The Idea of GOD

[Acriku]

So Atheists believe that people are bags of chemicals that follow their brains and instincts like a pack of zombies.

Damn, it must be a hell for those people.

Love is a simulated electronic pulse.

Joy is a simulated electronic pulse.

All of them pulses.

So if you're laying down on bed and look up at the ceiling, you think this?

"I am a sack of Chemicals and I must do what my 'instincts' tell me."

I am neither a Atheist or a Christian.

I do believe that God exists, but I don't worship him, because if you believe in him "your sins go away"

So every goddamn born human is a sinner for breathing air?

Doesn't make sense to me.....

I believe in myself and in my own power.

Religion considers Technology dangerous, but they are using Technology themselves.

And Technology helps mankind, no matter how big the risk is.

There is no gain, without risk.

Who said that? Sure I'm a "bag of chemicals", although that's grossly underexaggerating what the human body is. How complex it is. Also, no one said that you should follow your instincts. You should in some situations that risk your life, but following your conscious is a much better route.

I don't know about other Christians (and theists in general), but I am not afraid of death. I have the same human self-preservation instict as everyone else, of course, but if I knew that my death would result in a great deal of good, I would not hesitate to give my life.

I would die for the victory of communism, for example.

And you must understand that from my viewpoint, that is foolish.

And you don't seem to understand that it has negative connotations for everyone else. If a certain group of people are called "brights", the logical conclusion in that everyone else is NOT bright. In other words, NOT intelligent. Not "enlightened". Stupid.

No it doesn't. They are just "non-brights". What about gay? Are all heterosexuals not happy? Why are there no negative connotations for gay? People that aren't gay aren't "unhappy", they are just "not gay".

Is it not logical to conclude that whoever does NOT follow the tenets of Christianity is NOT a Christian? (or at least, not a good Christian?)

Of course it is. But you ignore it. You also ignore the fact that people get several advantages in US prisons if they declare themselves to be religious. AND you ignore the fact that atheists have killed more people throughout history than all members of all the major world religions combined.

What you are doing, Acriku, is called manipulation of data.

Depends on what you mean as a Christian. Some say a christian is one who follows Jesus' teachings. Others say it's believing in God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy spirit. Others say it's knowing Jesus died for your sins, and you will give up your life for his. Christianity has many denominations, with altered teachings of Jesus and so forth. I think that it's a jumbled web that is hard to untangle.

What advantages are there for claiming to be religious? I'm curious about this. If that is so, why are there people who refuse to disclose their preference, and others who call themselves atheists and agnostics (refer to my other thread for the statistics)? Would it not be rational to do something like that? The advantages do not look so good, if they exist.

What do atheists like Stalin who are dead have to do with prison statistics? I think you're trying to change the issue at hand.

[ethan]

eh...i have a very difficult time at church listening to the preacher dude. it sounds like relying way to much on something that i dont KNOW for sure is there...and i'll probably be looked at bad by church ppl, but i dont like to go because i have doubts if they are telling the truth and think there is a god....im kind of netural, i dont really know god is there, yet i dont know he isnt. i just dont know :X

ok, i am like sard kirov. i believe he is there yet it sounds wayyyy to good to be true if i believe in god and trust in god that all my sins go away and im free....then i can sin over and over and over and it'll go away still?! that doesnt sound right...if you know where im comin from.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

Who said that? Sure I'm a "bag of chemicals", although that's grossly underexaggerating what the human body is. How complex it is. Also, no one said that you should follow your instincts. You should in some situations that risk your life, but following your conscious is a much better route.

Many atheists I've encountered always tries to convince others that they are nothing more than walking flesh.

Some Atheists even tried to pull me away from my faith of god and the supernatural.

"God does not exist because science cannot proof it."

Yes, they repeat that all the time. And I gave the same response to the Atheists.

"GOD CANNOT BE COMPUTED BY A BLOODY COMPUTER"

Same goes for the Energy of life(Ki) which they prefer to call "Bio energy" and it's *cough cough* their own made up theory because they can't face the possibilities of Ki and make up new stuff so they can compensate their defeat.

I believe in the existance of god, no Bag of Chemicals(Atheist)

Can take away my knowledge about god and Ki.

