Religion

[CaptainBubba]

1. None of you(all inclusive of humanity and all other inhabitants in our apparent plane of existence.) have any idea what entails an existence beyond our understanding. The fallicy in assuming that you have any knowledge concerning such a thing should be painfully apparent to anyone but a retard or someone blindly hopeful in the "supernatural"

2. If something exists within the bounds of our ability to understand it then it can either be proven or disproven.

THEREFORE: If god exists beyond out understanding then your pulling complete and utter shit out of your purely human ass (And in a VERY arrogant and ignorant way). If god exists in such a way that we can understand it then there remains to be seen any such evidence for an entity of any description of god I've ever heard.

The Bible, as well as every other piece of religious literature, is a book, written by humans with absolutely no actual scientific founding to suggest why anyone should believe in this "god" entity. If you plan on relating this statement to historical records then by all means do, but know that you're lying to yourself in thinking its a valid argument. Just as with any religious record one should excersise at least some level of sceptisism.

If I read that Voltaire was actually the spawn of Magularato, creator of time, and was sent to give us the ability to empty our bowels I would treat it just as I treat the Bible.

I know there is no way that people haven't thought about this before, so is there something I'm missing? I wasn't raised with any particular religion so I guess it may be that there is no foundation hardwired into my brain to believe in something with no actual founding. How can people completely disregard logic and just say, "Meh, I don't care. I still think theres a "god" ".

I can't do that. I can't deny logic. :/

[FS]

And why do people smoke?

The human mind has a fantastic ability to throw logic out the window when it wants to.

[CaptainBubba]

People smoke because they like getting high. They also know that its killing them.

People believe in god as a supernatural comfort thought. the difference is that they honestly seem to believe its true.

It'd be like someone saying that ciggarettes were healthy and really thinking it. I can say it, but I can't actually think it.

[Zero Signal]

"If you plan on relating this statement to historical records then by all means do, but know that you're lying to yourself in thinking its a valid argument. Just as with any religious record one should excersise at least some level of sceptisism."

So is seeing ancient Egyptian tablets dated to Ramses II that mention Moses just a case of me lying to myself? :rolleyes You seem to be predetermined in what you believe. "I can't deny logic." Yet, you do deny it by predetermining what you find before you find it.

If you do not believe in it, then that is fine. You are completely entitled to that, as are people to believe in anything. However, telling other poeple that they are stupid to do so (perhaps in not so many words) is no better than people telling you that you are going to Hell for not believing in it.

I find it amusing that many of you athiests seem to think that you know enough about God to engage in a discussion about Him. If you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God handed down to man through inspiration to those that wrote them, and have faith in it, then you have no business discussing the angle that you are taking on it since you negate that by your very non-belief.

Find your own voice and let others be.

[AChimp]

Translation: "Don't make fun of my God!"

:wah

[Zero Signal]

Translation: "Don't make fun of my God!"

:wah
Translation: "I am a stupid monkey with nothing relevant or even remotely interesting to add to this discussion, yet, I open my mouth anyway in a vain attempt to make myself look intelligent."

[AChimp]

Translation: "Don't make fun of my God!"

:wah
Translation: "I am a stupid monkey with nothing relevant or even remotely interesting to add to this discussion, yet, I open my mouth anyway in a vain attempt to make myself look intelligent."

Translation: "ALLAH ACKBAR!! ALALALALALALALALALALALA!!!!!"

>:

[Jeanette X]

Well Capn. Bubba, I think that if it is beyond our comprehension, then we cannot really disprove it either, and thus being an atheist is no more logical than being a believer.

[Protoclown]

Meh, I don't care. I still think theres a "god".

[Baalzamon]

If there is a god I would be inclined to believe that he doesnt really care whether we believe he exists or not, or that he has any interest in us or the things we do.

[O71394658]

How can people completely disregard logic and just say, "Meh, I don't care. I still think theres a "god" ".


What logic?

[CaptainBubba]

Zero: You completely missed the point of the historical document comment. I was refering to when people say that I'm simply picking and choosing what I belive from documents based on personal prejudice. To some extent this is true, I'll give, but it should be with everyone.

Moses was a real person? OMG so shocking! I GUESS THIS MEANS THERES A GOD! :rolleyes

You completely disregard my entire argument in your post. The wholepointof my argument is that I know nothing of god or sngaiu, or whatever the hell anything "beyond out understanding" is, or what it entails. Not only did I never say I believed I understood god, but I expressly state that NOONE DOES, which to a normal person could be interpreted to include myself.

I never took an angle on any particualr religion, so wtf is this about the Bible? I never even mention any specifics of religion because its irrelevant in my argument and would have no place.

Jeanette: Being an aethiest does not mean you negate the possibility of a god in your mind. It simply means you are without a religion. As it will never be possible to find out if a god "beyond our understanding" exists, there is no logical reason (besides comfort) for me, or anyone else, to believe in it.

Proto: O NO U DI-ENT!

[UtterParadox]

I remembered, recently, a very interesting conversation between myself (an agnostic), a man with red hair whose name I cannot remember (a devoted Christian), and a man with black hair whose name I also cannot remember (beliefs unknown). We were discussing the theory of evolution, which the red-haired man did not believe. When the black-haired man asked how humanity formed without the benefit of evolution, the red-haired man said two words: "He spoke."

Just like that: "He spoke." To nonbelievers like myself, it's a ridiculous statement. To believers, it's the last word.

The very idea of a god - an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being beyond our reality - makes the existence or nonexistence of it a moot point as far as argument goes. If you found scrolls hidden in Israel that predated the planet and turned out to be God's personal diary, nonbelievers would argue that they are obvious forgeries, while believers would trumpet the "final proof".

It's like arguing about the existence of "fate". If fate does exist, then you don't have a choice as to whether or not to believe in it. So arguing becomes a bit pointless.

[Protoclown]

*sigh*

Did you learn NOTHING from Terminator 2? :rolleyes

There is no fate but what we make!

[kellychaos]

How can people completely disregard logic and just say, "Meh, I don't care. I still think theres a "god" ".


What logic?

Faith in religion doesn't require any logic. That's why it's called "faith". Please don't misinterpret me to mean that religion is stupid or anything. That's just the way it is.

[ItalianStereotype]

I just love how the atheists and agnostics of the board seem to enjoy discussing religion with a weary, but patient attitude since they have things "all figured out." at least, that is the way it seems to me.

[Protoclown]

OKAY.

[Krythor]

Captain Bubba: Read the Bible. Front to back, back to front, upside down. Repeat thrice (TRYING BEST TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANINGS.) Then, carefully cut it into quarters, sprinkle with salt and devour each and every piece.

Repeat process with an English Dictionary.

Finally, return and attempt to argue your opinion again.

[Big Papa Goat]

I read the bible once. To be honest, it wasn't very helpful.

[AChimp]

Faith is intellectual bankruptcy, which somehow results in people feeling that they have an abundance of morality.

[Zero Signal]

Faith is intellectual bankruptcy, which somehow results in people feeling that they have an abundance of morality.
So putting faith in my brakes that they will not fail at a particular moment is intellectual bankruptcy? If anything, your post is nothing but that, and somehow resulted in you feeling like you actually said something meaningful and intelligent.

[AChimp]

Don't be a little shit. Faith has many definitions, so which one do you think I'm talking about in a thread entitled "Religion"?

[Big Papa Goat]

I don't have faith in my brakes, I get them checked periodically to make sure they work. Do you get your God checked periodically to make sure he exists?

[OperationScuzBucket]

"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." ~Ambrose Bierce

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance. Logic can be happily tossed out the window." ~Stephen King


...two of my favorite quotes that seem to relate. I have trouble putting my thoughts into words, so it's better for me to find other people's thoughts that reflect mine. :P

[AChimp]

:lol

[Zero Signal]

Yet, you listen to someone (Ambrose Bierce) who also "speaks without knowledge". Someone telling you what not to believe is no different that someone telling what you should believe. Think about that; you are exactly like those that you speak against. And then you want to talk about logic. Yay for you! :rolleyes

Athiests discussing religion is like fucking for virginity.

