Proof that god exists?

 
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 15 feb 2007, 23:42

    Proof that god exists?

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 16 feb 2007, 00:32
    Yay for propaganda.

    If it wasn't for our fucking brain, there would be no such thing as god. It's all a fucking FAITH.

    • TheAYQ sa...
    • Användare
    • 16 feb 2007, 00:59
    Go through the questions and choose that moral laws don't exist. What the fuck?

  • TheAYQ said:
    Go through the questions and choose that moral laws don't exist. What the fuck?

    I did that...it's rather 1 sided and offers no more proof than anything else.

    Also, if you notice, you can't pick anything at the beginning except there is an absolute truth. LOL!

    I hate it when Christians try to use logic to justify themselves. They trip over themselves like newborns learning to walk.

  • In what universe are moral laws at all comparable to the laws of physics?


    Official Anti-Isreali Venom Dog and General Wacko!
    AntiOxymoron/LonerRD: "Free speech is not acceptable"
  • If that website is serious, I feel truly sorry for whoever believes that.

    And btw, it only lets you pick one answer, otherwise it redirects you to another webpage.

    Dumnezeu a murit
  • I managed to avoid the final steps by saying that molesting children may be moral somewhere.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
  • Any possible "law of logic" is entirely subdued by the lack thereof on that site. A lot of marketing surveys are structured in a similar manner.

    In fact, this goes back to entirely unethical lines of questioning like "Are you or have you ever been an atheist or a member of the communist party"....

    I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
    -Stephen Hawking
    • EinOmega sa...
    • Användare
    • 16 feb 2007, 18:10
    It's obviously a highly bias test that forces you to answer in a manner that "proves" God exists.
    I didn't give in to their tactics and never got beyond the first question. There is no absolute truth, closest thing to "absolute truth" is universal constants, but even our perspective on those will change. Change is perhaps the only absolute.

    If you see Kay, Tell him he may. See you in tea, Tell him from me.
    http://www.zeronews-fr.com/flash/super-mario-communist.php
    • -Reaper- sa...
    • Användare
    • 16 feb 2007, 22:02
    mirrorpool said:
    O Rly?

    http://www.proofthatgodexists.org


    Hooray for circular logic!


    EinOmega said:
    It's obviously a highly bias test that forces you to answer in a manner that "proves" God exists.
    I didn't give in to their tactics and never got beyond the first question. There is no absolute truth, closest thing to "absolute truth" is universal constants, but even our perspective on those will change. Change is perhaps the only absolute.


    As a notable Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, has once uttered "We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not." All things are and exist but never in the same manner than they have ever existed. A table is a table now but when you look at the table it is now the object of your sense. When you put down a pen on it, it is now a table with a pen and so on ad infinitum. It is much more metaphysical than it is practical but it gets the message across, that things are in constant motion and constant change hence nothing is set and nothing is absolute. This idea has influenced the likes of Nietzsche, amongst others, many years after.

    Assailants propagate the schism
    Black metal will continue; as long as Judeo-Christian ideals exist,
    so will the need to oppose them with art.

    Death Metal Black Metal The Antichristian Phenomenon
    Truest Metal Fans Porn Request underground BM here
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 17 feb 2007, 03:33
    Even if you accept all their arguments up until the end, you just get bombarded with Bible quotes "proving" that only the Christian god could be the source of truth, logic, math, and morality. The other two Abrahamic faiths, at the very least, have objections that the author of the proof should have considered.

    Redigerat av en raderad användare den 21 feb 2007, 07:14
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 17 feb 2007, 22:12
    The author of the site responded to me and has just joined our group here. So I'm answering some of their questions for me here.

    For the record, I have no interest in building up a case for a purely material universe here. As I've said elsewhere, such a thing is an ever going process and I have no doubt that the universe will continue to surprise us. Also, dividing the discussion in two would be a major distraction from the proof that is really under discussion.

    Hardly, God's standards for the Old Testaments Israelites are the same now as they were then. God's standards for those under the New Convenant, are the same now as they have always been.

