believing that gods exist, but acknowledging the possibility that they may not

[/b][/quote]
I like the 4 sub-divisions
1. I absolutely believe in a God

2. I'm not sure anymore

3. I don't think so, but maybe

4. Definitely no God

As you can see 1 and 4 are absolute and driven by faith
2&4 are people seeking answers and I would tend to clump them together under 1 category, as partials do not mix with absolutes.

If you insist on the 4 categories above, I would be a 3. Drunk at a party, I think 2's and 3's would have the best discussions, as they are both listening and seeking answers, not embedded in a truth they cannot know.

Here is my quandry. Looking at organized religions, I reject them without difficulty as manmade. Then I observe nature and see 1,000,000 army ants act as a single creature. It is amazing, awe inspiring. It looks planned, how it could have arisen spontaneously hurts my head to ponder. This is just 1 of thousands of examples which seem to demonstrate "planning".

But to credit a God as creating it all, it seems I would have to create something more complex than our universe in order to explain it. Makes no sense to imagine that something more complex than the universe came about from a vacuum, in order to explain our universe.

Yes, I know, God has always existed, he needs no creation. That makes no sense to me, either. I think it is a distortion of the concept of time, but at this point, I cannot explain further.

fixed typos

titey

08-19-2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by JPaul@17 August 2003 - separate posts
I assume that Catholic bashing is considered acceptable here....

...titey's last comment was distinctly anti-catholic.
My last post (prior to this one) was not anti-catholic... it was at most anti-priest. <_<

:D I did not make any reference to catholics in general.

thewizeard

08-19-2003, 03:50 PM

Very illuminating! Now I have a question; is God an atheist or a theist?

Barbarossa

08-19-2003, 04:12 PM

I expect God believes in his own existence ... doesn' he? :huh:

j2k4

08-19-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by barbarossa@19 August 2003 - 11:12
I expect God believes in his own existence ... doesn' he? :huh:
What you said, Barbie. ;)

J'Pol

08-19-2003, 05:34 PM

As someone, or possibly more than one person, has said in other threads. There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.

My belief in God requires no external validation. Enough things have happened in my life to convince me that "there are more thing in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy". I have had too many experiences that I cannot accept within my understanding of the physical world.

I am absolutely convinced that when man dies he, or at least his essential being (soul if you will) does not cease to exist. It merely moves to a different type of existence. I am absolutely convinced that the universe did not just pop into existence and that there has to be something which created it. Something which belongs outside of the rules of space, time, science etc.

I chose to understand this, based on my own experiences and studies, as their being a God. I also believe that there is some sort of "after-life". People often use emotive terms in an attempt to demean this. For example the big invisible man in the sky, or the comparisons to the tooth fairy Having heard it all before it no longer angers me.

I have no idea what God is. I have little understanding of the internal combustion engine, so to assume I would be able to understand and explain the Creator of the Universe is a bit optimistic. Neither do I understand what this after-life will consist of. But I very much look forward to the adventure.

I fully support everyone's right to view the Universe as they see fit and expect them to afford me the same courtesy. Like the chap said as long as the beliefs of others do not adversely affect my right to live that's ok. Believe in the Giant Turtle Great A'Tuin if you wish.

imnotanaddict

08-19-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by titey+18 August 2003 - 15:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 18 August 2003 - 15:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Spider_dude@18 August 2003 - 09:22
god made himself, quite simply when you are an all powerful infallible being you will understand.
in·fal·li·ble 
Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
If there were a god... and he were infallible... then how do you explain man?

If man were created by an infallable entity, man would be perfect.

Man is hardly perfect. [/b][/quote]

titey
Posted: 18 August 2003 - 15:41
If there were a god... and he were infallible... then how do you explain man?

If man were created by an infallable entity, man would be perfect.

Man is hardly perfect.

If man were perfect. Would'nt that make us gods or atleast god-like? But even
that would be a subject for debate. If I were physically perfect? Mentally perfect?
Would that include telepathy? Complete knowledge of everything even the future?
I could go on and on but that is another topic alone.
My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?
Why live a life if we could'nt learn.
To experience things.
Would'nt everyone be the same..." P E R F E C T ".
Would we be much more than Robot"s, predictable.
Would we have personalities?
Would we all look alike?
Would we have emotions?
And why do I picture Data on 'Star Trek" right about now.

GENESIS 3 : 6
When Adam and Eve ate from "The Tree of Life" not only were they taking their
first step toward "Free Will" but the consequences for disobiedience as well.

The first 3 Chapters of Genesis are awsome. Just read it again for the first time in years.

The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.

One conversation I had with a guy that was much more knowledgeable on the
subject than I . I said "I thought that If "God is Perfect" why does God tell someone
to do something if he already knows whether there not going to (or going to) do it in obedience". Like (for instance) God telling Adam and Eve not eat from the tree of life. Did'nt he already know what would happen?
He said: "I think God would can know what would happen but I think he sometimes chooses not to know.
( the future, that is )

titey

08-19-2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by imnotanaddict+19 August 2003 - 16:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 19 August 2003 - 16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?[/b]
But isn't your god perfect?
Does he have no purpose then?

<!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 16:16
know the fu[/quote]
I choose to belive that was an unfinished thought. ;)

Neil__

08-19-2003, 09:47 PM

imnotanaddict, titey and Spider_dude

A few questions.

If God made us perfect, would we need a God?

If God doesn't exist do you think it likely that we would invent one to explain/excuse our imperfections?