[OperationScuzBucket]

Amazing how you just assumed that I'm an athiest...personally I believe that nobody can ever truly prove what happens when you die, because we're not dead and there's no conclusive evidence in either direction.

[OperationScuzBucket]

oh and the comparison in that quote makes no sense how you changed it

(the original was "Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity" for those of you who've never seen that one)

[Sethomas]

Nah, I like it better with "fucking".

[Zero Signal]

oh and the comparison in that quote makes no sense how you changed it

(the original was "Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity" for those of you who've never seen that one)
It makes no sense to you because you don't even understand the original quote.

[Krythor]

I'm slightly more convinced in a scientific explanation for everything rather than the religious one, but I do have a big fucking problem with people who are 100% certain (Or anywhere between 100 and 95) that the bible is nothing but bullshit. Believe it or not, NO ONE has the definitive answer to the creation of the universe, as much as your physics classes would have you believe that they do.

I know I'm pointing out the fucking obvious, but it's one of those tiny things that really irritates me.

[Sethomas]

I'm a believer, but objectively speaking your bastardization of that phrase was indeed more than a little flawed.

There is no diametric contradiction in an atheist speaking about religion because atheism is in itself a religious standpoint. The only thing comparably functional would be perhaps "praying for atheism is like fucking for virginity", but that's just stupid.

[AChimp]

Everything is better with a little "fucking."

[kahljorn]

If God put out I would be more inclined to love him. As a great man once said, "Everything is better with a little fucking".

[FS]

Practically everyone believes at least something. I believe science, when given enough data, can explain everything there is to the universe. But science is oftentimes based on theory. It may be logical and it may be plausible, but it's not always possible to prove. And my belief in science isn't waterproof, cause I'm sometimes open to different explanations of certain occurences, but it gets me through the day. I think atheists highly underestimate just how much unconditional faith they put in science.

[AChimp]

It may be logical and it may be plausible, but it's not always possible to prove.
That's why scientists are always performing research and gathering data and forming new theories and disproving others. Nothing is definite in science except for the absolute fundamental laws, and it takes a helluva lot of evidence in science before something is considered a law.

The thing that I think makes science so great is the principle of falsifiability: the fact that any theory can be DISPROVEN should someone come along with a better idea or new evidence.

Religion is tautological and can't be disproven, especially for believers. Everything you can think of is already explained by tiny little statements like, "God did it." :blah

As a great man once said, "Everything is better with a little fucking".
:)

[Krythor]

Imagine God as an artist; only instead of paint, he uses atoms and molecules.

Science and Religion aren't mutually exclusive. God can still "do it" and have it be explained by science, especially if you believe him to simply be the grandaddy of all creatures. :(

[The_Rorschach]

Bubba, you have totally convinced me. As we speak I am printing out copies of your thesis and wrapping them around rocks which I will gleefully fire into Afghanistan with a potato launcher in the hopes of calming their religous fanaticism. Your words should be parrotted to the ends of the earth and will no doubt bring about a new age of atheistic tranquility.

Humanity owes you a great debt.

[kahljorn]

Quantam physics supports God and Satans existence. I swear.

[CaptainBubba]

Has anyone noticed that not a single person has bothered to make any comment on ANYTHING I ACTUALLY SAID in my first post?

Anyone?

Anyone?

I never commented on anything specific to any religion (Those who continually mention the Bible in particular should pay heed to this). I never said I "had it all figured out" in any sense (Actually I did say just the opposite in one sense).

Please, for the love of christ, stop spewing out redundant babble you give to anyone who is without religion. If you're going to argue with me, actually read my damn post and then respond to the post rather than me.

Ror: You did, of course, note my comment on most certainly not being the first to think about this? Or did you just conveniently bypass it? Either way your sarcasm was funny, though horribly misplaced and rather stupid considering the context of my previous statements. Do you ever actually argue your position?



Here is a summary of my post:

We are either capable of understanding god or we are not.
Agreed?

If we can't understand god then it is beyond out understanding, and therefore in reality we know nothing of it, and stating otherwise would merely taking a guess from an infinitely large and all inclusive pool of guesses.
Agreed?

If we can understand god then we can prove or disprove its existence. It remains to be proven.
Agreed?

Ok, now start over again only paying attention to those three statements.

[The_Rorschach]

"Do you ever actually argue your position?"

I didn't realize I had taken a position in this discussion. Everyone who cares to knows where I stand in regards to faith, and I argued against better theories than yours long before you ever graced this board with your philosophical pretensions, so for me this is a very old argument and one which I do not need to take any part in.

I'm just going to heckle from the tiger cage.

[O71394658]

We are either capable of understanding god or we are not.


Depends upon two things. The "we" and the "understanding". If by "we" you meen collective society, then I'm not sure. Taking specific individuals or religions into account, there seems to be a level of understanding, but it's only in relation to that particular religious sect. For example, as Christians, we know that God generally doesn't like sinning. That could be interpreted into a basic level of understanding. But, many within Christian denominations may just blindly follow this without question, while others may believe they have God "all figured out". The "we" is a poor term to use here.

Your concept of "understanding" is also vague? There are many levels of understanding, and everybody "understands" differently. Taking love for example: Many people may view love as something that "clicks"- as in an instant chemistry is present that is often unexplainable. Others view it as a simple chemical synapsis in the brain. Chemical reactions taking place withing the recesses of the brain used to trigger the emotions of affection. Others think love is when you're shot in the ass by an arrow. It's all relative to the individual. In explaining God, special circumstances are especially relevant. If you must, as an atheist (or whatever you are) willingly suspend your disbelief for a second, and say that there is a God, then you would generally agree that God isn't bound by laws of science. Science is one of the few resources we have in determining "existance" or "authenticity". If God cannot be disproven by science, then there is most definitely a severe lack of understanding, as far as the scientific world is concerned. But, like in the Christian community, there are people on both sides. Many believe that God can be proven through science, while others believe His existance can be disproven, either through science or simple logic.


If we can't understand god then it is beyond out understanding, and therefore in reality we know nothing of it, and stating otherwise would merely taking a guess from an infinitely large and all inclusive pool of guesses.

No. Your concept of "understand" is vague. You'll have to clarify, because in the religious sense, we most definitely do understand God. We understand that (again taking Christian/Catholic references here) he created the universe, sent His only Son to die for the sins of the world, that he hates sins, that there are things that please him (loving your neighbor, modesty, etc.- see Bible for furthur details). Well, from the atheist point of view who rejects these doctrines, then these may not qualify as understanding. For the religious zealot, they most definitely do qualify as understanding. For the religious person, there is no guesswork, in terms of the most basic questions of who He is, what He wants, what pisses Him off, and so forth. In explaining exactly why he does what he does is where the basis of faith comes in. Religious people may essentially say that they place the "why" in the hands of God himself. That an essence greater, smarter, and more powerful than themselves is watching over their lives and making decisions as to what happens- when, why, and how- is where the whole doctrine of faith comes into play. Atheists may want to continue questioning, but, unfortunately or not, many religious people prefer to leave it at that, which is why you may have had trouble finding answers.

[CaptainBubba]

We: All creatures capable of thought.

Understand: To know the truth concerning the subject at hand.

As a human, each of us is able to either know in truth the nature of god, or not.

You are interpreting my meaning as understanding the proposed nature of god, not the actual nature of god. Don't go so far as to bring in any particular religion into this (even if it is as an example). Start of with the first three concepts and go from there please.

Ror: This isn't really a theory. Under my statements the Bible or any other particular religion could be correct in its assumptions. Its painfully evident you're missing something by your statements.

[O71394658]

Understand: To know the truth concerning the subject at hand.


But this is a flawed question. Millions of people around the world all know the truth, yet they all have varying opinions as to exactly what it is. The subject being God, I don't think anybody can answer what the truth is, because I don't know what kind of truth you're looking for. For religious people, all "understanding" God entails is putting absolute faith in Him. C'est la vie, so to speak. As for you, are you looking for proof? Why God does what he does?