    The inconsistency of the Bible is well documented, I think, but if we start listing instances, this will only devolve into a debate on the meaning of specific passages and whether or not we can know god's mind. One of the most famous examples is that Lev.20:10 calls for the stoning of men and women who commit adultry but Jesus himself stops a stoning in John 8. If objective morality exists, either stoning adulterers is right or wrong. If Jesus is right, then his dad was either wrong or misleading the Hebrews.

    You also did not answer my implied question about how anyone can have moral objections to your god's actions and the basic tenets of Christianity, if they represent objective morality.

    On math and logic:
    Are they man-made models, are they universally true?

    Of course they're man-made. Whether or not they're univserally true is something under constant investigation. Although I think the evidence from Euclidean geometry shows that no, any one theory is not universally true.

    You ignored the question as to whether other models necessitate a god, e.g. the "logic" of a five-year old who doesn't yet understand conservation but nonetheless reasons from her own model consistently.

    • Gerino sa...
    • Användare
    • 18 feb 2007, 09:16
    I personally found interesting generalising physical and moral laws, because physical laws ARE pretty much material, especially if string theory is right (and even if not, the standard model also shows, that forces in nature, all beings and phenomenons are connected to - more or less - material entities like fermions and bozons).

    It is SO much inconsistent with moral laws, especially if one is a Christian, because guy who is (wicked ;)) an atheist, materialist etc., can simply suppose, that we are animals, driven by instincts and our morality is only an illusion - so the "moral laws" are indeed material, as they come from material brains. A Christian believes, that morality comes from god, therefore it is not material. But denying, that physics laws are unconnected with matter is ridiculous, so Christians are in pretty deep shit :)

    That is of course only ONE of the many fucked up things in that "proof", but the "immaterial, god-given, unchanging, absolute laws of logic" says, that it is enough to give one contradictory example, to refute the theory. Have a nice life :)

  • Riiiight....

    I hate how this guy keeps using logical fallacy, overgeneralizations and complete hypocrisy in order to "prove" his personal belief. I'd touch on this more, but I'm pressed for time.

    Generalized logical fallacy

    "Absolute truth absolutely does not exist"

    The cyclical, twisted logic there completely fallacious, and utterly absurd. Truth of what? We're talking about someone who groups physical testable material to the immaterial beliefs and thoughts of his book. An idea and a rock are two completely different things. The only valid argument you can make in a philosophical or theological sense is that you cannot logically have one without the other, but that's the chicken and the egg all over again.

    Disgusting hypocrisy

    Q1: What gives Buddha, or your holy books authority?
    Q2: How do you know your worldview is true?
    Q3: Is it objectively true that morality is relative?
    Q4: If your worldview is beyond rationality and human experience, how do you know about it?

    Four samples from his site about other religious/personal opinions.

    A1: The same source that gives Jesus or his holy books authority; personal opinion. Just because one opinion has more people attached to it than another does not mean either is right, wrong or better. They're simply different.
    A2: NO worldview is "true". (Nice example of how his concept of "truth" is flawed) A view of the world is based solely around perspective, something that inherently cannot be identical for two different people. The closest concept he could manage to pull might be transcendental perspectivism, but I'll be awaiting his misinterpretation on that one.
    A3: How the hell can this guy even MENTION objectivity when his views are based on "transcendental logic". He is going into every discussion, sentence, word, and thought under the assumption his beliefs and his book are right, and only attempting to discredit or invalidate other people's opinions. If he was objective about anything he would at least try to weigh each person's perspective and belief equally, which he is obviously not attempting. And because of individual perspective and the fact that NO ONE can think like anyone else, believing in any kind of centralized morality is intrinsically flawed.
    A4: I primarily just found this question ironic, but the only way we can "know" anything is through our senses coupled with our own overactive imaginations. This guy only "knows" of Christ because he was taught to be Christian. If he was born in Iran he would "know" Allah because he was raised Islamic. You "know" what you believe because either you yourself conceived of it or you learned it through someone else; the same goes with religious converts. And a longing feeling deep down inside that you are a small part of something much greater than yourself isn't proof towards any God or reason to latch onto one.... look through a telescope and tell me how you feel.