As an athiest I strongly support peoples right to believe in any God they feel is theirs but do take exception to those who use God as an all encompasing answer to any problem without looking further.

I know there are those who will say that everything is the work of god, if thats the case what's the point in making decisions about anything?

Thats the thing with blind faith, everything we don't understand can far too easily be attributed to the devine.

If anyone has view on these points then I would be very interested.

Neil

J'Pol

08-19-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Neil__@19 August 2003 - 22:47
Thats the thing with blind faith, everything we don't understand can far too easily be attributed to the devine.

http://www.firstfoot.com/Bad%20Scottish%20Pop/Bad%20Scottish%20Pop/Images/sydney.jpg

Are you a mentalist at all ?

Neil__

08-19-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by JPaul+19 August 2003 - 22:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 19 August 2003 - 22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@19 August 2003 - 22:47
Thats the thing with blind faith, everything we don't understand can far too easily be attributed to the devine.

http://www.firstfoot.com/Bad%20Scottish%20Pop/Bad%20Scottish%20Pop/Images/sydney.jpg

Are you a mentalist at all ? [/b][/quote]

Mentalism, practiced by mentalists

1. Parapsychological activities, such as telepathy and mind reading.
2. The belief that some mental phenomena cannot be explained by physical laws.

No. I believe everything is explainable by physical laws

But I also believe we have a very crude and incomplete understanding of physics.

Neil.

J'Pol

08-19-2003, 10:03 PM

Some things are explainable by spelling.

Neil__

08-19-2003, 10:08 PM

Some things are explainable by spelling.

And some people concentrate on the banal.

Neil.

imnotanaddict

08-19-2003, 11:15 PM

I edited unfinished post (had to leave in a hurry).
Won't be back on line until tomorrow
titey/neil would very much like to pick this back up again.

lynx

08-20-2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 22:16
The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.
Oh, come on, Cinderella and Snow White are more credible than some of the bible stories.

Rat Faced

08-20-2003, 12:33 AM

An awful lot of begatting in that book....top shelf material.

And i agree with Lynx, takes more than someone saying his hands were guided by god to make it so.

Lot of people were killed in Spain and elswhere for claiming exactly that.... (amongst other things)

In addition, the Bible was translated a couple of times....badly.

j2k4

08-20-2003, 04:34 AM

Yeah-

The Z's, Q's, B's and M's didn't work on Mr. Gutenberg's press, either-I read that somewhere. ;)

thewizeard

08-20-2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by lynx+20 August 2003 - 02:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 20 August 2003 - 02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 22:16
The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.
Oh, come on, Cinderella and Snow White are more credible than some of the bible stories.[/b][/quote]
A compromise is necessary here; much of what is readable in the bible was inspired by the belief in God. (That coming from a would be boedhhist, oops sorry j2k4, I mean budhhist)

In 1990 the Dalai lama was visiting Belgium, being curious I went to see him. I was amongst the 500 or more people who were gathered together in a huge tent in the picturesque town of Hooy, on the Maas.

Someone asked the Dalai Lama if the world was created by God. His answer, as far as I can remember was, "If the world had been created by Ishvara (God), who is perfect, then the world would be perfect. Clearly the world is not perfect, therefore the world could not possibly have been created by Ishvara. Titey said something similar yesterday.

A problem arose for me with this answer; I had always thought budhhists were atheists! As this is definitely not within the scope of this thread, I will leave that for now.

titey

08-20-2003, 07:18 AM

:huh: Hmmmm..."Titey Lama"Has a nice ring to it... don'cha think. :)

lynx

08-20-2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by titey@20 August 2003 - 08:18
:huh: Hmmmm..."Titey Lama"Has a nice ring to it... don'cha think. :)
Don't bring bestiality into this, or the mods will be having another round of musical threads. ;)

Neil__

08-20-2003, 11:52 AM

Nigel

Is Ishvara a God in the classical definition or something other?

And the Dalai Lama stated that if Ishvara created the world then it would be perfect and the world is not.

If Buddhists are athiests as you imply (I know little of their beliefs) then this seems to me a very diplomatic way of implying that God doesn't exist without stating it directly and therefore invoking the wrath of the followers of other religions.

Neil

Another general question.

Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God

Neil__

08-20-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by lynx+20 August 2003 - 01:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 20 August 2003 - 01:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-imnotanaddict@19 August 2003 - 22:16
The books of the bible were written by men. But fiction? without any outside(God)
guidiance? Just does'nt seem possible.
Oh, come on, Cinderella and Snow White are more credible than some of the bible stories. [/b][/quote]

C’mon Lynx give a little slack, imnotanaddict did say that it doesn't seem possible
Not that it was impossible; you don't give any scope for personal belief and true faith.

If the Bible is true as imnotanaddict obviously believes then it cannot be explained without Gods intervention in the biblical world.

I did not hear any statement that God wrote the bible just that the bible couldn't have been written as a work of fact without a God being evident.

And remember these scriptures are the word of God as interpreted by a 2000 year old culture (For Christianity) also a lot of the teachings are by parable and works of example. Most Christians have enough sense not to take everything in the Bible literally.

Neil
.

imnotanaddict

08-20-2003, 12:41 PM

titey
Posted: 19 August 2003 - 21:45
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 19 August 2003 - 16:16)
My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?