[CaptainBubba]

Millions of people around the world all know the truth, yet they all have varying opinions as to exactly what it is

:confused What? I think we have some conflicting opinions of what either "know" or "truth" means.

I'm refering to knowing the nature of god, which would include what god is and what anything invloving the nature of his existence would entail. I honestly don't know how to explain it any further to you.

[O71394658]

The nature of God depends upon whatever religion you follow. As a Catholic, I believe that God is a Being in the like image of man, who is omniscient and omnipotent. I see that as the "truth" and that's what I firmly believe. Others may see God as something else. The nature of God is relative to each individual, each person sees God in their own light.

anything invloving the nature of his existence would entail

He rules over the Universe. ...I'm too lazy to explain it in any other way.

[CaptainBubba]

The true nature of god would not depend on what someone thought the true nature was. I'm arguing about the very existence of god. Not our ability to grasp the proposed natures of god. You are most definitely not interpreting what I'm saying correctly.

Actual religion should hardly even enter into this conversation anyway.

I see know how my use of the word "understand" could be misinterpreted. I guess the best way I can convey what I'm trying to say is that by "able to understand" I mean that one's mind would be capable of knowing the truth concerning the nature of god.

As sentient humans we either are, or aren't capable of knowing the actual nature of god.

[Ninjavenom]

I prefer to think that if he indeed exists, God is just the collective consciousness of everything (all sentient creatures in existence), lying in the center of the universe, and that he is completely unrelated to the "God" we know of on earth. Just 'cause it would be pretty cool to share a god with multi-tentacled space-fiends.

[The One and Only...]

Whether or not there is a god has no relevance.

I believe that there is a superior being(s), and it manifested itself in different ways to different people. Just me, though.

My suggestion: believe in the ideal before the idol.

[O71394658]

I already gave you the actual existance of God, from my perspective.

But all I'm saying is, you'll receive different answers from different people. (See posts by Ninja and The One...)

[CaptainBubba]

Forget it. Lol. :rolleyes

[O71394658]

You just don't get it, my friend.

[CaptainBubba]

Irony. :(

[O71394658]

You'll get nothing but the PROPOSED. What you see as PROPOSED, I see as ACTUAL.

[CaptainBubba]

exactly. You're confusing your opinion with fact.

[The_Rorschach]

Leave it Q, Bubba lives in an enchanted little world of his own devising. Anyone who believes they have the truth of a question which has plagued man for a few thousand years is either overweened on arrogance, or simply mad.

[CaptainBubba]

I haven't provided an answer to any question. You are truly, honestly being an idiot and attempting to make my statements into something ignorrant.

Plus your statement is incredibly flawed. Plenty of questions that have plagued man for thousands of years have been answered. eeven though, as I said before, I'm not stating any answer. Nor am I attempting to disprove anything. I'm merely showing the fallacy in asuming theres any true reason to beleive in any particular religion or anything "supernatural".

[The_Rorschach]

:)

[CaptainBubba]

:eek

[Perndog]

I'd like to jump in this thread to voice my opinion that there's not only no empirical (that is a key word) reason to believe in anything supernatural, there is also no empirical reason not to. We all have our own reasons for what we believe, whether it's church brainwashing, lights in the sky, personal reflection, or whatever.

That said, my position is: fuck all forms of worship, especially evangelical ones and organized ones. But I'm they can be perfectly justified in believing what they want. They just better keep it to themselves.

[O71394658]

I'm merely showing the fallacy in asuming theres any true reason to beleive in any particular religion or anything "supernatural".

You're showing no fallacy at all. You're just bitching and moaning. There are many reasons as to why I believe what I believe. None of it entails "assumption", but faith. For the atheist, they may look similar. For me, they aren't even close.

You're asking a stupid question. You're looking for an answer. I'm giving you one. If you don't like my answer, I suggest you find out for yourself. And the best way to do that? :suicide

[Vibecrewangel]

Does anyone else agree with me that they are, just like the rest of the f'n world, arguing over nothing but words.

Yes, we as humans do completely understand it. We know/understand/grok that there is something out there. I am pretty damn sure we even know what it is. Of that I have absolutly no doubt. The problem comes when we try to put into words that understanding. Language, culture, where and when someone existed along with many other factors are all going to play a part in how each person describes that something.

I just love people that talk about the "meaning" when discussing religious text. I find it so laughabale that they talk about understanding the "meaning" yet they get caught up in (for example) the "Jesus is my saviour and the only path to God" words. Every religion has their "only path to God" words. Strip down the cultural refferences and names and the MEANING is the same for all of them. Science and philosophy are just other ways with other words to describe the same thing.

If 1000 people from all over the world were asked to look at a piece of art and describe it to others do you think the descriptions and interpretations would be the same? The piece of art is the piece of art. They all see the same thing. But when they talk about it, language and culture and personal feelings will play a part in how they describe it to other people. Thus, different words to describe the same thing.

People accept a certain religion or science or philosophy because for whatever reason the words used to describe the events make sense to them personally. The problem is that most people don't look beyond the words to the meaning anymore. Pretty much clear across the board from, science to religion, we have lost our own personal understanding...our own sense of meaning. People need to start looking within again and find that. Go out and have a true "religious experience" or "an epiphany" or what ever you want to call it. Choose the wording that most suits you but don't expect everyone else too pick the same one.

[kellychaos]

If 1000 people from all over the world were asked to look at a piece of art and describe it to others do you think the descriptions and interpretations would be the same? The piece of art is the piece of art. They all see the same thing. But when they talk about it, language and culture and personal feelings will play a part in how they describe it to other people. Thus, different words to describe the same thing.



Language is an inadequate pair of culture-colored glasses. I think I'm starting to think like you Vibe and it's kind of scary. :)

[kellychaos]

Faith is intellectual bankruptcy, which somehow results in people feeling that they have an abundance of morality.
So putting faith in my brakes that they will not fail at a particular moment is intellectual bankruptcy? If anything, your post is nothing but that, and somehow resulted in you feeling like you actually said something meaningful and intelligent.

Their are all kinds of examples of mathematical faith. The mathematical imaginary integer "i", for instance. Not real but used in advanced mathematics on a continual basis.

[Vibecrewangel]

Language is an inadequate pair of culture-colored glasses. I think I'm starting to think like you Vibe and it's kind of scary.

:party That makes me happy. :party


It's funny....it just seems so obvious and yet we all overlook it for the most part.

[Sethomas]

Being fair, that's a flawed observation, Kelly. "i" might not occur in nature, but it corresponds to mathematical principles that can be observed and tested empirically, hence it requires no "faith". It's very real in its presence in oscillations and such.

[kahljorn]

If 1000 people from all across the World ate the same pie, they would all describe it the same. It's still the piece of pie, but some people would like it, some people would not like it. Some people would have allergic reactions and die. Moll's Doors? Perception? Candy?

I have faith that if I jump off a Building gravity will play it's part. One man told me he would fly, he was very convinced of this. His perception was slightly insane. What went wrong when he jumped off a building? His perception didn't make much of a difference, unless our perception of the World made him die(we think he'll die, so he does), but in his perception he went on to another perception(after-life) in which he could fly, as if he never died. Maybe he reincarnated as a bird?

[Big Papa Goat]

I'd like to jump in this thread to voice my opinion that there's not only no empirical (that is a key word) reason to believe in anything supernatural, there is also no empirical reason not to. We all have our own reasons for what we believe, whether it's church brainwashing, lights in the sky, personal reflection, or whatever

You can't have an empirical reason not to believe something, its like proving that something doesn't exist. Unless you prove something that is mutually exclusive, which can't be done in the case of God. But if there is no empirical reason for Him to exist, then logically it can only be assumed that He does not exist. Of course, you can have your reasons for believing such things, as you said.

[CaptainBubba]

You guys are really arrogant to say you are sure you understand god. And ignorant. :/

If you guys are sure that you understand god then the burden of proof lies with you. God can be proven or disproven if he can be understood.