Sure, they say God and Ki is between your head.

But strange if it is between your head, Ki and God still shows some effect.

As for Edric O, I rather die for a great man/country than God.

[Acriku]

So basically you're a bag of chemicals with ki? ;)

[Edric O]

ok, i am like sard kirov. i believe he is there yet it sounds wayyyy to good to be true if i believe in god and trust in god that all my sins go away and im free....then i can sin over and over and over and it'll go away still?! that doesnt sound right...if you know where im comin from.

I agree. In fact, most Christians agree. The idea of "salvation by faith alone" (which says that you just need to believe in God and all your sins are forgiven) is only shared by Protestant Churches. The Catholics and the Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that you also have to be a good person and help your fellow human beings in order for your sins to be forgiven.

Acriku:

And you must understand that from my viewpoint, that is foolish.

Giving your life for a good and noble cause is foolish? ::)

If everyone thought the way you do, we'd still be in the Dark Ages.

No it doesn't. They are just "non-brights". What about gay? Are all heterosexuals not happy? Why are there no negative connotations for gay? People that aren't gay aren't "unhappy", they are just "not gay".

Good point. However, there's nothing wrong with being "unhappy". Being "unintelligent", on the other hand, is very different. As a matter of fact, being called "not very bright" is an insult, while being called "not very gay" was never an insult.

Depends on what you mean as a Christian. Some say a christian is one who follows Jesus' teachings. Others say it's believing in God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy spirit. Others say it's knowing Jesus died for your sins, and you will give up your life for his. Christianity has many denominations, with altered teachings of Jesus and so forth. I think that it's a jumbled web that is hard to untangle.

In that case, why do you pick the worst criteria possible? "A Christian is someone who says that he's a Christian". Anyone can SAY anything... How much sense would it make to claim that "an American is someone who says that he's an American", for example?

What advantages are there for claiming to be religious? I'm curious about this. If that is so, why are there people who refuse to disclose their preference, and others who call themselves atheists and agnostics (refer to my other thread for the statistics)? Would it not be rational to do something like that? The advantages do not look so good, if they exist.

Hmmmm, I was under the impression that various religious groups send preachers to jails and finance special programs for converted inmates... I might be wrong, though.

What do atheists like Stalin who are dead have to do with prison statistics? I think you're trying to change the issue at hand.

No, I was just pointing out another statistic...

[Acriku]

Edric:

Giving your life for a good and noble cause is foolish?

For a god that I don't believe in, yes it does seem foolish.

As a matter of fact, being called "not very bright" is an insult, while being called "not very gay" was never an insult.

Well that's the problem of using Bright as in adjective, when infact it was meant to be a noun, not describing the person but identifying the person.

In that case, why do you pick the worst criteria possible? "A Christian is someone who says that he's a Christian". Anyone can SAY anything... How much sense would it make to claim that "an American is someone who says that he's an American", for example?

Well, I simply do not know the common denominator for being a Christian. Is it just believing in Christ? Or is it following the teachings of Christ?

Hmmmm, I was under the impression that various religious groups send preachers to jails and finance special programs for converted inmates... I might be wrong, though.

I've heard of priests going to inmates on deathrow to try to forgive themselves to they can go to heaven, and groups in prison that use faith to boost morale and good behavior.

[Edric O]

For a god that I don't believe in, yes it does seem foolish.

I was talking about a good and noble cause in general, not necessarely for a god.

Well that's the problem of using Bright as in adjective, when infact it was meant to be a noun, not describing the person but identifying the person.

Wouldn't it just be a lot easier and less confusing if you simply used another word?

Well, I simply do not know the common denominator for being a Christian. Is it just believing in Christ? Or is it following the teachings of Christ?

I would say that it is following the teachings of Christ. And that's because He would say the same thing:

"Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"

- Luke 6:46

I've heard of priests going to inmates on deathrow to try to forgive themselves to they can go to heaven, and groups in prison that use faith to boost morale and good behavior.

Yes, those are the kinds of things that I was talking about...

Besides that, you need to consider the theist/atheist ratio for people in the social backgrounds most likely to produce criminals, as opposed to that ratio for the US population in general.