But isn't your god perfect?
Does he have no purpose then?[QUOTE]

If we were perfect, would there be the question of "free will"?
How could there be. We would incapable of making wrong choices.
I surely don't have the answers. I can only ask questions and use what
little deductive reasoning I have. I make no claims as to whether I'm right
or wrong.

If God is the creator of all things, how could he not be perfect on what can
we base imperfect?

As far as purpose?

I did find this :
God's Plan for mankind covers ALL aspects of human history, good and evil, as well as providing for "free choice" in order to achieve His greatest creation of all. . . a family of beings that are God's very offspring, with the very nature of God Himself!

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

His purpose, to offer a home in heaven?

lynx

08-20-2003, 12:44 PM

I wasn't knocking imnotanaddict's beliefs, I was merely pointing out that any half decent author (and that certainly doesn't include me) could come up with stories which are far more believable, without any sort of divine intervention.

So to say that the bible needs divine assistance to have been written just doesn't make sense. I vivid imagination is all that is required, and if what we read on another thread is true they weren't unaware of the properties of certain mind altering plants.

Barbarossa

08-20-2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 11:52
Another general question.

Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
He's the same fellah in Islam, Christianity and Judaism that's for sure.

Makes you wonder why everyone's arguing doesn't it?

Neil__

08-20-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by barbarossa+20 August 2003 - 13:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 20 August 2003 - 13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@20 August 2003 - 11:52
Another general question.

Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
He's the same fellah in Islam, Christianity and Judaism that's for sure.

Makes you wonder why everyone's arguing doesn't it? [/b][/quote]

I never will understand that.

It's like witches arguing over whose got the blackest cat.

Neil

thewizeard

08-20-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Neil__@20 August 2003 - 13:52
Nigel

Is Ishvara a God in the classical definition or something other?

And the Dalai Lama stated that if Ishvara created the world then it would be perfect and the world is not.

If Buddhists are athiests as you imply (I know little of their beliefs) then this seems to me a very diplomatic way of implying that God doesn't exist without stating it directly and therefore invoking the wrath of the followers of other religions.

Neil

Another general question.

Are there many gods, one for each religion, or are different religions giving different attributes to the same God
Yes Neil, Ishvara is God.

I certainly did not mean to imply that budhhists are atheists.

The importance of there being a God of not, is not really important for a buddhist.
In the budhhist view, life consists of a series of successive states of consciousness. The first state is the Birth-Consciousnes; the last is the consciousness existing at the moment of death (that's where most of us are now), or the Death-Consciousness. The interval between the two states of consciousness, during which the transformation from the 'old' to a 'new' being is effected, is called the intermediate state. Rebirth follows. This intermediate state is called the Bardo.

The goal is to become enlightenend. That which is impeding this goal is duality. As I pointed out in a different thread, that seems now to have found it's way to the lounge. It is the illusion of ego which is the very source of the twelve links of interdependence, of which the first is ignorance in the sense of not seeing, not knowing the as-it-isness. In their ignorance mankind created God in their own image.

titey

08-20-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by nigel123@20 August 2003 - 09:27
In their ignorance mankind created God...
Sorry to quote you out of context nigel, but I think that sums things up nicely.

Rat Faced

08-20-2003, 06:55 PM

The Lords Prayer says it all...

"Thy shall be done."

J'Pol

08-20-2003, 06:58 PM

Why do people who don't believe in God always come across as being more evangelistic than those who do.

Rat Faced

08-20-2003, 07:12 PM

Im not an atheist, in case that was aimed my way JPaul...

However I dont believe The Bible (or any other "Holy Book"), was guided by "God" either.

thewizeard

08-20-2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@20 August 2003 - 20:58
Why do people who don't believe in God always come across as being more evangelistic than those who do.
I am not sure that they do. I do think that most people tend to defend what they believe it. Some actively force their beliefs on others.

J'Pol

08-20-2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by JPaul@19 August 2003 - 18:34
As someone, or possibly more than one person, has said in other threads. There is a big difference between belief and knowledge.

My belief in God requires no external validation. Enough things have happened in my life to convince me that "there are more thing in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy". I have had too many experiences that I cannot accept within my understanding of the physical world.

I am absolutely convinced that when man dies he, or at least his essential being (soul if you will) does not cease to exist. It merely moves to a different type of existence. I am absolutely convinced that the universe did not just pop into existence and that there has to be something which created it. Something which belongs outside of the rules of space, time, science etc.

I chose to understand this, based on my own experiences and studies, as their being a God. I also believe that there is some sort of "after-life". People often use emotive terms in an attempt to demean this. For example the big invisible man in the sky, or the comparisons to the tooth fairy Having heard it all before it no longer angers me.

I have no idea what God is. I have little understanding of the internal combustion engine, so to assume I would be able to understand and explain the Creator of the Universe is a bit optimistic. Neither do I understand what this after-life will consist of. But I very much look forward to the adventure.

I fully support everyone's right to view the Universe as they see fit and expect them to afford me the same courtesy. Like the chap said as long as the beliefs of others do not adversely affect my right to live that's ok. Believe in the Giant Turtle Great A'Tuin if you wish.
RF - it was just a general comment. Not aimed at you.

I believe in God however that does not mean I take the Bible as being Gospel.

My beliefs are a wee bit more nebulous, as you can probably see.

I think of a lot of the holy books as parables and stories, to help folk understand.

Rat Faced

08-20-2003, 07:50 PM

And nothing wrong with that JPaul....all for it. ;)

Even most Vicars/Priests will tell you that the Bible isnt the literal word of "God".

Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P

J'Pol

08-20-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 August 2003 - 20:50

Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P

Cocaine - for the masses ?

fugley

08-20-2003, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by JPaul+20 August 2003 - 20:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JPaul @ 20 August 2003 - 20:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@20 August 2003 - 20:50

Its the claiming that its something else that gets up my nose. :P

Cocaine - for the masses ? [/b][/quote]
or like mass production cars and stuff like the Foc..

lynx

08-20-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by fugley@20 August 2003 - 22:20
or like mass production cars and stuff like the Foc..
Oh dear, I do believe that was almost ugly, fugley.

Edit: this is probably enough for another round of musical posts.

Spider_dude

08-20-2003, 11:38 PM

this is totally/almost unrelated,

has anyone read a book called the bible code?
its a book about the bible, infact they added all the letters from the pages of the bible together ommitted all spaces and done a sort of magical word search on it.
the results showed important passages in time crosing over each other. i.e that israeli dude who was assassinated(the prime minister) searching for his name there was a joining link saying assassinated and shot for example. the only problem being that the event had to happen in time for them to search for it, in a way the bible could predict the past but not the future. it would however be interesting to search for your own name and cross reference with lots of words like death/murder/when/kazaa. and just see if its true or shite.

anyway here is a link to a review
bible code review - interesting really. (http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html)

MagicNakor

08-20-2003, 11:43 PM

Indeed, it's much like playing Jumbles. And there is always more than one answer when you play that. ;)

:ninja:

RGX

08-20-2003, 11:46 PM

Im bored, So I thought i'd write some stuff

Ive always looked at evoloution as an adatability to an environment, over a period of time, rather than the creation of everything. If you think about it, it would be kind of stupid to create an animal or being which couldnt adapt to its conditions, as I doubt it would last very long. Therefore, its creator, whoever you beleive it to be, would enable it to adapt to climate change, terrain growth over time, etc. etc.

just a thought

(btw, these arn't supposed to stand up in arguments im just posting my thoughts on the whole God thing)

People often ask for proof that god exists. I often ask back "prove to me Jamaica exists" (I chose jamaica because not many people have been there). We hear about it, we read about it ,we see pictures of it on tv, but how do we know it exists? How do we know the location where Jamaica is supposed to be isnt a military base? Random iknow, but it brings me to the conclusion that we cant really prove much at all. (I take proof as un-deniable physical evidence). I cant prove to you I truly exist. For all you know your in a coma, in a dream world of your own.

This also makes me think about proof of God. In my opinion, the fact that I am sitting here is a sort of proof there is a higher power. The fact that there are millions of people out there living complex lives, out of supposedly knowhere, suggests thaere is a creator, a being or entity which started the process of life. For the universe to appeaar randomly, and advance to his level, with no outside interference, is, to my mind at least, very improbable

Will post more later, tired and bored, but those are just my views, and I have no problem with other peoples.

MagicNakor

08-20-2003, 11:56 PM

Em..what would you consider undeniable proof that Jamacia exists then? Would you have to sail there yourself? Obviously you cannot trust someone else to do the transporting for you; they might be in on the conspiracy.

:ninja:

RGX

08-21-2003, 12:35 AM

my point is,that nothing is really provable....not truly anyway, forgive me for sounding paranoid, but its true, can I even trust my senses?

As I said, these were just thoughts in my head I needed to air, they arnt fully thought through, although I stand by them as my viewpoint

Biggles

08-21-2003, 07:40 PM

This would appear to be getting philosophical. Does that tree falling make a sound if there is no one there to hear it? Or, a version my daughter passed on to me, if a man is in a forest by himself is he still wrong?

Religion is faith - faith is believing in that which you cannot see or discern. Allowing someone to attach you to a bungee rope is a form of faith. You believe the rope is ok, you believe the person is trustworthy and you believe in the mathematics (even if the very mention of quadratic equations gives you a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach).

Not believing can be based on a number of things. The guy who ended up embeded two feet into the ground last week, the fact that the organiser appears deranged, the fact that last guy on looked 300 pounds if he was an ounce.

Likewise, people aproach religion. Life experiences result in emotional reactions which may or may not have a grounding in objective logic. Consequently, some will hold onto a belief whilst others will reject it. It is interesting that post war Europe has an extremely low adherence to religious beliefs - something like 14% rate it as important to them whereas the US and Australia have figures nearer 50%. I would suggest that the horrors of two world wars and the enormous number of atrocities played out in that arena have created a degree of scepticism yet to permeate elsewhere. Perhaps the trends will reverse - who knows?

Ultimately faith is your choice - you cannot force someone to believe (you can only force them to look as though they believe). Religious tolerance should therefore accept that people will have different faiths or none because ultimately (I believe) no creed can contain an emotional commitment to a belief.

If a person has a faith then his walk is with his God not with a rule book. In my view the latter is simply a deep seated love of traffic wardens expressed as a religion to make it sound more acceptable. :rolleyes:

J'Pol

08-21-2003, 08:42 PM

Fine post sir.

Excellent points well presented.

One thing tho', the tree falling in the wood thing - it definitely makes a noise.

I believe I have proven this elsewhere, using a series of audio visual aids.

Neil__

08-22-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by imnotanaddict@20 August 2003 - 13:41
titey
Posted: 19 August 2003 - 21:45
QUOTE (imnotanaddict @ 19 August 2003 - 16:16)
My point is if we were perfect:
What would be our purpose?