[The_Rorschach]

In regards to evangelical faiths. . .What do you consider Atheists who constantly attempt to sway other there is no God?

I've yet to make a thread, or even see one here at the Mock, trying to convert people to any deistically oriented religion, and yet every other week we are blessed with another harbringer of intellecualism proclaiming there is no God. Personally,I could care less, but I am curious where you would draw the line.

[Vibecrewangel]

Do you think I am arrogant? I don't understand "God" because that word really means very little to me. I however have felt, have touched, have a growing understanding of what I believe some people call God. Other people still will call it all matter and dark matter in the universe. Other may call it the universal conciousness. The fact is I have felt it. Just as I have felt love and hate. Depression and elation. You can try to put all of those things into words, but does it ever really encompass what those feelings do to you as an individual? Could you really explain color to person blind from birth? Does that make color any less real? Try to describe the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?
If you had never learned to speak would that make anything you felt or saw or knew any less real? In reality, though words are important to us they are quite meaningless to everything else around us. When you were a child do you really thing you thought in words or did you think in concepts? Desires? Wants and needs? Words came later as ways to describe these things we already knew. We've all heard it before...Children come into this world knowing everthing. Stop and think about how true that statement really is.

[CaptainBubba]

Ror: Did you even understand my posts? I most certainly am not saying that there is no god. Far from it. The idea of there being no god is just as probable as there being one. It would do you good to actually attempt to understand someones writing before you "heckle" it.

Vibe: Thank god someone finally pulled the trump card of all philosohical debate. Now this thread will end sooner and I won't get so continually frustrated with people completely misinterpreting/ignoring anything I'm trying to say.

[kahljorn]

"You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?"

Then you'd drink some water and shake your head! and think in your head, "uga booga drink tink sink!"

"His perception didn't make much of a difference, unless our perception of the World made him die(we think he'll die, so he does), but in his perception he went on to another perception(after-life) in which he could fly, as if he never died. Maybe he reincarnated as a bird?"

ANy response to that? I always wondered if the insane's world's could metaphysically be called an alternate dimension of sorts, in which their are other "Souls and spirits" so to speak. That they aren't really caught in Dilussions of fake invisible people, per se, but that they are experiencing a reality outside of our consciousness.
And if so, is there a set of anatomical rules there as well, does he have to eat there or suffer here? Does dying there put him in a coma, or rip him to another dimension? Does dying here necessarily destroy his existence in another, or does his concsciousness remain.
In effect, that perceptions really are the driving force, and only cause and definition have arranged our structure. That a rock is a rock because it thinks it's a rock, and a human is a human because they think they are a human. Like a gravity pulling molecules or spirit of similar taste together to incarnate as a persona of their individual desires and energy. That negative effects in a lifetime are prearranged and ordained by scripted confliction of said energies(some may gravitate as a human towards being an astronaut, some as a vetrenarian, so the confliction causes certain negative effects, and not just the obvious career decision, but the entire path).
Christian's go to heaven or hell, buddhists are reincarnated till they reach enlightenment and cease to exist but their energies depart and gather anew(rebirth!) until the density of buddha enlightened energies reach the point that all creation is in bliss and the entire buddhist universe is rebirthed as well and simply ceases here, and hindus eat rocks with einstein and laugh at how rivers flow upside-down.

[UtterParadox]

Looking through Bubba's posts in this thread, I notice that of the approximentally (sp?) 19 or so "valid" arguments against him, he's refuted about 6. The others he's answered with insults or by harping a variation on "You MISUNDERSTOOD me! Read it again, read it again!"

By sheer virtue of uncountered arguments, the believers are winning this debate.

And yes, Vibe, at the core, everything's a discussion about language... but is that the point here?

[Vibecrewangel]

Bubba - Um what? Trump card?

Paradox - The point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to talking about God, existance, the nature of the universe, life.....people are TOO caught up in the language and have forgotten the meaning. To me the word God means the same thing as the words Universal Conciousness, they both mean the same thing as a mathmatical equation explaining the existance of the universe (math being just another language)
I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't prove that God exists to an atheist, but I could given the right command of mathmatics prove the creation of the universe with a nice tidy equation. Does it in any way change what we are talking about? Or is it just the language that changes? People are happy to translate from russian, hebrew, latin, german, spanish.....but for some reason just can't seem to move to the next obvious set of translations.

If I point to the ocean and call it water or agua or aquafina or chocolate pudding it shouldn't shouldn't matter. What I call it doesn't change what it is.

A rose by any other name......
I love cliches :) They really do say the most profound things sometimes.

And for Kahl......you are an odd odd man......an odd salt lickin'.....freak talkin'......strange strange man.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

To state that God can be proven or disproven empirically is a fallacy. Empiricism relies on the scientific method and is intrinsically linked to science. For it's part, science is merely the study of the physical universe; as such, to claim that science can explain the so-called "supernatural" would also be a fallacy, as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe.

It's sort of like someone who doesn't agree with big bang theory demanding of one of it's proponents, "What came first? Where did the Big Bang come from?". That's a useless question to ask a scientist - the moment of the big bang itself was the beginning of time, ie t=0. Science begins to describe the universe at the moment that time and space actually spring into existence, at that very point. What came before it lies outside the realm of the physical universe, and as such also lies outside the realm of science. It's like asking, "What continent lies outside the Earth?". It's an illogical question.

Of course, this isn't exactly ideal (as it doesn't relate to the supernatural), but hopefully it gets the point across.

Now, I mentioned that one can't prove the existence or non-existene of God by empirical methods - but you can disprove things like the story of the "Great Flood". I'm sure you've heard more than enough arguments as to why such a flood couldn't have happened, but here are just a few points:

-Animal species which are dependent upon non-European localized ecosystems would have become extinct, since they would never survive the migration back home after debarking from the Ark. For example, the South American trapdoor tarantulas would have had to somehow journey all the way from Europe to the Amazon jungle, over an ocean and through environments which are much too cold to support it. The polar bear would have had to journey back to its arctic home, through thousands of kilometres of temperate zone. The giant panda would have had to journey from Europe to the bamboo forests of China, despite its poor mobility and extremely specific dietary requirements. What did it eat until it reached the distant bamboo forests? Species like this should have become extinct, but they didn't.

-The distribution of recent fossils should follow a radial pattern from the point where Noah unloaded his Ark, irrespective of species. Consider the fact that all of the Earth's creatures had to migrate outward from a single point. This would leave obvious fossil patterns, which we have failed to observe. Instead, the fossil patterns seem to be consistent with a pattern of long-term migrations and evolutionary adaptations.

-How did Noah build the Ark? A simple examination of shipbuilding techniques and manpower requirements reveals that a wooden boat of that size will not be seaworthy because of excessive leakage, and that one man couldn't possibly build it. The act of procuring the necessary wood alone would have easily overwhelmed him.

-How did the ice caps form? They would have been broken up and melted during the flood, and there hasn't been enough time for them to form since then. Moreover, Greenland ice cores show a progression of yearly patterns since well before the Flood, even though the entire mass should have been broken up.


I think you get the point.

[ItalianStereotype]

1. in the dictionary, science is defined as "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" so it is not limited to your definition thereby casting the first half of your post into doubt.

2. I don't think that anybody actually believes that the Great Flood covered the entire world. I actually accept the theory that Noah lived somewhere east of the Crimea at about the time that the Bosporus broke. this caused drastic flooding along the shoreline of the Black Sea as is evident in the sunken villages that have been excavated over the past few decades.

[CaptainBubba]

Never more than before it is now clear to me that any disscusion that involves religion, even in a slightly irrelevant sense, is pointless because people don't want to think any harder than "I must be right because I think I am.".

Out of curiousity though, could you possibly be so kind as to list these 19 seperate and unique arguments that I've bypassed Paradox?

Vibe: You've begun the spiral into concepts which cause all discussion in any matter to be pointless. (i.e. We can never know anything except that we exist). I guess it'd be better to say you pulled one out of many trump cards.

as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe.

Thats essentially what I'm trying to say. God either is in the realm of the physical universe or not. (Or as I tried to put it much less aptly: We can understand it or not).