    Hopefully more later.

    I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
    -Stephen Hawking
  • mirrorpool said:

    For the record, I have no interest in building up a case for a purely material universe here. As I've said elsewhere, such a thing is an ever going process and I have no doubt that the universe will continue to surprise us.


    So, you accept that the universe has immaterial properties on faith.

    The inconsistency of the Bible is well documented, I think, but if we start listing instances, this will only devolve into a debate on the meaning of specific passages and whether or not we can know god's mind.

    And yet you go on to site passages?!? Look, your presuppositions will look for inconsistencies, whereas mine will look for solutions. The case you site can easily be explained by doing a study on covenant theology. That is not the point, however. The point is examining whose presuppositions can account for the logic we use to even examine the Bible.


    You also did not answer my implied question about how anyone can have moral objections to your god's actions and the basic tenets of Christianity, if they represent objective morality.

    Next time, just ask. You can't.


    Are they man-made models, are they universally true?


    Of course they're man-made. Whether or not they're univserally true is something under constant investigation.


    So man could have decided that 2 + 2 = 9? Man could have decided that contradictions are allowed in reasoning??? If these models are man made, why aren't there millions of conflicting models? If they are universally true, maybe you could tell me how man can make a universal truth?


    Although I think the evidence from Euclidean geometry shows that no, any one theory is not universally true.


    Is that statement universally true?


    You ignored the question as to whether other models necessitate a god, e.g. the "logic" of a five-year old who doesn't yet understand conservation but nonetheless reasons from her own model consistently.


    No, not unless they are universally true.

    You did not answer any of my questions, but rather than dig them up, maybe you could just answer the ones in this post, and perhaps also tell me how you know that your human reasoning is reliable?

    The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
  • Gerino said:
    I personally found interesting generalising physical and moral laws, because physical laws ARE pretty much material


    Could you show me one of these material laws, I live in Ontario, Canada, but if there is one where you live, I would be happy to make the trip.


    It is SO much inconsistent with moral laws,


    Inconsistent adherence to absolute moral laws, does not make the laws non-absolute. Just like wrong answers to what does 2 + 2 equal, does not mean that there isn't an absolutely right answer


    so the "moral laws" are indeed material, as they come from material brains.


    Could you show me one of these moral laws? Again, I will commute. Besides, how does what happens in anyone's brain become a 'law?'


    But denying, that physics laws are unconnected with matter is ridiculous

    Who is doing that? Laws of physics have everything to do with matter, but are themselves not material. (unless of course you want to show me one).


    Have a nice life :)

    Why thank you, you too (while you can :)

    The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
  • Minion4Hire said:
    I hate how this guy keeps using logical fallacy, overgeneralizations and complete hypocrisy in order to "prove" his personal belief. I'd touch on this more, but I'm pressed for time.


    Well let's just see how you did with what you had time to write.

    Generalized logical fallacy

    "Absolute truth absolutely does not exist"

    The cyclical, twisted logic there completely fallacious, and utterly absurd.


    Hmmm, this is only an assertion, what is the argument? Surely not this:

    The only valid argument you can make in a philosophical or theological sense is that you cannot logically have one without the other, but that's the chicken and the egg all over again.

    Sure looks like you are making an absolute truth claim there.


    Disgusting hypocrisy

    Q1: What gives Buddha, or your holy books authority?
    Q2: How do you know your worldview is true?
    Q3: Is it objectively true that morality is relative?
    Q4: If your worldview is beyond rationality and human experience, how do you know about it?



    A1: The same source that gives Jesus or his holy books authority; personal opinion.


    Personal opinion does not give authority, as we will see next.


    Just because one opinion has more people attached to it than another does not mean either is right, wrong or better. They're simply different.


