The Religion Discussion

[neals]

i regret the day god made humans- hard luck to the atheist, i believe in a God.
i understand the flood and his desire to end the species
i think the world would be better if we didnt exist
if my kind wasnt here to destroy it
humans are terrible, hurt and kill eachother, exploit and enslave each other, for greed of worldly things, nothing is valuable unless you keep others from having it.
i mean really, you cant tell me you never pictured it, all we ever do, try to get ahead, try to 'make it' and at what cost, the cost of other people around us. i just feel the pain of all the injustice, all the hate and anger
wish the world would just end, i dont feel selfish enough to want to live my life knowing that the world is just going downward
not this isnt to you-but you would feel offended im pointing to every human,
its to everyone,
ever wonder if there actually are good people, i mean, i just hope that heaven is real
i wonder if im even good enough, sin is one hell of a thing, ruined the whole world
think of all the people that get robbed and killed every day- because someone is greedy- or a bigger problem, someone rich living with more than they need let someone starve- to go without a job and causes the circumstance
thoughts on just ending the world now
?

im going through a serious dilema here, anyone care to share

[wagonrunner]

FWOFTAFT

[neals]

huh??

[gastly369]

[Kenjo]

hell is what you live and Heaven is what you make of it!

[neals]

Am I not allowed to cite my opinion?

A good theist never questions God's will, do they?

why would we have to be a good theist- the question of religion and god comes to play here- would you be like the people of the dark ages and follow what ever the priest interpreted the bible to mean? and take that as gospel?

we were given free will and choice, so question it, or state it here

[Rooki3]

what exactly do atheist believe in?:?

[neals]

what exactly do atheist believe in?:?

err nothing? not sure, do atheist believe in evolution?

[bluesteel29]

Free will doesn't exist.

kind sir can u expand on this...

[TURBOT]

what exactly do atheist believe in?:?

Evolution!

Educate yourselves on the laws of physics and the workings of the universe.
Religion is necessary to control the masses and dictate how you should live and sets the tone of what you think is rite and what is wrong.
It is your instinct to "believe", when you were 5 someone told you there was a boogieman under the bed ,you believed, it is in your nature. Your parents told you there was a god, you believed . Every culture in the world have their own beliefs. But it is up to you to educate your self and seek the truth.
I like dealing with evidence and science can not explain everything in the universe but we are getting there.
I feel semi bad for voicing my opinion on this subject matter. Lots of people turn to "god" for comfort and help when things are bad in their life and it works for them, it's like a blanket."god will provide". Society needs that, imagine if people didn't have "god" to answer to ....how would things be?

IMO in life you just got to have a believe that works for you and try to be happy and at peace. Life is what you make it and what you perceive it to be.

I'm drunk and hi at the Same time like 2chainz so imma stop rambling.
Can you handle the "truth".

[stev]

there is a religion thread already.

[neals]

there is a religion thread already.

we`re discussing if the human race shud just end, cause i only see it going down. tangent of religion became involved kind sir

[stev]

there is a religion thread already.

we`re discussing if the human race shud just end, cause i only see it going down. tangent of religion became involved kind sir

oh...well in that case...yes. the human race is a cancer on planet earth.....a disease that would inevitably die because of greed and corruption.


religion has nothing to do with it.....just another catalyst for war.


and yes....war (as i said in another thread): the human race would never advance in technology if the threat of war is gone.

[Sky]

there is a religion thread already.

we`re discussing if the human race shud just end, cause i only see it going down. tangent of religion became involved kind sir

Yea..

You involved it...

In your 1st line..

wtf dude?

And it's God's will that we live here. Who are you to question that?
I don't think you grasp this whole believing in God thing eh..

[neals]

interesting sentiment, maybe you are correct, if in your hands you had a button to kill the entire human race along with yourself, would you push it. ...

i would probably do it

[Bizzare]

IBTMerge

[Rooki3]

there is a religion thread already.

we`re discussing if the human race shud just end, cause i only see it going down. tangent of religion became involved kind sir

oh...well in that case...yes. the human race is a cancer on planet earth.....a disease that would inevitably die because of greed and corruption.


religion has nothing to do with it.....just another catalyst for war.


and yes....war (as i said in another thread): the human race would never advance in technology if the threat of war is gone.

hmmmm, nvr thought of that, but i agree

[civic minded]

humans behave this way because our brains have evolved to question our existence, over the centuries man has tired to answer these questions by creating a God like being that will grant wishes and favors and explain catastrophic events in human history.