[Acriku]

Wouldn't it just be a lot easier and less confusing if you simply used another word?

Why? You are not satisfied with it? Sorry, but you'll have to live with it.

Besides that, you need to consider the theist/atheist ratio for people in the social backgrounds most likely to produce criminals, as opposed to that ratio for the US population in general.

That's almost insane, anybody could commit a crime. Social backgrounds don't mean squat, theoretical at best. And where would I get those ratios? You know I can't, so now it seems as if you are trying to discard these statistics.

[Edric O]

Why? You are not satisfied with it? Sorry, but you'll have to live with it.

No, for the same reason why you shouldn't call an african-american "nigger". And for the same reason why you normally shouldn't insult people just because you don't agree with their beliefs.

That's almost insane, anybody could commit a crime. Social backgrounds don't mean squat, theoretical at best. And where would I get those ratios? You know I can't, so now it seems as if you are trying to discard these statistics.

I'm not talking about social profiling. I'm saying that poor people are far more likely to commit crimes than rich people (because they have less to lose and more to gain, while rich people have more to lose and less to gain), and poor people are also more likely to be religious than rich people. Therefore, it's very likely that the people who commit crimes also happen to be religious, even though the two things have nothing to do with each other.

The problem with statistics, Acriku, is that they can never tell you which is the cause and which is the effect, or whether the two things are separate effects of a common cause.

[Acriku]

Nigger and any other insulting words have nothing to do with Bright. It has no negative connotations, it's a noun, and if theists didn't brainwash their children so much we wouldn't need it. But they did, and we do.

Edric, the point was to focus on the atheist percentage against the theist percentage. Not make up some excuses for the percentage. I'll just leave it alone, as you'll never seem to be satisfied with anything.

[ethan]

i'll just assume you guys have heated discussions like this all the time. might lighten it up a bit :/

[Edric O]

Yes, don't you just love this friendly atmosphere? :) *hugs Acriku*

On the serious side now:

Nigger and any other insulting words have nothing to do with Bright. It has no negative connotations, it's a noun, and if theists didn't brainwash their children so much we wouldn't need it. But they did, and we do.

Acriku, don't you think it's up to the insulted group to decide whether the word is insulting or not? You can shout "the word 'bright' has no negative connotations!" all you want, and the KKK can shout "the word 'nigger' has no negative connotations!" all they want, but that doesn't change anything.

Edric, the point was to focus on the atheist percentage against the theist percentage. Not make up some excuses for the percentage. I'll just leave it alone, as you'll never seem to be satisfied with anything.

Oh, so the point was to focus on the misleading propaganda, not to expose the truth behind it? Whoops, sorry... ::)

[King-Mega]

Edric O we meet again.

" There is a 42 % chance you are a Harkonnen terrorist, There is a 16 % chance you are a atreides spy ::), We will accept those Odds my name is Edric O

mentat to the house Ordos.". Taken from Dune 2000 Ordos Level 1.

[SurlyPIG]

You are guilty of the same crime Edric (no offense intended of course). While Acriku didn't include any socio/economic relationships to prison occupancy demographics, choosing religious ones instead, (and while I'm sure that one could easily find a breakdown of prison population percentages in economic or social brackets, I doubt he is capable of finding any numbers that break down the atheist/theist ratios for different social classes) you failed to mention from your atheist/theist murder statistic that the atheists side is almost completely comprised of a handful of extremely powerful, extremely brutal dictators. And I've always said that there isn't any room for religion in the totalitarian ego of a ruthless dictator. Also, I'm guessing those numbers are derived from recent history, and I'm sure we are both aware that nearly all ancient cultures had some kind of supernatural or spiritual beliefs, whether you call them religion, legends, myths etc. Who knows how many people died in the name of Zeus? Are those numbers included in the statistic? Also, Acriku at least gave a percentage, you just used the comarison of more. How much more? And you have to admit, 0.209% is a very startling statistic, no matter what the socio/economic breakdown is.

[Edric O]

King Giga, please don't spam.

Ace: The fact is that the vast majority of "body count" statistics have a huge margin of error and are open to so much interpretation that they are rendered utterly useless. As for prison statistics, they simply ignore social and psychological factors. This was the point I was trying to make - that anyone could use statistics to "prove" anything.