    So the opinion of a child molester, that molesting children is cool, is not 'wrong,' it is 'simply different' than say 'be kind to children???' Is that what you believe?


    A2: NO worldview is "true".


    Is that true?


    A view of the world is based solely around perspective, something that inherently cannot be identical for two different people.


    That's just your perspective, or are you saying that this is true as well?


    A3: How the hell can this guy even MENTION objectivity when his views are based on "transcendental logic". He is going into every discussion, sentence, word, and thought under the assumption his beliefs and his book are right, and only attempting to discredit or invalidate other people's opinions.


    Um, and what is it that you are doing?


    A4: I primarily just found this question ironic, but the only way we can "know" anything is through our senses coupled with our own overactive imaginations.


    And which sense told you that that statement was true?


    You "know" what you believe because either you yourself conceived of it or you learned it through someone else;

    So, you only know this because of where you were born, or because you conceived it yourself, or do you claim that this is true?


    look through a telescope and tell me how you feel.

    Thankful

    Hopefully more later.

    Yippee!!!

    The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
  • Double Post

    The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
    • Gerino sa...
    • Användare
    • 18 feb 2007, 15:20
    Canuckfish said:
    Could you show me one of these material laws, I live in Ontario, Canada, but if there is one where you live, I would be happy to make the trip.

    Make a trip to Fermilab or other particle physics research centres. Laws of gravity, electromagnetism, and all others are some representation of the basic laws, connected with sub-atomic particles, and (probably) even smaller strings. I am not pulled down to earth because God (or other higher being) wants me to, but because of the exchange of bits of energy (energy is equivalent to matter). It is like if you were saying, that a car works, because there is some immaterial spirit in it, that makes the wheels spin. After reducing it to smallest things in the Universe, it is still a "clockwork".

    Inconsistent adherence to absolute moral laws, does not make the laws non-absolute. Just like wrong answers to what does 2 + 2 equal, does not mean that there isn't an absolutely right answer
    1+1=0
    2+2=1
    Are those wrong answers? No, they are perfectly correct. The only problem is on your side, because you assume some standards. A man-created and man-implicated standards. But the fact, that in every shop, nearly everywhere around you see arithmetic done in decimal system, it doesn't mean, that other systems are wrong. They are simply different. So, there is NO absolutely right answer to "what does 2 + 2 equal". There is also NO absolutely wrong answers, as a matter of fact (2 + 2 = cherry pie. Well, it is not the most intuitive answer, but it is possible to find a mathematical system, where it is true. It would be ridiculous, but still.)

    Could you show me one of these moral laws? Again, I will commute. Besides, how does what happens in anyone's brain become a 'law?'

    Does the female wolf resist the hunger-induced will of eating her last living child because God told her that it is wrong, or because she have, in here genes, an order to make sure, that the next generation lives? The fact, that sane, unprovoked people doesn't kill each other comes from the basic "set of rules", that were created in the process of evolution. Would you be able, even if you were sure, that the God will approve it, take a knife and slice a man's throat? Wouldn't you feel an incredibly powerful urge NOT to do this? Only a person with equally incredible mental strength, or some kind of mental disorder (natural or post-traumatic), would be able to commit a murder with cold-blood. Either you approve the idea, that animals have this same immaterial, god-given, soul-like moral codes of laws, or you have to understand, that basic morality DOES NOT come from god, but from human. And every other morality comes from human as well. Let me make an divagation: every religion was created by man, every holy scripture was written by man (or aliens from outer space, possible, but not likely to be true). All the commandments and religious moral codes of laws were created by man. We are our own gods.