[Sethomas]

God either is in the realm of the physical universe or not.

Christians would argue that God did assume a tangible form and provided sufficient evidence to his existence. If we believe in the testimony of the synoptic gospels, it's no longer purely metaphysical speculation.

[Vibecrewangel]

We can never know anything except that we exist

And where exactly did I say this? I believe I even directly stated that I think we all know and understand the answer. We all just explain it differently.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what trump card I pulled? Expressing my belief that the word God and the mathmatical equation for the existance of all matter in the universe are both talking about the same concept isn't a trump card. Personally it seems to me that you didn't like the fact that I answerd your question. You wanted someone to prove to you that God exists using a scientific method. Since math is just another form of language and the equation exists, and the subject in question is how the universe came into being then then regardless of whether the answer is in numbers, words, or pictograms is I have done as you asked. I may not be able to perform the equation myself, but I also don't speak latin or russian or greek. It doesn't mean that when someone speaks of God in those languages that they aren't still talking about the same thing as the English speaker now does it?

I must be right because I think I am

This is pretty much your answer. Accept that you are saying "you are wrong because I think you are". Not all that different really.

[CaptainBubba]

NOTE THE (I.E), MEANING "EXAMPLE", AND THE CLARIFIER "ONE OF MANY TRUMP CARDS".

That was an example of a trump card statement in philosophical debate that ends everything by making everything meaningless.

Seth: Is he still in the physical universe now? If he "left it" and is still absent from it, then at the current time he can't be proven or disproven, which is all that matters since we are in the current time.

[Vibecrewangel]

Your're right that is an example. Still having a problem citing mine though I see.

You are upset that you think people are not reading and understanding your posts, but clearly that is what you have been doing all along.

Calm down and stop being so intensionally stubborn. If you really wanted to learn something you could. But when you shut down like that nothing will ever get it. And to be honest, I really don't think you want it too. You have already made up your mind about the answer, so even when someone gives you another you refuse to see it. In this you are being no better than the people you are trying to bait.

I fully admit, I don't believe in Christianity as it is taught, BUT and it really is is a big BUT, it was sitting through a x-mas service that made me realize that the stories my native american family told and the stories of Jesus and several others weren't that different. But instead of being an ass like most pagans and doing the "see you stole it" thing I started to think maybe the events being described actually happened. And that language and culture played a huge part in how they were passed down.

[CaptainBubba]

. The fact is I have felt it. Just as I have felt love and hate. Depression and elation. You can try to put all of those things into words, but does it ever really encompass what those feelings do to you as an individual? Could you really explain color to person blind from birth? Does that make color any less real? Try to describe the taste of something to someone who has never tasted it. You can say, for example, it is salty. But what if the word salty hadn't been created?
If you had never learned to speak would that make anything you felt or saw or knew any less real? In reality, though words are important to us they are quite meaningless to everything else around us. When you were a child do you really thing you thought in words or did you think in concepts? Desires? Wants and needs? Words came later as ways to describe these things we already knew. We've all heard it before...Children come into this world knowing everthing. Stop and think about how true that statement really is.

The way I interpret this: "I am right. I can't explain to you why. you will never be able to understand why. But I am right" And your last statement in particular is very simmilar to my trump card example.

There is, by the way, practically nothing in that entire statement concerning anything relevant to my posts. You are merely defending religion rather than adressing the more general issue of the metaphysical. You are all being very specific. this is whats mainly making me so angry. You seem fixated on a very narrow view of the entire "metaphysical world".

It'd be like discussing your favorite foods and everyone just said their favorite type of donut. But with infinite types of food and a couple thousand or so types of donuts.

[Vibecrewangel]

You are merely defending religion rather than adressing the more general issue of the metaphysical.


Hmm....let's see stating that science and religion are simply explaing the same thing is defending religion how? Didn't I also add in the universal conciousness? I could talk about the Zen void or the Great Spirit as well. Or any other number of metaphysical examples. Sorry, I guess citing one wasn't enough for you. Perhaps I overestimated your ability to grasp the obvious. Or maybe it was the fact that you specifically asked about God in the beginning.

I am right. I can't explain to you why. you will never be able to understand why. But I am right

If that is what you got out of that statement perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills a bit more. Or at the very least get over yourself a tiny bit.

How does my asking you if you think you can explain color to a blind person translate as. "I am right"
Or asking you to explain what feelings and emotions actually encompass?
Or describe a taste to someone who has no clue what the word salty means. Asuming the world salty exists at all.

Pray tell....how does this translate to I am right? Or does your inability to answer mean that YOU think I am right and that just burns you up?

Because seriously Bubba, I have made a very clear case for language being the problem. Which incedently has nothing to with science, religion or the metaphysical other than as a way to describe the subject that YOU asked be used in the begining. All you have done is project your inability to comprehend any answer given onto the rest of the people in this thread.

Now, if you can actually cite an example of my trump card. Or pull out any statement that a rational person could translate as "I think I am right" you may have a leg to stand on.


Oh and by the way, the fact that I used the taste, color, emotion and later the ocean examples show that I am inactuality not "being very specific" I am in fact using non religious examples to help prove that my theory is not just about God / Science. That the language problem effects every aspect of human life.

[kahljorn]

"And for Kahl......you are an odd odd man......an odd salt lickin'.....freak talkin'......strange strange man."

I'm no man! and why didn't anyone respond to perception magic?


"To state that God can be proven or disproven empirically is a fallacy. Empiricism relies on the scientific method and is intrinsically linked to science"

What a moron, how can you state that when your original point states God can't be proven or Disproven, you are relying on a lack of facts. You are using that lack of facts to somehow make your point stronger, which is what you might call ignorance. You don't know if it can be proven or disproven, and you don't know if it could not be proven or disproven. As the same eternal paradox stretches outward(and ironically inward) with that single reflection of NO FACTS.


"as the supernatural would fall outside the realm of the physical universe."

Earthquakes used to be considered Supernatural. Lightning could still be considered Supernatural by what we know of it.

As for existentialism, it kind of denies the concept of Nihilism. What if you only exist for the depravity of another person, technically if God created you and he is omnipotent and omnipresent, then he is you. So you are not you but God, as is everyone else. Saying I exist is a state of individual incarnation and realization, but by means of Christian statements and many other religions you can determine you are not really "I" but "everyone" equavically bringing you to the point you don't exist as yourself, but only as a stone left for someone to trip on.
"I think therefore I am" basically states that everyone around you thinks, and that rocks can think(which brings you to nihilism-- if it were said t hat rocks dont think and they are only there cause your thinking makes them there-- which would more likely be that you are the product of another persons imagination than the opposing element), which refutes all scientific knowledge, since this is a scientific discussion of sorts(or at least that's how it seems) you have to conclude existentialism is merely supernatural and must be excused, with the lack of existentialism most of this argument must be assumed supernatural, and all knowledge can thusly be concluded "Fallacy". Point in case. Candy is great. Floom.

[CaptainBubba]

Vibe: The entire message of your post is an indication that you've strayed from the initial meaning and intent of this post. i didn't ask a question about god, or at least thats not what I was trying to do. This thread has gone terribly awry and I'll admit its partly my fault for miswording my inital message.

Your saying that language gives us an inability to convey conepts would logically reduce to you not being capable of explaining to me this "feeling" you get, or if we take it one step further, anything regarding the metaphysical, thereby ending any possibility of the conversation going any further.

Jesus, its not that hard to see. Or were you just trying to harass me for the sake of seeming as if you posed a question I couldn't answer?

You say that you can understand god but cannot explain it to me because of the limitations of language. I believe my translation is accurate considering this. And just for the record I think its bullshit, but thats a very different thread with a very different theme.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

Italian Stereotype
Sure that's the dictionary definition, but the term "phenomena" is very vague in context. Science is based on physical laws, theories, observations, etc., all of which can only be used to describe the observable universe. Obviously if something is outside the observable universe, science cannot describe it because it is impossible to observe either directly or indirectly. It can of course attempt to, however this is the point at which one enters the realm of philosophy, metaphysics, and, should you wish, theology - and the point at which true empirical science disappears.