But isn't your god perfect?
Does he have no purpose then?[QUOTE]

If we were perfect, would there be the question of "free will"?
How could there be. We would incapable of making wrong choices.
I surely don't have the answers. I can only ask questions and use what
little deductive reasoning I have. I make no claims as to whether I'm right
or wrong.

If God is the creator of all things, how could he not be perfect on what can
we base imperfect?

As far as purpose?

I did find this :
God's Plan for mankind covers ALL aspects of human history, good and evil, as well as providing for "free choice" in order to achieve His greatest creation of all. . . a family of beings that are God's very offspring, with the very nature of God Himself!

John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."

His purpose, to offer a home in heaven?

I think there's something we have to agree on, religion asks more questions than it answers and these questions definately need thought.

Neil

ilw

08-22-2003, 06:37 PM

How do u decide which religion to follow? For many people it seems to be solely based on the religion they were exposed to as a child? This seems to me to be a strange way of choosing the philosophy by which u live your life and as far as i can see, apart from indoctrination, there doesn't seem to be any logical way of choosing a religion, a brief glance at history will show that no religion or monotheistic country seems to have been overtly favoured by the almighty and the claims and promises of each are fairly comparable.

"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

"We find now that the prosperity of nations has depended, not upon their religion, not upon the goodness or providence of some god, but on soil and climate and commerce, upon the ingenuity, industry, and courage of the people, upon the development of the mind, on the spread of education, on the liberty of thought and action; and that in this mighty panorama of national life, reason has built and superstition has destroyed."
Robert ingersoll

Also if u accept the premise that parts of a religion's holy book are just stories meant to educate, then how can u choose which parts are 'gospel' and which are fictional, or is it that u do not find it important to know which parts are true?

I'm personally agnostic (i have no faith either way) and regard the big bang and evolution as the best 2 creation theories around. To anyone who expressed disbelief that evolution could create life, I would recommend Richard Dawkin's books he's the writer of 'The selfish gene' and 'The blind watchmaker'. I was surprised by the amount I learned about evolution. My big bang knowledge is a lot more shaky, but in regard to lynx's discrepancies i'll add my vague understanding that the nuclear strong and weak forces probably had a much greater effect in the early universe creation than gravity (as gravity is only inverse square), also I was under the impression that at the sort of energies and distances that existed in the early microseconds of the universe, physical laws and constants were grossly mutated.

titey

08-22-2003, 06:50 PM

Nice to see you back ilw.... it's been a while! http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/thmbup.gif

ilw

08-22-2003, 07:18 PM

Thanks, nice to be back :D . Had a nice holiday travelling around germany, italy and croatia. 3 weeks of blazing sunchine, beautiful beaches and tanned godesses. B)

lynx

08-22-2003, 07:27 PM

Hi, ilw, now you've made me jealous.
Do you know what the equation is for strong and weak nuclear forces ? I never really got into those.
This doesn't really have much to do with religion or atheism, so I think I should start another thread about this, when I've had time to gather my thoughts.

ilw

08-22-2003, 08:06 PM

The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10-43 seconds after the big bang. For the time before that moment, the classical theory of gravity is no longer adequate. Scientists are searching for a theory that merges quantum mechanics and gravity, but have not found one yet. Many scientists have hope that string theory will tie together gravity and quantum mechanics and help scientists explore further back in time.

Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened "before" the big bang.

According to the big bang theory, the universe expanded rapidly in its first microseconds. A single force existed at the beginning of the universe, and as the universe expanded and cooled, this force separated into those we know today: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. A theory called the electroweak theory now provides a unified explanation of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force theory. Physicists are now searching for a grand unification theory to also incorporate the strong nuclear force. String theory seeks to incorporate the force of gravity with the other three forces.

One widely accepted version of big bang theory includes the idea of inflation. In this model, the universe expanded much more rapidly at first, to about 1050 times its original size in the first 10-32 second, then slowed its expansion. The theory was advanced in the 1980s by American cosmologist Alan Guth and elaborated upon by American astronomer Paul Steinhardt, Russian American scientist Andrei Linde, and British astronomer Andreas Albrecht.

The inflationary universe theory solves a number of problems of cosmology. For example, it shows that the universe now appears close to the type of flat space described by the laws of Euclid's geometry: We see only a tiny region of the original universe, similar to the way we do not notice the curvature of the earth because we see only a small part of it. The inflationary universe also shows why the universe appears so homogeneous. If the universe we observe was inflated from some small, original region, it is not surprising that it appears uniform.

Once the expansion of the initial inflationary era ended, the universe continued to expand more slowly. The inflationary model predicts that the universe is on the boundary between being open and closed. If the universe is open, it will keep expanding forever, even though the rate of expansion will gradually slow. If the universe is closed, the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and the universe will begin contracting until it collapses. Whether the universe is open or closed depends on the density, or concentration of mass, in the universe. If the universe is dense enough, it is closed.

source http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/horo...es/abigbang.htm (http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/horoscopes/abigbang.htm)

As for equations about the nuclear weak and strong forces, i know that weak is related 10^-5 for distance and theres a bit of info at the top of this page (http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/particles/nuclearforces/nuclear.html) about the strong force (less info on the weak force further down)

titey

08-22-2003, 08:19 PM

:blink: Um..... yeah..... I was just about to say that very thing m'self. :blink:

:unsure: Errr..... well..... yeah..... nice to have you back ilw!

hobbes

08-22-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by ilw@22 August 2003 - 19:37

To anyone who expressed disbelief that evolution could create life, I would recommend Richard Dawkin's books he's the writer of 'The selfish gene' and 'The blind watchmaker'. I was surprised by the amount I learned about evolution.
Could you give us a synopsis or insight into how he uses evolution to explain creation.