    Who is doing that? Laws of physics have everything to do with matter, but are themselves not material. (unless of course you want to show me one).
    All right, hit a wall. Was it painful? Yes it was. That is because the wall "hit you" with similar strength that you hit it. That is because bringing atoms of your hand closer to the atoms of the wall resulted in exchange of some sub-atomic particles, effecting in the counter-reaction, and giving most of your energy back to you. You can say, that is only the "effect", not the "core" of the physics. But if you look closer, and closer, it is still a clockwork. Oh, and another divagation: there are some universal constants, that can be regarded as the immaterial laws of physics. But it is thinking in the wrong way. The constants aren't as they are, because it has to make the Universe work. They are, as they are, because they are the effect of some yet-unknown cosmic event that created our reality. If those constants were different, this universe wouldn't exist. It is like evolution, more or less. You try as long as it is necessary to get the right effect. But the point is, that there is no one, that makes those tries. It happens, boom, there is.

    • Gerino sa...
    • Användare
    • 18 feb 2007, 15:43
    (double post)

    Redigerad av Gerino den 18 feb 2007, 17:15
    • Gerino sa...
    • Användare
    • 18 feb 2007, 16:10
    (double post)

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 18 feb 2007, 20:18
    On morality beyond god:
    You can't.

    I was tempted to stop here at the absurdity of that statement. But I have to ask: where does non-Christian morality come from? I'm particularly interested in moral requirements that are beyond the requirements of Christianity (e.g., Jainism), that is, moralities that include a large part of Christian teaching but include a other requiements as well. How do we know Christian morality does not come from the same source?

    You'll find quite a few of us on this board have moral objections to Christianity. This is an important topic for me in particular, since my moral objections predate my becoming atheist.

    Canuckfish said:
    So man could have decided that 2 + 2 = 9? Man could have decided that contradictions are allowed in reasoning??? If these models are man made, why aren't there millions of conflicting models? If they are universally true, maybe you could tell me how man can make a universal truth?


    The models are man made. The world they are meant to model is not (well, so far as we know). And if you don't think there are conflicting models, you might want to pick up a philosophy or higher level mathematics book. Millions would be an exaggeration, but conflicting positions exist. Not all of them assume universality.

    Is that statement universally true?

    The benefit of science over faith is being able to say: I don't know, but that's an interesting question. Unfortunately, I doubt it's within human capacity to ever prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    No, not unless they are universally true.

    I already pointed out that one long established form of geometry is not. Does that mean Euclidean geometry isn't included in the mathematical laws named in your proof? But wait, all geometry is relative to the type of space a point or line occupies. If no theory of geometry is universally true, does this mean geometry isn't part of the univeral laws at all?

    You did not answer any of my questions, but rather than dig them up, maybe you could just answer the ones in this post, and perhaps also tell me how you know that your human reasoning is reliable?

    Why should human reasoning be reliable? How could we have this argument if it was? Have you studied cognitive dissonance?

    I am not participating to build claims for my own position: I'm not the one who created a website others find misleading or in poor taste. Other members of this group may make claims, but I'm simply asking questions and bringing up apparently contrary examples to understand your position. Your proof seems to be in conflict with everything I understand about logic, mathematics, and morality, and I personally find it immoral to post the site in the format you chose. But then, maybe that's just me and my kooky academic background.

  • Canuckfish, if nothing else please define your absolute truth for us. What do you feel it encompasses, and please do not just say everything; I'd like specifics considering such a broad concept can be twisted to support or deny anything you want so examples or even just a definition would be useful.

    Canuckfish said:
    Generalized logical fallacy

    "Absolute truth absolutely does not exist"

    The cyclical, twisted logic there completely fallacious, and utterly absurd.


    Hmmm, this is only an assertion, what is the argument?


    That due to perspective there is no truth that EVERYONE can agree on. The truths an individual holds cannot and do not transcend to other people. And the reason why there are varying levels of "truth" is the same reason there are so many differing religions to begin with; a difference of opinion, whether that comes from varying interpretation or experiences or disagreements on completely unverifiable "facts".

    The only valid argument you can make in a philosophical or theological sense is that you cannot logically have one without the other, but that's the chicken and the egg all over again.

    Sure looks like you are making an absolute truth claim there.


    Clarify absolute truth and I will either agree or refute accordingly.