The path of destruction happens on a species level, as with others that was studied, once a population has reached its tipping point when availability of food and resources are peaked then a decline in numbers occurred until balance is resorted.

Check out this youtube channel for more info...

[geodude]

yeah humanity suck,
At times I question weather humans are fundamentally flawed, or if the current societal constraints which predominate due to millenniums of fackery have permuted into our core thus corrupting us as a race.
sadly most times I conclude that humans are sheit and should die,
looking at history, even way back to some of the most ancient civilizations, the same negative flaws were present, such as greed, eny, lust for power, etc, all of which have humanity in the position we are at today.

Neals how do you plan on ending the human race? If you are planning it, please dont end the world , just the humans.
ok??
thanks

[gastly369]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

“Science is right because is corrected by the scientific method”
Welcome to circular logic  (don’t forget when leaving to exit through door you enter)

see where your bad interpretations lead you?

I never said science is right all the time!
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge through systematic observation, measurement, and experiment.

When you say "The bible is right because it says so in the bible" - THAT is circular logic.

it seems you are not grasping basic and fundamental concepts here.

Also as I stated before, science admits it is wrong when new evidence is found. This is something that religion does NOT do.

AND there is ZERO scientific evidence that the earth is 6,000 - 12,000 years old as you claim.
You cannot only use SOME scientific facts and ignore the ones that don't agree with your beliefs of a young earth.

All I asked initially is what makes your beliefs right and AdamB's beliefs wrong and all you have provided so far is that you believe he is wrong and you are right.

But first you claim there is empirical evidence

Please, inform me where I did this.

well where you said

I argue for the case of the God of the Bible, due the extensive historicity of the Bible, the fulfilled prophetic nature of the Bible and the supernatural impact of the Bible over many peoples and nations since its canonization (among other things).

Well let that someone argue for the existence magical Leprechauns. The existence of a Creator God that promises to judge every man according to his deeds, weighs in higher importance than Leprechauns, Tooth Fairies, Santa Claus and an alive Tupac Shakur all combined.

I agree that it seems more important! But importance does not make something true.

Santa could be MOST important to a kid on Christmas Eve, but that doesn't make him real!

Also almost every major religion including Islam and Judaism believes in "the existence of a Creator God that promises to judge every man according to his deeds" - what makes you think your beliefs of him are right and their beliefs of him are wrong?

I am not using my own concept, I am using the moral concept ascribed in the Bible and followed in the Quran, and Allah’s justice is contradictory. You keep trying to equate AdamB’s worldview with mine yet you too are pointing out his own gross contradictions with the faith he claims to believe in and the words he types viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=13230#p6912471 . Be fair please.

I am being fair. i am trying to understand what you are both saying. Unlike you I did not come here with a bias. I am reading user's responses and asking questions hoping for logical answers and proof of the claims they are making.

Faith not being needed in science is view that doesn’t have widespread consensus within the scientific community, a community whose widespread view you rely on for your worldview and makes you so absolute about faith not being needed in science.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say the same thing: A scientist can have faith that his research will lead to the result he is hoping for - however no amount of faith or hope will affect the end result since the end result of his testing and observation will be facts and faith and hope do not alter facts. ie. my statement that faith is not needed in science.

Is the book the 5 year old and I read of equal value?

depends on the personal beliefs of the person holding the book. It may be more valuable to the 5 year old than it is to you. Similarly personal value does not make something true.

[marlener]