I did not give the exact numbers of people who were killed by atheists as opposed to people killed by theists because the exact numbers are simply not known. But we do know that atheists killed overall more people, simply because more people lived in the 20th century under atheist dictators than the whole population of the ancient world put together.

But then you can argue that we should measure killings as a percentage of the total population as opposed to absolute numbers, and I can bring up the fact that genocide is a 20th century creation... so in the end, statistics won't get us anywhere.

Yes, 0.209% IS a very startling statistic... I wonder where Acriku got it from...

[SurlyPIG]

Ace: The fact is that the vast majority of "body count" statistics have a huge margin of error and are open to so much interpretation that they are rendered utterly useless. As for prison statistics, they simply ignore social and psychological factors. This was the point I was trying to make - that anyone could use statistics to "prove" anything.

As to the former, then why post them at all? As to the latter, are you saying that you don't acknowledge religious background (or lack thereof) have any factor in the likelyhood people will end up in prison? As I recall, atheists were not the only group misrepresented in US prisons. The number of Catholics in there was skewed the other way.

I did not give the exact numbers of people who were killed by atheists as opposed to people killed by theists because the exact numbers are simply not known. But we do know that atheists killed overall more people, simply because more people lived in the 20th century under atheist dictators than the whole population of the ancient world put together.

But then you can argue that we should measure killings as a percentage of the total population as opposed to absolute numbers, and I can bring up the fact that genocide is a 20th century creation... so in the end, statistics won't get us anywhere.

Yes, 0.209% IS a very startling statistic... I wonder where Acriku got it from...

Statistics can get us somewhere if we take them for they're worth. If you don't know even approximate numbers of how many people in the 20th century were killed by theists vs atheists then how do you know atheists killed more? Besides, that is one century's worth of killings...

[Edric O]

As to the former, then why post them at all? As to the latter, are you saying that you don't acknowledge religious background (or lack thereof) have any factor in the likelyhood people will end up in prison? As I recall, atheists were not the only group misrepresented in US prisons. The number of Catholics in there was skewed the other way.

I think I already said that I only post "body count" statistics in order to counter various other statistics. I hate using statistics in my arguments, and I usually only do it if my opponent starts using them.

As for the influence of religious background, the fact is that I simply don't know how significant it could be. Religion is a deeply personal matter, and it just seems silly to draw religious stereotypes.

Statistics can get us somewhere if we take them for they're worth. If you don't know even approximate numbers of how many people in the 20th century were killed by theists vs atheists then how do you know atheists killed more? Besides, that is one century's worth of killings...

I know the theist/atheist murder ratio for the 20th century. What I don't know is the same ratio for the rest of human history. However, keeping in mind that more people lived in the 20th century than in the rest of history put together, I think it's reasonable to assume that the rest of history doesn't have much of an impact on that murder ratio.

[Anakin]

Here is my thoughts

God doesnt exsist - try to prove me wrong.

[SurlyPIG]

One cannot prove or disprove a negative. That is flawed reason. One can only prove a positive, and you can logically say that if the positive of a God cannot be proven then it does not exist and still be reasonable. That is, in fact, the conclusion one comes to when using the scientific method.

[Duncan_ghola]

Im not sure a god exists im still looking into it, if you happen to stop by a book store try looking for a copy of "The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life - Armand M. Nicholi Jr, ugh my stomach damnit

[Acriku]

You can prove a negative, if you can show how it is contradictory in its nature. A square circle does not exist. I know this because the nature of a square and the nature of a circle are contradictory.

[Apollyon]

Unless the square circle is to be redefined. I am to dub my computer "square circle" thus a square circle exists in my eyes. :P

Gotta love that pedanticism. ;D

[Acriku]

I didn't define square and circle, and what a square circle is, because I assumed you would get the point :P

[SurlyPIG]

One can only prove a negative if its nature is contradictary, and that isn't the case with all perceptions of all Gods, but certainly a great number of them.

[Acriku]

Of course, ACE, as I have no intention nor have the ability to disprove a deist god, or rather an impersonal god.