    Disgusting hypocrisy

    Q1: What gives Buddha, or your holy books authority?
    Q2: How do you know your worldview is true?
    Q3: Is it objectively true that morality is relative?
    Q4: If your worldview is beyond rationality and human experience, how do you know about it?



    A1: The same source that gives Jesus or his holy books authority; personal opinion.


    Personal opinion does not give authority, as we will see next.


    Just because one opinion has more people attached to it than another does not mean either is right, wrong or better. They're simply different.


    So the opinion of a child molester, that molesting children is cool, is not 'wrong,' it is 'simply different' than say 'be kind to children???' Is that what you believe?


    Molesting children is 'wrong' because the majority of people are of the opinion that it is. I'm sure the child molester has no qualms about it since he's committing the act... otherwise, why is he committing the act? That's the subjectivity myself and others have referred to. Common opinion does not translate to your "absolute truth" or whatever you're deriving there.

    But popular opinion both empowers and denies authority. That's how our society is currently structured. We give and take authority from politicians and police officers based on the common will of the people. There are different opinions on countless subjects, but the majority tends to win mainly since it inconveniences or upsets the fewest number of people. The same goes with pedophilia since some obviously feel it's harmless while others feel it harms/exploits the child. Thusly, the opinion of one group of people trumps the opinion of another in the formation of law and enforcement, and regardless of how effective that system may or may not be, we're stuck with it for the moment. If enough people honestly feel marijuana is harmless then it will be decriminalized. Prohibition showed how the government cannot control the will of the people - a few people blamed society's problems on alcohol, and restricted it accordingly. But enough of the people felt otherwise and ignored those laws, which eventually forced them to be overturned. If society suddenly found pedophilia to be harmless and enough people practiced it, it would eventually become a social norm and decriminalized.

    Religion is no different, and the only way it has any power over anything or anyone is if the people give it power and allow it to influence/control their lives. A lot of people want guidance or structure, and that's fine, but you don't need skewed reasoning to attempt to justify your beliefs to yourself or others. Is not you yourself believing enough? Just be thankful that we live in a secular society where you can legally practice the religion of your choosing.


    A2: NO worldview is "true".


    Is that true?


    A view of the world is based solely around perspective, something that inherently cannot be identical for two different people.


    That's just your perspective, or are you saying that this is true as well?


    That is my perspective, based on a myriad of other people's given perspectives and my own conclusions. If you wish to disagree that's fine, but I'd say it's a fairly logical statement. If you'd stop trying to be so purposefully, cyclically evasive you might agree.


    A3: How the hell can this guy even MENTION objectivity when his views are based on "transcendental logic". He is going into every discussion, sentence, word, and thought under the assumption his beliefs and his book are right, and only attempting to discredit or invalidate other people's opinions.


    Um, and what is it that you are doing?


    I actually listen to people, and try to respect others opinions. In fact, I try to learn as much as I possibly can of every person's opinion as long as they're willing. Why I'm so fervently opposed to yours is because you're attempting to pacify others and retard thought. If the great thinkers of the world simply ignored their reservations and refused to question the status quo some of the greatest, most powerful and most elegant concepts - ranging from natural selection to existentialism - might never have been conceived. So I'm highly averse to your line of thinking; one that tries to explain away all the troubles and questions of our world through one source. Life is not that black and white, regardless of how content the thought may make you.


    A4: I primarily just found this question ironic, but the only way we can "know" anything is through our senses coupled with our own overactive imaginations.


    And which sense told you that that statement was true?


    ...???? What? First off, let's just stop with the "truth" thing. If you want to speak of verifiable facts then fine, but truth is a benign and imprecise concept that allows you to keep speaking without presenting a real argument. Secondly, there are vast philosophical fields of study which could help explain my comment from various pov such as "I think therefore I am". I'm partial to the materialist perspective myself, but I'm really not sure what you're implying. Please clarify if you could.

    You "know" what you believe because either you yourself conceived of it or you learned it through someone else;

    So, you only know this because of where you were born, or because you conceived it yourself, or do you claim that this is true?