I read reviews about the "selfish gene" and "watchmaker" and they really dealt more in the mechanism of evolution and it's pointlessness (the fallacy of the watchmaker), rather than on the initial creation of life.

I really don't feel like reading 2 books which may not actually relate to creation at all. Can you give us enough of a teaser from these books which might give us a reason to examine them further.

Thanks.

hobbes

08-22-2003, 09:44 PM

ilw

08-22-2003, 10:18 PM

As u say both books concentrate on evolution as a whole more than any specific in depth probing of evolution as a method of creation. However, if i remember well 'the blind watchmaker' does contain some interesting information on the subject because the book is constructed partially as an argument against religion. If memory serves, the subject matter discussed included:
why life is carbon based, information regarding why silicon would also work,
precursors to dna (RNA and i think other simpler forms of protein coding/blueprint transmission) also why a precursor(s) to dna would have been necessary and why dna succeeded it(them)
Some discussion of the primordial soup and info regarding how the small steps evolution requires could have culminated in producing the first organism

I think that list is accurate, but woefully incomplete, i'm sure theres more in there but i don't have the book anymore so i can't easily check.
If all your trying to get out of it is info regarding evolutionary creation then there are probably better books out there, but if evolution as a whole interests u I would recommend reading at least the blind watchmaker.

hobbes

08-22-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by ilw@22 August 2003 - 23:18
As u say both books concentrate on evolution as a whole more than any specific in depth probing of evolution as a method of creation. However, if i remember well 'the blind watchmaker' does contain some interesting information on the subject because the book is constructed partially as an argument against religion. If memory serves, the subject matter discussed included:
why life is carbon based, information regarding why silicon would also work,
precursors to dna (RNA and i think other simpler forms of protein coding/blueprint transmission) also why a precursor(s) to dna would have been necessary and why dna succeeded it(them)
Some discussion of the primordial soup and info regarding how the small steps evolution requires could have culminated in producing the first organism

I think that list is accurate, but woefully incomplete, i'm sure theres more in there but i don't have the book anymore so i can't easily check.
If all your trying to get out of it is info regarding evolutionary creation then there are probably better books out there, but if evolution as a whole interests u I would recommend reading at least the blind watchmaker.
Evolution is real enough. I'll let some beaker boy worry about hammering out the details.

As I said in another thread, evolution is not limited to biology and sometimes this can be helpful in explaining how unique entities can arise from a common precursor.

My example was Latin. From this parent language, there have been many new languages formed. They came about from time and geographic separation. A speaker of the parent language is unable to understand the offspring and vice-versa.

I'm more interested in creation.

billyfridge

09-05-2003, 11:03 PM

I thought believing in god or whatever, is only for the semi-literate, now i KNOW
billyfridge. (unbeleiver) <_<

MagicNakor

09-06-2003, 08:02 AM

But it seems that "unbeleiving" is for the illiterate.

:ninja:

sabbath

09-06-2003, 09:35 AM

If believing in God, helps you, then you should believe. Nothing wrong with that.

I think that religion is a way to control and guide the masses, but what the hell, that's just my opnion...

Edit- Small syntax error, fixed that

J'Pol

09-06-2003, 09:40 AM

Being a catholic to trade I love it when people say that religion is used to control the masses.

sabbath

09-06-2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by JPaul@6 September 2003 - 11:40
Being a catholic to trade I love it when people say that religion is used to control the masses.
Thanks, it's not mine, heard it from someone else

chalice

09-06-2003, 10:01 AM

Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.

sabbath

09-06-2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by chalice@6 September 2003 - 12:01
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
I don't see anyone rebelling. Though the comment is so right

ilw

09-06-2003, 12:05 PM

the comment about controlling the masses may possibly have come from quote by Napoleon Bonaparte
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

Biggles

09-06-2003, 12:34 PM

I thought the "masses" quote came from Marx and Engels. ('Manifesto' I think)

However, the French revolutionaries were very anti religion too. The custom of senior Church posts only going to landed aristocracy had a little to do with that. It was almost impossible to have a career in the Church in 18th century France without the right family connections.

It was little surprise that the Church heirarchy supported the aristocracy - they were simply supporting their Dads and brothers.

chalice

09-06-2003, 12:40 PM

"Religion is the opium of the masses" is indeed from The Communist Manifesto.
Always a good one to parody.

i_have_a.d.d.

09-06-2003, 04:27 PM

dam i was gone 4 a week and this is my fave topic i ever posted i even got an enourmous amount of replies and viewers :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
hope i can read all this soon..

balamm

09-06-2003, 04:29 PM

:wacko: :wacko:

i_have_a.d.d.

09-06-2003, 04:32 PM

hehe

thewizeard

09-06-2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by i_have_a.d.d.@6 September 2003 - 17:27
dam i was gone 4 a week and this is my fave topic i ever posted i even got an enourmous amount of replies and viewers  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
hope i can read all this soon..
It is your duty to read and reply to each and everyone!

bigboab

09-06-2003, 11:11 PM

'Dejavu'? I think I have seen that some place before. HMmm :P

bigboab

09-07-2003, 12:09 AM

Eureka!