Habit7 I think what Duane is trying to say is that the scientist might have faith but faith is not necessary for the science it self to work as it does not affect the outcome of the experiment.Duane correct me if I am wrong.
Secondly,from reading the last 11 pages or so I can conclude that science cannot prove everything,although scientists will continue to try.Science have not even Fully understood the atom,cells and dna as yet.
I find humans trying to understand and define GOD using science a bit silly very much like ants trying to understand us,especially in light of the above paragraph.
AdamB I recommend that when you see injustice by Muslims or persons claiming to be Muslims,that you speak against it,everytime some occurs and is Muslim related it will be thrown in at you. If it is not what Islam teaches take the first step and speak against it.If it is well.......
Duane I don`t think we have any 5 year old prowling this particular thread,so as soon as someone who believes in the tooth fairy,Santa,or elves show up we will entertain their views,5 year old don`t possess the mental capacity to use the logic and reasoning necessary for this thread,but then there are some who post that the same can be said. Subsitute the fairy tale character for something else and lets see how that works.
I am issue a challenge to ALL who have posted on this thread to state whether or not you believe in GOD NOT RELIGION,many have insulted,supported,bashed,hecked, but most will be ashamed to state their position.
I believe in GOD,don`t come asking why just yet.God has invited us to try him and prove him and experience for yourself,go try and come back lets discuss. I await the scarcasm and avoidance related to the challenge.
Proceed gentlemen and ladies.

[Habit7]

Neither I nor I think any respectable theologian would deny that the Bible engages in circular logic, because it does. The Bible doesn’t cross the finish line of truth to a resounding applause, it claims to be the standard of truth and all else must meet its standard to be called truth. So if you would graciously enter my worldview just for a second: if the Bible truly is true, who else can attest to the Bible’s truth but the Bible itself? (you are welcomed to stay in my worldview if you want to).

But one cannot deny also that the believer in naturalistic science also engages in circular logic. This is evident when you say that science is sometimes wrong but is corrected by the scientific method. Therefore, science is mostly right because it is governed by the scientific method. But what makes the scientific method right? “Science.” And what makes science correct? “The scientific method.” But what makes the scientific method right? “Science.” And what makes science correct? “The scientific method.” But what makes the scientific method right? “Science.” And what makes science correct? “The scientific method.” But what makes the scientific method right? “Science.” And what makes science correct? “The scientific method.”….

AND there is ZERO scientific evidence that the earth is 6,000 - 12,000 years old as you claim.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I though a couple pages before we were all established that to say that something doesn’t exist would require absolute knowledge? Duane, did you acquire something recently? Besides, did you watch past the first 40secs of Dr. Lisle’s video? The learned astronomer gave about 8 scientific arguments for a young earth.

I argue for the case of the God of the Bible, due the extensive historicity of the Bible, the fulfilled prophetic nature of the Bible and the supernatural impact of the Bible over many peoples and nations since its canonization (among other things).

this is an argument on the basis of archaeological/textual evidence, prophetic fulfilment and social impact, not empirical evidence.

Well if the claims of the Bible are more important, then let’s leave Leprechauns for page 600.

what makes you think your beliefs of him are right and their beliefs of him are wrong?

I was engaging in that until you wanted me to address your questions. But I succinctly put it as when you asked that same question before:

All world religions have one basic premise, work good works in accordance its moral code and you will attain rewards (most of which are after death).
Christianity of the Bible teaches that we cannot produce good works because they all come from a bad heart. You must receive the righteousness of God Himself, who came as both man and God, in order for you to be approved by God.

You are saying that you don’t have a bias, but when you say that there is no scientific evidence for a young earth you are displaying extreme bias. I showed the Bible’s justice as being just and the Quran’s as being unjust. Our views are not equal.

[Habit7]

This video is for the 3min attention span of most tuners (including myself)



This video is a much more in depth explanation of some of the first videos point and some more.

There is proof for a creator being, you however wanted this proof to be limited to empirical science, which in my view is a fool's errand. Empirical science represents science that is testable, repeatable and observable by agreed upon scientific principles. To have a god that can be subjected to this would mean that he either entered into his own creation or he is not God because is omnipotence is limited by the very creation he made and wholly exists in. A person of the Godhead of the Bible once entered into His own creation and though displaying divine attributes was rejected and submitted Himself to the castigation of His foes. What has not been said is that you believe that because God has come to you on your terms, He worthy of being disregarded. But He being God wants you to come to Him on His terms which primarily include faith (in His Word) and repentance. Otherwise you are no difference than Jesus contemporaries who even though being witnesses of His divine nature, still cried out for His crucifixion.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ will look at the longer video when I get more time.

In the short video the guy states the fact that DNA contains large amounts of information, he then postulates that this amount of information is "not likely" to have spontaneously generated because books in a library do not spontaneously generate. This is his main argument.