    Let's set something else straight; you cannot claim anything as "true" or "false" when it comes from a point of perspective. EVERYTHING you or I say, unless it can be verified positively or negative by both of us, is an opinion; and even then just because two people were to agree that, for example, the holocaust never happened does not make it true. This is a positive and negative argument for every religion and nearly every piece of art or text construed by man. The difference is that with science and mathematics all points of conjecture are derived from the world around us, and is relatively easy to refute through the tangible testing of material, or the numerical limitations of algebra. More obscure ideas such as relativity and evolution can be tested mathematically and empirically but may be difficult for the average person to understand, no different than a conversation littered with capacious verbosity since the average man isn't likely as learned in the language of math or the facts behind the science. But again, those ideas are based on verifiable facts.

    Religions are riddled with subjectivity; there are so many offering contrary opinions and ideas as to existence and purpose and creation, but none which offer any verifiable or testable evidence. Scientists attempt to objectively view, document, and explain the world we see around us, and it has made various findings. Religion, like philosophy, cannot be confirmed by anyone else since it is opinion based on perspective. The bible offers no facts or testable examples of anything, since it is the culmination of opinions and ideas from many perspectives over varying subjects. There are many people who have considered themselves to be the or a son of God, and likely just as many who have claimed to be Satan. What proof can you offer that any of these people are right or wrong when both your own limited perspective and their personal opinion prevent you from quantifying either?

    A good example of this might be the idea of "grue", or "bleen". Let's say you have the colors blue and green, and two people comparing those colors. One points to the first color, stating it as "blue" and the second agrees. They then point to the second color stating it as "green" and the second agrees. But the first person cannot see through the second person's eyes. They agree on the name since they both associate that shade with that color. But in a literal or physical sense, "blue" to the second person could actually be what the first would consider green, or any other shade. The linguistic associations we've made with those colors have no bearing on what each person actually sees when they view them. Hence, while they may both agree in conversation they may both experience vastly different things. This is why perspective is important because you will not and physically cannot see through the eyes of another. "Truth" is an esoteric and unattainable concept. If you want to label your own experiences and opinions as "truth" in your own mind then do so, but do not attempt to impose that same perspective onto someone else as you do not know what they perceive.

    If Christ did exist then he is arguably a great man, and you may believe what you will of him, but calling most Christians "Christian" is a near oxymoron. If Jesus did promote love and understanding then most of you are really focusing on the wrong things in relation to his teachings and the rest of society. I think Ghandi summed this up quite well, and correct me if I mis-quote:

    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

    I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
    -Stephen Hawking
  • Showed this site to a couple people from work and a few friends. Just for point of reference, there was one Buddhist, Jehovah, 2 atheists, an agnostic and a half-christian however weird that sounds (she likes Jesus's philosophy, but not the miracles and fantasy behind it; she considers herself a "true" Christian), along with one who doesn't "obsess over theology", but she's about two tarot cards short of being Wiccan.

    Anyways, I didn't tell them anything beforehand except for that they might find the site interesting.... every one of them came back thinking this guy is either delusional, self-righteous, or mentally deficient. I found it really refreshing that we all managed to completely agree on something! =p

    And apparently "He's not a batshit-crazy Christian; his faith has nothing to do with it." Ah, Lina..... ♥

    I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image.
    -Stephen Hawking
    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 21 feb 2007, 23:50
    urgh, this thing has no concept of the fact that societies are different over time, child molestation is a term that has changed an evolved over the years several hundred years ago what we considered child molestation now would have been normal marrying age (see romeo and julliet for an example of the young age of marriage and motherhood that could be expected, however dont take this for set in stone as Shakespeare was a bit of a perve)

    and where it says that all those rules are individual, of course they are everyone views the world differently, for example their argument of 2+2 must always equal 4 is a load of crap, for example to some people the western symbol for the number 2 may mean something totally different, or take for example the child that hasnt learned (according to western teaching) their maths 2+2 can equal any number they wish and to them it is perfectly logical and right, after all all "2" is a bent straight line.

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.