I also dispute your contention that few people believe in a 6000 year old earth that was once covered by floodwater; I've debated many a fundie over the last year online, and they all have truckloads of so-called "evidence" to prove their asinine "creation theory", which ignores the fact that biblical creationism is unscientific to begin with and thus cannot be a scientific theory.

I'll add more later, I'm pressed for time.

[kahljorn]

You said "Religion". People think God when they think Religion, it's just one of those things I guess.

[CaptainBubba]

If it helps matters any, my intent in this post was to hear a logical argument in support of the existence of anything metaphysical, because I have yet to hear one and I desperately want to. This is not a "convert to aethiesm" thread.

[kahljorn]

You existing is metaphysical, in any shape and form, no matter if it's nihilist or creationism.

[CaptainBubba]

Thats why I used "religion" instead of metaphysical. Ok. I'll give it another shot: The existence of something which cannot be proven or disproven.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

kahljorn is correct. I think it's best summed up as such:

=============================================

And You? How Real Is Your Mind?

So, to wrap things up: we live in a place that’s not really a ‘place’, we’re made of stuff that’s not really ‘stuff’ and what we see is only a small part of what’s really there. Matter, time, dimensions, the Universe – it’s all lucid, unreal. We live in a kind of bubble that’s not really a bubble, and we’re surrounded by tiny, resonating strings that play a kind of multidimensional music we call ‘matter’. Pretty confusing, don't you think?

Gladly, you can cling to this one security: that you are here. No matter how weird the stuff around you is, you are definitely for real. No need to explain: you just know you are.

But do you really?

Let’s do an experiment. Speak out your name over and over and over and over again. After a while, you’ll notice something weird. Your name will begin to sound strange. It’s no longer something that is you – your name is just a word, a random sequence of syllables and sounds that other people utter when they want to catch your attention. If your parents had given you another name, you would listen to another sequence of sounds.

The same happens when you look in the mirror. Stare at your own face long enough, and you’ll suddenly realize it’s just another face. The face in the mirror is, of course, yours. But after a while, it won’t feel like that anymore. The face you see could be anybody's.

Most neuroscientists agree the same applies for your consciousness. The thing you call your ‘self’ is most likely an illusion, created by your brain. Your brain gives you vision, sound, speech, feelings, and thoughts. When you add all these things up, you’ll have some overall feeling of awareness you call your consciousness. But still, your brain is the thing running it. Your feeling of ‘self’ is best compared to a software program running. It looks very real – but it isn’t.

Of course, most people believe there is something like a ‘soul’ or a ‘spirit’ living inside of you. But when it comes down to facts, there just isn’t any evidence for that. Every thought you have, every move you make, every emotion you feel - it’s just brain, brain, brain.

There are actually experiments that prove it. When you disturb your brain in a certain way, your feeling of ‘self’ can get detached from your brain. Suddenly, it will feel as if ‘you’ are not inside your body anymore. You experience what is known as an ‘out of body experience’, or a ‘near death experience’. But you don’t have to be nearly dead to feel it. The sensation can easily be created in a laboratory, by placing a helmet with rotating magnetic fields on your head. The magnetic field acts like a ‘jam signal’ on your brain. Suddenly, you'll feel like you're floating outside your body. But you aren’t. It’s just your brain going confused.

And you don't really need a helmet to do the trick. Visiting a place where the movement of the Earth's crust generates magnetic fields can give you the experience. Being in a situation where your brain doesn't get enough oxygen sometimes does it. Certain brain operations bring out the experience. Meditation and intensive prayer can generate it.

In fact, exactly this is why some people see ghosts, or Maria, or feel like they are visited by aliens. It is an incredible weird experience to be ‘outside of your brain’. Your brain will try to make sense of it. Immediately, the rational part of your brain will come up with an ‘explanation’ for the experience. You will sense a ‘presence’ near you. If you’re religious, you might see Maria, or Jesus. If you believe in UFOs, your brain might tell you you’re visited by aliens. If you believe in ghosts, you’ll feel the presence of a ghost of a dead person. But in reality, it’s your own feeling of self you’re experiencing.

==============================================

Taken from here (http://www.xs4all.nl/~mke/exitmundi.htm).

[Vibecrewangel]

Bubba - I suggest you go back and look at your posts. You continually brought up God from post one. And any time I strayed it was in direct response to one of your questions or comments.

In one final attempt to explain it to you. When someone talks about God with me, I understand them to be talking about what I call the singularity that is all the infinite possibilities in existance. The wording is different, but the meaning is the same. THe problem is most people are caught up in the words and the meaning gets lost. Just as when someone talks of the Great Spirit or the Zen void. The problem is that when I use my words they don't mean anything to say a Catholic. In the case of something like God, the best and closest example I can come up with is an emotion. We all know what love is. We understand it. We feel it. But to explain it......that is the hard part. We have come to a group concensus to call the feeling love (in english). When it comes to those great big things beyond us but that we all know and understand we still haven't come to an agreement of what to call it. That's all. Try to get past the words to the meaning and you'll see what I am saying.

Now, to try and find you the answer you want.
What would you consider proof? Without knowing what you will accept and what you won't I can't find the proof you want. In other words, what language do you want it in? Visual evidence? Scientific method that comes to a hard conclusion?
I'm asking since the fact that almost all religions tell similar stories is not enough for you (when it comes to that end of things) I would need to know what you would consider proof.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm being completley serious. But I am going to tell you that if you don't know what you will accept as proof then you are unlikely to accept any answer. And then you will have to do what I suggested earlier and go have your religious experience or epiphany or solve that theoretical equasion and come back and explain it to us. I mentioned it before and you didn't like the answer. Sometimes there are things that you just know but to explain it......
Ever done tech support? Some people just don't get it no matter how many times or in how many ways you go over it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Mr. Chapwire, that was lovely.

[CaptainBubba]

Scientific method that comes to a hard conclusion. But not just that. I would need to know what people mean by god. To believe in something I need to at least have an idea of what it is.

I don't bring up god. I respond to posts which bring up god. God would obviously fall into the classification of the world of the unprovable and undisprovable/metaphysical/ and religious. Unless he doesn't, which was one of the big issues of my initial post.

I do see what you mean by your language comment and I see what your saying. Its a valid point, but it assumes that there is a god and that it just can't be conveyed.

But I find it bitterly ironic that at the moment I have mentally reached a standstill as I cannot think of any way to convey to you my thoughts on the topic I initially wished to discuss. Maybe I'm just sleepy. I wish I could start this over.

Chapwire: Cool article. And ya. Thats a big trump card right there. heh.

[kahljorn]

Dude, my lips are chapped.

[Vibecrewangel]

That made me laugh. It is irony. I like irony.

Honestly, do you really think that cultural differences play absolutly no role in how things are described? Especially ancient events since scientific method didn't really exist then. Would someone who lived in a dessert 2000 years ago describe a comet passing overhead the same way an islander would? Or someone in the jungle? What about a matriarichal society versus a patriarical one? Or a tribal versus one with an organized church? How about if one group experienced a disaster shortly thereafter and connected the two in the telling? Take into consideration that linguistics come into play as well and you have what I am talking about. Many different ways to explain the same event.

So like I said before, you want a scientic answer and I'm telling you that IMHO the equation that explains the existance of the universe is just another way of taking about what some people call God. It is just coming from a different frame of refference than the religious one. The event, the creation of the universe, remains constant.


If you want, come up with another metaphysical event and I'll do what I can to find the scientific evidence....just remember, I can't run the equations myself, but I can find them.

[CaptainBubba]

Honestly, do you really think that cultural differences play absolutly no role in how things are described?
Uhhhhh, dude, I agreed with you on that. :confused

Anyway, let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying you can provide me with scientific evidence (In English, with western cultral influences) that proves the Christian god exists?

Btw, are you being sarcastic about the irony? Cuz there really wouldn't be a reason for you to be, but it kinda sounds like it.