1. a) He makes the big invalid assumption that because one option is "not likely", all signs now point to HIS concept of God as a solution. b) Just because A is "not likely" to be equal to 1 does not mean it has to be equal to 2!

2. There are alot of occurrences that are "not likely" to happen but they do. Chimpanzee and Human DNA is 96% identical, is that "likely" or "not likely" to occur? Even if we take the supernatural into account there are ALOT of events in many religious books that are "not likely" to happen, but respective followers believe it to be true. Muslims think that Jesus being the Son of God is very much "not likely" to be true, Christians think that Muhammad's message is very much "not likely" to be correct.

So I think the entire premise of his argument is very weak and nothing more than an opinion which proves nothing.

He then he goes on to say "it says so in this book" - that's not really any uppercut regarding proof nor is it any proof that HIS (or your) concept of God is right.

His second major argument is that of causality. The universe exists therefore it must have a cause and that cause is HIS concept of God (refer to point 1b above). He postulates "All events that have a beginning have a cause." but this again is based on certain presuppositions and bias. It does not even support HIS concept of God (Christianity) an more than it does any other religion, well except Buddhism. So I don't know why he thinks this is the "indefensible head blow".

I will put two quotes here regarding his argument for "First Cause" aka "Cosmological Argument":

"Some cosmologists and physicists argue that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time: "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation" (Carlo Rovelli). The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time. Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time. This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole. However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang."

"Problems With The Argument
Through modern science, specifically physics, natural phenomenon have been discovered that do not follow causality, meaning that they do not follow a line of cause and effect. Such phenomenon are Radioactive Decay and the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles. In the case of radioactive decay, the only knowable property is the half-life of an unstable isotope of an element. The reason why radioactive decay contradicts the cosmological argument is that it truly is random and uncaused. While one may know that a particular amount of an element will decay over a certain period of time, it is impossible to know which specific atoms will decay, giving it the quality of being random. Decay is also uncaused and unable to be interrupted."

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Our views are not equal.

clearly, I'm still trying to get over your circular logic claim regarding the scientific method!

All world religions have one basic premise, work good works in accordance its moral code and you will attain rewards (most of which are after death).
Christianity of the Bible teaches that we cannot produce good works because they all come from a bad heart. You must receive the righteousness of God Himself, who came as both man and God, in order for you to be approved by God.

I know Christianity teaches Original Sin, what I am asking is what makes it right and others wrong such as Islam which believes that sins of the father do not fall on the son, or Hinduism which believes in Karma?

I understand that it may be difficult for you to be open minded when you are firm in your beliefs, but try to see the claims you are making from someone else's point of view.

[AdamB]

AdamB I recommend that when you see injustice by Muslims or persons claiming to be Muslims,that you speak against it,everytime some occurs and is Muslim related it will be thrown in at you. If it is not what Islam teaches take the first step and speak against it.

Merlener,
That's just the thing...did anyone see or hear about this in any REPUTABLE INTERNATIONAL NEWS? I didn't and sorry but I don't visit crappy questionable gossip website. I have better things to do.

Islam does not preach violence and injustice. Your christian brother, Habit7, accuses the "GOD of the Quran" of being unjust because HE chooses whom to guide and accept repentance from? Does the "GOD of the Bible" not do this by the "Holy Spirit" possessing whom HE pleases and does HE not forgive whom HE pleases? Or is it ONLY those select chosen few?

habit7,
What knowledge do you have of the Quran and the arabic language to make these accusations? The last guy who "claimed to have" was Achillies and he seems to have vanished in thin air.

Quotations from hadith qudsi: (if you don't know what this is, then google it)

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah () said:
When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: My mercy prevails over my wrath. It was related by Muslim (also by al-Bukhari, an-Nasa'i and Ibn Majah).

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (), from among the things he reports from his Lord (mighty and sublime be He), is that he said:
A servant [of Allah's] committed a sin and said: O Allah, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them. Then he sinned again and said: O Lord, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them. Then he sinned again and said: O Lord, forgive me my sin. And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for sins. Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you. It was related by Muslim (also by al-Bukhari).

On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said:
I heard the Messenger of Allah () say: Allah the Almighty said: O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great at it. It was related by at-Tirmidhi (also by Ahmad ibn Hanbal). Its chain of authorities is sound.