DÉJÀ VU:- A momentary infinitesimal lag in the operation of two coactive sensory nerve centres that commonly functioned simultaneously. (JOSEPH HELLER)

chalice

09-07-2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by bigboab@7 September 2003 - 00:09
Eureka!

DÉJÀ VU:- A momentary infinitesimal lag in the operation of two coactive sensory nerve centres that commonly functioned simultaneously. (JOSEPH HELLER)
You're damned if you think it, Boab, and damned if you don't.
As Josef Heller might have said..if he was pissed.

bigboab

09-09-2003, 09:36 PM

quote "Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals"

Thats poison Chalice! :rolleyes:

Biggles

09-09-2003, 09:50 PM

I thought opium was the opium of the intellectuals (Sherlock Holmes) :blink:

sabbath

09-09-2003, 10:00 PM

If only Marx was alive, you guys and girls... :huh:

Neil__

09-13-2003, 10:39 PM

I would like someone to answer a question and explain a paradox and I will use Christianity for example only.

I do not believe in God.

The Christians intimate that failure to believe in their God condemnes me to Hell.

But, If I don't believe in any God then Hell can't exist either.

So My question is.

Where will I burn Exactly?

Neil.

ilw

09-13-2003, 10:45 PM

you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist

chalice

09-13-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Neil__@13 September 2003 - 22:39
I would like someone to answer a question and explain a paradox and I will use Christianity for example only.

I do not believe in God.

The Christians intimate that failure to believe in their God condemnes me to Hell.

But, If I don't believe in any God then Hell can't exist either.

So My question is.

Where will I burn Exactly?

Neil.
In the lounge. :)

ilw

09-13-2003, 10:47 PM

lol

what i want to know is, could god create another god?

imnotanaddict

09-13-2003, 10:51 PM

Federal Judge Makes It Official -- America Now an Atheist Nation
Special commentary from AFA chairman Don Wildmon

The issue isn't a granite stone with the Ten Commandments inscribed on it. Never has been. The issue is much more diverse and important than a piece of stone.

The issue was best stated by none other than Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who said that the display of the stone containing the Ten Commandments (which also contains a host of other historical documents) is illegal. Thompson said the central, most important issue was this: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

After asking the question, he went on to answer it. "No."

That is the issue. Lest we fail to understand what has occurred here, let me explain. A single, lower-court federal judge has bluntly told every American that America is now officially an atheist nation.

In one swift stroke of the pen, Judge Thompson tossed out over 225 years of American history and law. In one swift stroke of the pen, he has instituted a new form of law based on what he wants it to be. Rex has become lex. He wears a black robe and he says he is the law.

Go back and read the First Amendment, the one Judge Thompson destroyed in the name of preserving it. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the First Amendment says. Congress has passed no law establishing religion. But what Congress refused to do, indeed because Congress refused to do it, Judge Thompson did. He instituted as the law of the land the religion of atheism, which says there is no God.

Not only did Judge Thompson usurp the power of Congress, he also took away the rights of every individual and state. The second half of the establishment clause of the First Amendment reads: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This is precisely what one lower federal judge has done. He told Americans who disagree with his official state religion of atheism that he can and will prohibit the free exercise of their religion -- unless, of course, that religion is atheism. He stripped both Congress and the people of their rights. He set himself above the law because he considers himself to be the law.

From this day forward, our entire judicial system must be based on the religion of atheism. Follow that to its logical conclusion. In the future there will be no frame of reference from which to decide law. Law will become what any person wearing a black robe and sitting in court desires it to be. The First Amendment has been ripped apart in the name of upholding it. Orwell's 1984 has arrived.

No, you will not notice any drastic changes immediately. There is still a remnant left in the hearts and minds of the current citizenry. But when that remnant dies out, those who come after us will see a big difference.

The state will become intolerant of any religion other than atheism. That, of course, will come into conflict with people of conscience whose religion differs from that of the state. That is when the persecution, quite legal I might add, will start. It was the atheist Santayana who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote: "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

chalice

09-13-2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 22:47
lol

what i want to know is, could god create another god?
That's a good one.

And if he did, who would win at chess?

titey

09-13-2003, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 17:45
you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?

clocker

09-13-2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by titey+13 September 2003 - 16:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (titey @ 13 September 2003 - 16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@13 September 2003 - 17:45
you don't have to believe in hell for it to exist. Just like you don't have to believe in black holes for them to exist
I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists? [/b][/quote]
No.

But you won't be getting any socks on Christmas morning.

ilw

09-13-2003, 11:21 PM

what do you mean you don't believe in santa? How else would you get presents to everyone at christmas time :blink:
They don't just magically appear you know.

titey

09-13-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 18:21
They don't just magically appear you know.
http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/yes.gif Of course they do.... with the aid of Chinese leprchauns! :D

Biggles

09-13-2003, 11:40 PM

Iamnotanaddict

Don't you think you are reading rather too much into the ruling of the judge?

What was the provenance of the stone and where was it situated?

If the primary feature of the stone was Christian text, was it placed in a Christian place of worship or was it in a public place designed to serve the needs of all creeds and colours?

If it was the latter has the judge not upheld your constitution by maintaining a separation of state and church - a primary feature of your political system?

I think rather than an article of faith in atheism it was possibly an attempt to prevent sectarianism - the scourge of many a state.