[Vibecrewangel]

No I really do love irony. It bites me in the ass all the time. If it weren't for irony I wouldn't learn anything. (honestly no sarcasm)

Anyway, let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying you can provide me with scientific evidence (In English, with western cultral influences) that proves the Christian god exists?

No. But if you are willing to remove all cultural references and get to the base meaning then I really don't have to do much. If you remove all the cultural references you are pretty much left with
God = creator of the universe
Since creator implys a human cultural reference I will strip that down even further to

God = creation of the universe

so if you compare it to

Solution from the equation for creation if the universe = creation of the universe

You have the comparison.

Unfortunately, you seem to be just as caught up in the language and references as the religious people are. That isn't a bad thing. Hell, most everyone is. But to get to the comaprison you have to be able to let go of those references. For me it started with simply being able to compare one religious story to that of another culture. When I started looking into physics I realzed that the "story" was the same. It just lacked any cultural reference at all.

[CaptainBubba]

So you don't think any religious literature is literal (i.e. god is actually the big bang/whatever happened at the beginning and not a big black man with white puffy hair in the clouds) ?

[Vibecrewangel]

Pretty much. :)

I've always believed that the more words you use to describe something the further away from the meaning you get. I think that's why I like cliche's. Short and to the point. For the most part.

[Sir Douglas Chapwire]

Avoid cliches like the plague; they're old hat.

[Vibecrewangel]

Okay....I'm liking you more and more

[The_Rorschach]

"So you don't think any religious literature is literal (i.e. god is actually the big bang/whatever happened at the beginning and not a big black man with white puffy hair in the clouds) ?"

I want chapter and verse of any scriptue which proclaims God is the Big Bang, or even equates one with the other in the loosest terms.

Genesis 1:1 does, however, states, "In the begnning God created the Heavens and the Earth" which, literally, defines the parameters of creation:

A..) Time ("In the beginning. . .")
B..) Space (. . .the Heavens. . .")
C.)) Matter ("and the Earth")

But not the means of that production. Maybe I'm just an ignortant yokel, but never in my readings have I glimpsed anything which could possibly encompass the manner of creation, aside from He spoke it and it was. Bubba, not to be insulting, but you obviously have no idea what is in the Bible, and quite possible no other religious text out there. Until you get an adequate background for this discussion, why not simply drop it?

[Vibecrewangel]

To be fair Ror, I think he is basing that on a very simplified version of what I have been saying. Though the comparison you made is pretty similar to mine. Again, just substituting one referrence for another.

It just goes past most people when I say that God / Universal Conciousness / The Great Spirit / Allah / I could go on....is just a cultural and linguistical difference. I end up having to let them argue the point with me saying the same thing 20 different ways until it makes sense. That would be some of my own irony.....I keep saying that the words cover the meaning, but I end up having to say the same thing 20 different ways until the meaning clicks for people.

I don't want people to accept my view.....the singularity concept....just accept that if we were all pointing at that special something and all yelling out our word(s) for it, would it really change what that something was? Or would we just keep arguing about who gets to name it?


I think the "and God said let there be light and there was" describes the same thing as the big bang theory.


Personally I see nothing wrong with religion as long as people hold onto the meaning. Ror, you and Italian are good people (at least from what I can tell) that too me is holding onto the meaning that all religions encompass. I respect your faith...even though I am sure that Italian doesn't see it that way and would often like to reach through the computer and throtle me. But the honest truth is that I think that if more people listened to the words, but kept the meaning in their heart then the world would be a better place.
Like I said, it was the Christian faith that was the missing piece for me. I used to be so adamantly against it that I would hear none of it. But when I stopped being a pagan twit I learned a lot. And the puzzle really started to take shape for me. I know it probably means very little, but though I don't accept the wording, I do accept the meaning. Simply because I believe that the meaning of God or which ever name you want to give it (not a derogatory term) is what is important.

[CaptainBubba]

i.e. god is actually the big bang/whatever happened at the beginning and not a big black man with white puffy hair in the clouds) ?

Besides. It wasn't MY idea Ror. It was Vibes. Can you read? I don't even agree with Vibe as of yet. I'm merely trying to find out what she is trying to explain to me. Jesus you're eager to insult me. Be patient, the time will come shortly I'm sure, but it makes you look like a moron when you jump at me at innapropriate times.

Ok. Anyway. So No religious literature is literal. Would it all simplify to simply "something started everything" or is it any more complex than that in your opinion?

[The_Rorschach]

No I can't. My posts are the miraculous result of hitting random keys.

Now lets test your reading comprehension skills. By asserting WHATEVER ELSE HAPPENED you are, by ommission, admitting you have no fucking clue. I.E. you are not well versed on this subject, otherwise, you would be able to add a rebuttal against her statements. And before you say something else predictably lame, like you didn't want to take the time, didn't have the interest what have you, don't bother, noone cares.

People like you really make me reconsider my stand on the ban issue. Maybe proof of a high school diploma should be a prerequisite to posting at the Mock. . .

[kahljorn]

"I also dispute your contention that few people believe in a 6000 year old earth that was once covered by floodwater"

Six thousand is certainly unrealistic, I'm pretty sure that some of the history of mankind(not necessarily recorded, but by artifacts and paintings and crap like that) dates around then. Plus wasn't the egyptian crap around that time?
However, the idea of the earth being completely submerged in water near the begining isnt at all intolerable, imagine gravity playing a slight effect on the surfaces of water with dirt sand and other matter that has collected at the top of the water. Dead corpses and such as well. Crap that gets scraped off the bottom of the sea and gradually builds up.

God slowly creating the heavens and earth isnt so impossible either, after the big bang shit didnt come together. It took a while for the heavens and earth to become heavens and earth, they didnt just miraculously pop out of the spigam splosion as the universe all structured(antropy I believe it's called).
To sum it up into the form of a great man's poetic(almost prose) philisophical fantastic words:

"transcedent echoes, reflecting each and own.
the paradox of so called war
wretched and worn, the wicked battles before
Frustration marks dawns daily stride
the perilous times above; the earth and the moon true celestial foes
begining of an unspoken wrath, borne of century ravaged empties
marked begining, ends, dust and eclipse
times began to ache, when the dust began to speak and gather
Erupted in this streaming vacuo of gold and silver
Interaction became the remedies to disease
Empty spaces were more deliberate then
seemed to tell the tale of betrayal
we named it change, discarded for a mirror and a vase
the energy, lustful and unified; tasteful agony
as the weak gravitated in the wake of ancients
now this light and dark we came to know
the gods afore-everything else was to remain in cruel shadow
negated sanctity for spites upon the soul
they were caged in a sea of worry
a new entity had appeared among the stars
accumulation became the insidious plot of the unified
assimilation from the mist, into the sea of wholes
the darkened battlefields lie above, where torn and ravaged scars remain
earth is the victor, in this cruel sport of souls"

[CaptainBubba]

I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO TELL ME. I AM EXPLAINING MY INTERPRETATION OF HER WORDS. I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT IF MY INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. I HAVE NOT STATED MY OPINION IN THE LAST FEW POSTS EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO YOUR INCOMPETENCE IN READING MY POSTS. KINDLY ALLOW OUR CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE OR MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO ADD RELEAVANT INFORMATION.

[Vibecrewangel]

Please go back and read my post I edited it during your last couple.....bad vibe....no biscuit

[kahljorn]

Hey, I don't have a highschool Diploma :(

[CaptainBubba]

Thx for clearing that up. :) If all religion is just a cultural and figurative way of explaining creation then sure, I get it.

What I'm more looking to figure out is those that adamently believe that its litterally true.

BTW I still think its hilarious how every single comment by Ror has been based completely on scathing misenterpretations of not only my own statements, but, such as in the latest case, misenterpretations of conversations. You're trying too hard sweetie. Calm down and wait for the right moment.

[Vibecrewangel]

Kahl...you spew such beautiful peacful Buddhist ideas with such vehemence I often have to laugh.......you are also a big part of my irony-to-learning cycle.

