Jump to content

wtf religion is everyone


 Share

Recommended Posts

I am athiest becauyse theres no proof god exsist.

Only small children, poor people, and stupid people should believe in any kind of god. why? because its fiction.

FICTION FICTION FICTION.

try to prove me wrong.

Is there a proof that YOU exist? I can say that there is no forumist calling himself "Anakin" and maybe I wrote it in some underconscious status. And do you believe that I exist? What if I am only AI, without real thinking, and this post is just bunch of generated signs? We think about reality of the others just based on what we see, feel, hear etc. Other way is to use logic and mind. Using mind itself is a proof of His existence. To be sure, whole world is a proof. There is no question if He is, that I already know. I ask only what He is. There I believe in christian description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you have just twisted nerves, which made a feeling hallucination. Take some kokain and you'll know what I'm talking about. As well falling. That can be of same source. Such things wouldn't be possible without a core, on which is based this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about the people with mental problems that mean they believe they are receiving messages from God? To them God exists as fact. Of course it's just in their imagination *but* there is no *proof* of that whatsoever. Also using your logic, God might exist with no other proof than His knowing He exists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anakin - I don't need any proof to believe, but I don't think you can comprehend this. No one has told you to believe, to be frank I couldn't care less, as I believe you aren't the sharpest tool on the shelf (I don't need proof of that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anakin - as TMA so aptly pointed out, a great many of our world's greatest scientists were of the theist persuasion. Muslims almost single handedly invented algebra, were they stupid? Theists designed the Hagia Sofia, Vatican City, and Mecha, were all this architects of religious monuments idiots as well?

And Anakin, as Namp points out, he doesn't need proof to believe. Faith is essential. You both have it. You have faith that you're right and they're wrong, while NaMp feels the opposite. Faith is a common state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I can feel myself. If I run into a wall I fall down. If someone throws a rock at me it will hit me. I have MATTER. I EXSIST.

I can feel myself inside a game. If I run into a wall, I can't run any longer. If someone within the game shoots me, he will hit me. I have matter. Then, I exist. In the game, right? ::)

Proove that you exist. You said no intelligent person believed in God? What about Einstein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude_doc, why do you argue such irrelevant things? If we live in a matrix, who the hell cares, the argument still stands. We must accept that we exist as true, otherwise anything built off of that would be suspect and it'd be a total waste. In other words, what's your point? Prove your god, and be done with it. Don't start going Buddhist on me.

And Einstein does not believe in a personal god...

http://www.2think.org/einstein.shtml

And do not appeal to authority. Just because a scientist believes in a god, it doesn't make the god any more real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'm responding to the people that say they don't need proof to believe.

That's fine, but what makes you believe at all?

Once again, I have no proof that Star Wars is real, and that I am a jedi. Do I WANT it? YEs. Maybe if I pray for it and believe in it it COULD HAPPEN! But I'm not going to, because it's extremely unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He states that there is a God, but not in the sense of some sort of personal diety that bases itself on a relationship

that is what I said in an earlier post.

And Einstein does not believe in a personal god...

hmmm no shit acriku.lol

if you actually care to read his books, and not websites talking about what he said, then you will actually glean information. You are a picker and chooser of info and that is dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer your verry first question, I don't consider myself to be a part of any religion nor scientific idealism.

But then, most of them have aspects I find usefull. Things I would life by.

Something like you just mentioned Acriku, No religion is better then another, and if so .. who cares. . . all it seems they are doing is trying to get as many as possible folowers and try to debunk other ideas. This instead of working together and just axcepting the others opinion.

now we have scienece, and no need for a god.

Science is a form of religion to. [ in a way ] Besides that, religion can be science to. Both ways, that argument is not one of the best.

What I have claimed:

-God doesn't exsist, I won't believe it until I see some proof.

Then I would simply reply something like, why should you believe there is a God ? If you don't want to then don't but stop bothering me with the fact that I should explain me believes to you or anyone alse. ..

Believeing in something for no actual reason at all with nothing to prove it is

Religious faith isn't without reason .. ..

I have MATTER. I EXSIST.

You think you have matter therefor you think that you exist.

There might not be any direct proof, a direct link so to speak linking any God to our world, our existens. And all the questions, uncertanties we have could be answered just scientifically. Which I myself also find the most accepting answer. Althought disign needs a disigner. And in a way I am jalous at religious people, who life day by day and know that they won't simply die. Who know that there is more then just this. And mayby i an ocward way I pray that they are right. . ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He states that there is a God, but not in the sense of some sort of personal diety that bases itself on a relationship
Care to site your source?

And TMA, instead of avoiding the issue, try to refute the website I gave everyone.