Perhaps if the stone is for a public place, it could be recarved with edicts of all faiths - from the Native Americans through the faiths of the Torah and on to Bhuddist, Hindu, New Age faiths and Humanism - thus showing that all faiths are equal under the constitution and the law.

However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.

ilw

09-13-2003, 11:43 PM

Hmm communist leprechauns giving away presents, somethings afoot. I wonder what stage 2 will be?

titey

09-13-2003, 11:46 PM

Socialist trolls giving away free condoms.... of course! http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/LOL.gif

chalice

09-13-2003, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 23:43
Hmm communist leprechauns giving away presents, somethings afoot. I wonder what stage 2 will be?
The Eastern Bunny.

ilw

09-13-2003, 11:55 PM

LMAO

hey titey, I just noticed you've regressed to complete noob status:
Posts : 0

What happened??

I'm starting to feel a bit guilty, I get the impression that somewhere we wandered http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/offtopic.gif

clocker

09-13-2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 16:40

However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
Biggles,

The stone was situated in a courthouse.

This is much ado about nothing.

Strangely, the same people who are so concerned about America becoming Godless seem completely unconcerned about Bush/Rumsfield's push to strip away personal freedoms via the Patriot Act.

titey

09-13-2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by ilw@13 September 2003 - 18:55
I get the impression that somewhere we wandered http://www.ml20.nowinbeta.org/offtopic.gif
Gee, that'd be a first! :rolleyes: http://www.piczonline.com/client/titey/ROFL.gif

balamm

09-14-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by titey@13 September 2003 - 16:12

I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?
When enough people believe, yes he does. In spirit at least. And isn't the spirit what this discussion is based on?

ilw

09-14-2003, 12:05 AM

what about if the people aren't old enough to vote, does it still count?

titey

09-14-2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by balamm+13 September 2003 - 19:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (balamm @ 13 September 2003 - 19:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-titey@13 September 2003 - 16:12

I don't belive in Santa Claus :santa: :blink: Does that mean he exists?

When enough people believe, yes he does. In spirit at least. And isn't the spirit what this discussion is based on? [/b][/quote]
Thank you Virginia.... I had lost track of the true meaning of this thread. :blink:

balamm

09-14-2003, 12:17 AM

Just for you titey >>

santa (http://nogen.ecards.hallmark.com/Website/Images/Greetings/nfz1482/nfz1482.swf)

Or
xmastest (http://members.shaw.ca/userkey/xmastest.htm)

ilw

09-14-2003, 12:21 AM

lol I like the jazz one :lol:

Biggles

09-14-2003, 12:56 AM

Clocker

Thanks

I am not really sure I understand.

Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.

Curious one though.

clocker

09-14-2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 17:56
Clocker

Thanks

I am not really sure I understand.

Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.

Curious one though.
You are not the only one who is confused, Biggles.

It was a judge who wanted to keep the stone there. In fact he's the one who commissioned/paid for it to begin with.

In the deep South this is a good way to get votes.

Now he gets to campaign on his platform of "keeping God in America" or some such bushwa.

We ARE an odd country...

imnotanaddict

09-14-2003, 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Biggles@13 September 2003 - 23:40
Iamnotanaddict

Don't you think you are reading rather too much into the ruling of the judge?

What was the provenance of the stone and where was it situated?

If the primary feature of the stone was Christian text, was it placed in a Christian place of worship or was it in a public place designed to serve the needs of all creeds and colours?

If it was the latter has the judge not upheld your constitution by maintaining a separation of state and church - a primary feature of your political system?

I think rather than an article of faith in atheism it was possibly an attempt to prevent sectarianism - the scourge of many a state.

Perhaps if the stone is for a public place, it could be recarved with edicts of all faiths - from the Native Americans through the faiths of the Torah and on to Bhuddist, Hindu, New Age faiths and Humanism - thus showing that all faiths are equal under the constitution and the law.

However, if the stone was meant for a church then I concede perhaps you have a point.
Usually when I post something pertaining to a topic I also provide the link or address where I got it. This time, this article was sent to me by a friend that usually sends a lot of jokes. I should have mentioned this was not written by
me. Because this is a topic that has had some attention I posted it because its
semi-related. I don't mean to imply that I beleive in or even agree sometimes
with everything I post but think its good to have diversified views and opinions.
Or just something else to think about. I have many faults but plagiarism is not
one of them. oops.

hobbes

09-14-2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Biggles@14 September 2003 - 01:56
Clocker

Thanks

I am not really sure I understand.

Why would a stone designed to give prominence to one specific religion be placed in a courtroom that would presumably deal with cases covering all religions? Surely this would breach the separation of state and religion? Would it be permissible for say a judge who is a Mormon to put up a stone with Mormom texts; and so on through the many religions of the US? I think the judge in question may have put the lid back on the can before the worms got out.

Curious one though.
Biggles,

You have the name of a circus clown, but your posts are anything but silly. You have a very concise way of jumping through the hoops to the actual issue and explaining your view point without resorting to distortion, emotive language or personal insults.

As for your 2 posts on this thread, I would add:

"Yeah, what he said".

Clocker, I do not believe that judges are elected, but rather appointed. Judges are selected as favors to people who have supported a candidate. You don't even need a highschool diploma to be a judge, you simply need to go to "judge school" after your appointment.

Judges are not retained for quality of work, but rather if you buddy is re-elected . New party, new judges. There is no quality control in place and only the most aggregious are removed to save further embarassment.

Think about the next time you call that judge "your honor".