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah () said:
Our Lord (glorified and exalted be He) descends each night to the earth's sky when there remains the final third of the night, and He says: Who is saying a prayer to Me that I may answer it? Who is asking something of Me that I may give it him? Who is asking forgiveness of Me that I may forgive him? It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim, Malik, at-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud). In a version by Muslim the Hadith ends with the words: And thus He continues till [the light of] dawn shines.

The "GOD of the Quran" is a MERCIFUL, FORGIVING LORD/GOD, so HE is accused of INJUSTICE.

Habit7, you underestimate GOD ALMIGHTY, HE deserves to be estimated with a proper estimation. Try to figure out what that means...

[AdamB]

There is no real,physical evidence that Jesus ever existed

but you are a Muslim, Jesus (Esa) is one of the most revered prophets in the Qur'an! Not so?

Yes I am a muslim.

Yes Jesus is one of the prophets mentioned in the Quran. My belief in him and his existence is as strong or stronger than any christian.

I was speaking of evidence that is REAL AND PHYSICAL. Talking about artefacts, etc. The only evidence that exists is what is stated in the Bible, just like Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.

My point is that most people take things for granted. The person and reality of Jesus is derived from the scriptures, specifically the gospels. So they must be put through the "acid test", meaning AUTHORSHIP (including memory, truthfulness, accuracy/consistency) and PRESERVATION of original text (language / not rely on translations).

Can some one post a link to a Bible with original text and english translation on the same page?

[Habit7]

Sorry, but I am not understanding if you are arguing from the standpoint of being an atheist who does not observe any proof for a god or an agnostic who does not observe any proof for the God. It seems at times you appear to be atheist and when challenged, you move to the position of agnostic and when challenged there, you move back to atheist. I ask again, is the proof you are looking for plausible? Please specify or itemise what this would be so that one won’t be like the individual looking from ceiling to floor for their spectacles that is perched right on their nose.

DNA contains a wealth of information which just like the code developed to run this forum, displays an intelligent mind behind its construction. In addition, we fail to see any genetic mechanisms to carry DNA from simple to complex (mutations does not add a gene, it changes existing ones). Chimpanzee and Human DNA was revised from being 98.5% to 95% identical http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... chimp.html . All that proves is a common designer (and 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them).

Science cannot say something is causeless. A cause is something it just has not yet observed. Science can do studies to eliminate possible causes which could involve indefinite studies to discover just one cause.

All world religions have one basic premise, work good works in accordance its moral code and you will attain rewards (most of which are after death).
Christianity of the Bible teaches that we cannot produce good works because they all come from a bad heart. You must receive the righteousness of God Himself, who came as both man and God, in order for you to be approved by God.

I know Christianity teaches Original Sin, what I am asking is what makes it right and others wrong such as Islam which believes that sins of the father do not fall on the son, or Hinduism which believes in Karma?

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with original sin, it has to your own sin, my sin, every individual deeds, etc. AdamB is getting it, that is why he is big fonting my screen name. Christianity deals with the problem of your own individual sin.
For example: Adolf Hilter killed 6 million Jews and died without being brought to justice. In Islam, Allah could throw Hitler in Hell or forgive him, who knows? In Hinduism (which may or may not apply to Hitler) Karma cannot equal the amount of lives he took, he may be reincarnated as a lower lifeform which we may perceive has a more dreary life, but who is to know? A cockroach on Charlotte St. might be getting a better life that a lion in Emperor Valley Zoo. In Christianity, because God is eternally worthy, transgression of just one of God’s law is worthy of eternal punishment, far less the murder of 6 million ppl. But if one has repented of their sin and put their trust in Christ, that sin will be punished on Christ and Christ’s righteousness will be given to the believer. Then one can be adopt as a son into the Kingdom of God.

[Habit7]

AdamB I unfortunately have no major knowledge of the Arabic language. But I didn't see it as a prerequisite seeing that you have been posting English translations of your texts for us to read and understand. I agree that they, like all text of antiquity should be read in its historical context, the justice of God is not a historical view.
In addition, physical proof of any individual who of the past would not exist because of physical decay. We verify historical figures by documentation, and that documentation is further verified when spread across multiple sources. Furthermore, the distinctive of Jesus of the New Testament is His empty tomb. To demand physical evidence of His presence here on Earth who be a fool's errand.