Science is a form of religion to. [ in a way ] Besides that, religion can be science to. Both ways, that argument is not one of the best.
Science is knowledge. The basics of our knowledge, that we exist, are assumptions that haven't been suggested otherwise. The rest is gathered through methods and fields. The big difference between science and most religions is that scientists accept being wrong, nay urge to be proven wrong. Religionists are the opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Althought the remark was a little bit dualistic and tricky my part, religion is science. And not just in the 14ht cerntury even today. Universaties have a faculty of theology. You could argue that it's not the real religion they are practicing there and it's more or less sociology stricktly directed to religous faith. Although still, in those places, [ in my opinion at least ;) ] religion can hold a form of scientific value.

[ edit: religions have claimed themself being wrong a lot of times throughout history ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ease up Acriku, I know they arn't proud of it. But Rome has adjusted there views on certain things throughout the ages. From holy wars, to homosexuals being just as human as others. And they might not have claimed totally wrong, but they in a way are adjusting. . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, they may just be adjusting so their religion will last longer among the people... ;)

Think about it. If it was the true religion, how can it be adaptive to societal pressures? If I believed that it was the true religion, I'd condemn the sinners who changed the Church's views and continue with the first views that should have been true if the religion was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that everything we (humans) know, is only theories. And theories that has become fact because there is nothing to counter it. Both science and religion is, bascially, theories. Who knows, maybe there is answers or another theories for them, but we haven't found them, and maybe - we never will.

And Einstein doesn't have anything to do with it. Do you think every person who believes in God is somehow stupid or a lesser being? Waste of time? Yeah, playing computer games is a waste of time too, isn't it? ::)

The whole thing is, believe in whatever you want to believe in, nobody has a problem with that. But don't hack on people asking them for answers and proof. Because science don't have every answer either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must I go on my Law VS Theory VS Fact lecture with you, Dude_doc? Basically, a law, a theory, and a fact, in science, are not placed ona heirarchy of validity. A theory is just as much valid as a law or fact. In science.

How am I hacking on people? If people put forth positive claims, they must provide evidence. If they don't, I'll hack on them for sure.

Nothing has every answer. I never said science did, or anything else. What's your point?

EarthNuker, it is not always the followers that pressure the church. But the followers that do, they are probably very little devoted, and if you define true follower as being the most devoted, dogmatic, about the scriptures then no they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must I go on my Law VS Theory VS Fact lecture with you, Dude_doc? Basically, a law, a theory, and a fact, in science, are not placed ona heirarchy of validity. A theory is just as much valid as a law or fact. In science.

As I said, our laws, not the universes.

Nothing has every answer. I never said science did, or anything else. What's your point?

I was refering to Anakin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Religiousness of Science: P.22

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a particular religious feeling

but it is different from the religion of naive man. For the latter God is a being from whose care and hopes

benefit and whos punsihment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of

a child to his father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation,

however deeply it may be tingled with aw. But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universeal causation. the future, to him, is every whit as necessary

and determaned as the past. there is nothing divine about morality, it is purly a human affair, his religious feeling takes the form of rapturous

amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such

superiority that, compared with it, all systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly

insignificant reflection. This feeling is a guiding principle of his life and work. in so far as he

succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire. This is beond quewstion closely akin

to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.

A quote by einstein.

In this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only

prfoundly religious people.

Religion and science: P.22

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling,

which knows no dogma and no God concieved in man's image, so that there can be no church whose central teacheings

are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men

who wre filled with the highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as athiests..

Someitmes also as saints, looked at in this light, the men like democritus, francis of assisi, and spenoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another,

if it can give rise to no definite notion ofa god and no theology, in my view, it is the most important functtion of art and science to

awaken this feeling and keep it alive in thsoe who are capable of it.

Here is some stuff of the massive writing he did on religion and science. He talks about how mankind has finally grasped the true essense of what God really is. A cosmic being that goes beyond teh understanding of man and is not lowered by a church or a sect of believers. that God is beyond the personal, and is transcendent, being the initiator of this universe.

I could quote even more acriku. You think you understand fully things that you have read by a few websites! lol Why dont you read the sources yourself like I have asked you to do. The bible is a perfect example, you havent read much of it and even if you did read all of it, you would say "you have read it from beginning to end". Well if you are any sort of intelligence, you will realize that the bible is not a chapter book and shouldnt be read from stem to stern. Think man, and read before you type.

and anakin, you are backtreading. You are trying to correct your own mistakes without acknowledging them. just tell the truth.lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I can provide quotes that say the contrary, such as in the website. And I'd advise we stop this, as it doesn't matter whether he did or not, and it's offtopic. But we can start another thread to go deeper.

And what does the bible have to do with Einstein? You're becoming personal again, instead of remaining on the issues. You would fail any of my classes easily if you kept doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...