[Vibecrewangel]

Those are the ones who have gotten caught up in the words but in many cases have lost the meaning.
My goal is to get people back to the point where the meaning is what is important.

[kahljorn]

I like to cuss alot when I try to sound smart, it throws people off because I replace words like Joyful, serene, serendipity and all those smart words I like to use with masticate and fuck.
That fucking wedding had lots of fucking cake I had to masticate myself because the fuckers wouldn't fucking give me anymore cake. But what I really mean is, that was such a wonderful wedding, it had lots of deliscious cake, I had to watch my apetite because there wasn't too much cake (those cocksucking bastard motherfuckers with not getting enough cake)

[kahljorn]

I think every culture kind of had a little strife. You see, in order to learn and grow, there's always little fights(they are key pro quo existence insert other per se quoting latin words to sound smart ad hhominem. Basically confliction and interaction is necessity to any form of existence, see, for example, quantam mechanics). So every Culture might have had three different dickheads with somewhat similar or even completely different ideas on creation, and a few things could have happened: People could have accepted the happier more joyful one that brings their hearts peace, or the more powerful that allows them to feel like super beings. The king could've decreed, or the others lost faith or just fell to the victor in some other manner. So basically, all the bullshit going on now a-days with the arguments and the not knowing what's going on is just a result of the "Melting Pot" scenario and communication on the rise. We should find the new truth soon. It's science! WEIRD SCIENCE.

[Vibecrewangel]

Yeah if I remember correctly that was how our argument started......now that I get you I find it funny as hell. And I've learned a lot from you. So take that you Buddhist Bastard.

[kahljorn]

I'm not actually buddhist, I just know stuff. Stuff that's buddhist.

[Vibecrewangel]

So Bubba....do you see why I went the way I did? Letting you go over the 20 or so different ways I said the same thing? In the end you found the one way that that made sense to you.

[Vibecrewangel]

Hey Kahl...you do realize that that is what Buddhism is right. Knowing stuff and understanding said stuff generally without being taught. knowledge without learning.......but hey I understand not wanting the title. I have started claiming it so that people will listen. People like classifications.....easier to understand.

[kahljorn]

I don't like stupid people understanding me anyway. They will twist it and fuck it up when they try to sound smart with their friends. I just say I'm a Philosophist.

[Vibecrewangel]

That is all Buddha was too. But I get ya. :)

[kahljorn]

Buddha was sober though, and he wore expensive rings. I only wear shiney rings. His ruby ring wearing puts him in a different class.

[Vibecrewangel]

That's my birthstone

[kahljorn]

I'm an amethyst I think, I was going to change my middle name to my birthstone just cause it's better. My first name was going to be some other crazy concoction.

[CaptainBubba]

Ya I get it. Its a very interesting point. :)

Though I feel most would dismiss it as a misenterpretation of their religion/lack of religion/whatever and state that their belifs are correct and only theirs. (I do see the fallacy in this reasoning, but I doubt most would, at least initially).

[Vibecrewangel]

If you want a to learn more about the bible and what it means, go back through some of Italian Sterotypes posts. He not only can quote and reference the bible, but historical facts that support it as well. But even more importantly he understand and believes the meanings behind the words. When he speakes of his faith you have to understand that it is as deep and real as if you were feeling the most potent emotion.
And if you happen to decide to ask him some questions, be careful not to step on his faith. His answers are not the typical "because the bible said so" answers and his faith is not lip service.
This goes for Ror too.

Just try to remember when you ask questions to really listen to the answers and look for the meaning lke you did with me towards the end. You will learn a heck of a lot if you do.

[imported_Wicked Steve]

The issue I have with biblical apologists is that they so rarely seem to take into account the time when the Bible was written. I hear people equating the big bang with "In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth," and that six days was a metaphor for several billions of years...but these are relatively new ideas. Thousands of years ago, when the Bible was written and compiled, who had any idea about the big bang theory, or the age of the universe? Doesn't it seem far, far more likely that they literally believed what they said, and were too busy recording what they thought was the truth than to deal in symbolism and analogy, especially given that, for many centuries, most people were uneducated and wouldn't understand that sort of thing? If they thought creation really took a long, long time, why wouldn't they just write that it did? Or were they trying to make all-powerful God seem even more powerful by making him work faster?

[kahljorn]

Except back then all the schitzophrenic people talked to God, and therefore God told them how it was. The only "Faults" in this aspect is Perception, which could account for "Six days".
Besides, who the fuck wants to sit around and go, "In the first one thousand years God created a speck of dust in the Alpha quadrant, this marked the begining of the universe as we know it!" "In the 3,000th year God made the first hydrogen atom, this was the begining of a fabulous star!" "THEN IN 5,000 ANOTHER SPEC OF DUST WAS FORMED AND IT BECAME FRIENDS WITH THE FIRST AND THEY MADE A SMALL CLUMP OF DUST THE APROXIMATE SIZE OF A HAIR FOLICLE AND THEY HAD CHILDREN AND LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER"

[imported_Wicked Steve]

This goes back to what I said about modern vs. ancient knowledge. They didn't know anything about the universe or hydrogen atoms or anything. They knew Heaven, Earth, and nothing else - stars were just lights from Heaven, and Earth was the only place God was really concerned with (as far as they knew).

What makes the people who talked to God schizophrenic, and furthermore, what does their perception have to do with what God told them about creation (obviously, they couldn't have been around to see it for themselves)? Again, why would God tell them he created everything in six days if it really took him a very long time? Did he want them to feel Earth was more special than it really was? Did he think they wouldn't be able to comprehend billions of years?

Finally, who wants to sit around and go, "and this is the lineage of [Adam/Noah/David/whover]?" Same boredom factor, to me.

[kahljorn]

"what does their perception have to do with what God told them about creation"

The same way what I told you was dismissed, obviously.

And yes, they didn't have knowledge of Hydrogen or dust. I don't think the Feather duster was invented till like 900 ad. Of course, you didnt understand that it was changed from ancient knowledge to modern knowledge, not only by removing the six days but by inserting crappy scientific leverage that obviously made little regard. Right? RIGHT? Right.

Again, why would God tell them he created everything in six days if it really took him a very long time?

Maybe God stays awake for a smillion years at a time, then goes to sleep. Days on earth are related to the sun, but God doesnt live on Earth(he's everywhere, maybe a day to him is a turn of the universe or something). His perception of days and time are different, just like someone who lives on mars would have different length days.

Maybe it's just divided like that for orderly functions, I mean really. Do you want a history of creation to memorize? 100001091828037100108334718038417830 bc, First star created. Remember that, I expect you to know that whole number by heart when you are quized, also the molecular density and structure of the star. Have a good day, don't forget to read page 98716838111737719371938041 chapter 87 of your Creation History Computer Harddrive.

[CaptainBubba]

I declare this thread over. :(

Vibe: Maybe if it wasn't for their utter hubris, I could carry on a normal conversation with either of them. :/

[kahljorn]

The word Hubris is like a trend here.

[imported_Wicked Steve]

Forgive me for not catching on, and I'm not trying to argue, but the first half of your post didn't sound like it had anything to do with what we were talking about.

The second half I get. But.

I was thinking God would either cater to the people's level of thinking and tell them exactly what happened in terms they would understand or not bother to tell them at all. He would have known how long they thought a day was, so even if a "day" is a longer time to him, he wouldn't call a million years a day when talking to humans because they wouldn't understand.

[kahljorn]

I honestly doubt they would have understood either way, if people could actually understand God I wonder at the miracles of the Crusade and other forms of suffering.

The original point I was attempting to make, in fact, was that whoever God told could have misentrepted his word. Perception, you see. Though, maybe they saw it through his eyes, the days and nights. And if I remember correctly God didnt even create the days and nights till like the fourth day or something, so the days can't have anything to do with earthly values.

[imported_Wicked Steve]

That's a better explanation than any I've heard so far..I feel slightly more enlightened now. Thanks.

[kahljorn]

I'm talking out of my ass too. That's how I operate, though. By ass.