Badmovies.org Forum

The question eternal and the question asked eternally.

I have no belief that there is a god, science continues to disprove religion. Religion now is for those who want something to cling to for hope or forgiveness. I believe in evolution not creationsim. When you look back, the things in life that people could not explain, were attributed to god or worst case scenario for some, witchcraft. As time has gone on and technology and science has improved, the days of almighty god and fire & brimstone bullballs are dying out.

Hey, if I'm wrong then I'm going to Hell.  :teddyr: I look forward to many a poker night with Satan, listening to Slayer.  :bouncegiggle:

God is something created by man to help him feel better.  When man feels all alone, and/or is going through a rough time in his/her life, a personal "God" may make them feel better.  Of course, this inevitably leads to many problems, when people try to force their "God" on other people.

And I am not intending to be rude or insulting in any way.

I had to put a vote in for "asinine." The question is pointless and divisive. It can't be answered in any objective sense, and I think we already have a pretty good idea who believes what on this board. Let's not go looking for trouble.

For the record, I can say without any doubt that DOG does exist. Here's proof.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Bichon_Frise_600.jpg)

I used to believe that god exists.  I did for a quite a long while when I was younger.  Only with in the last few years have I questioned that if a god or gods exist at all.  But as Circus-Circus said, science is continuing to disprove religion and as result make me question that if a god exists as all.

I tend to agree with Circus. There are SO many things that many years ago we thought were magic or something of the sort, that we now know are much simpler and explainable. Some societies thought BIRDS were magical, , nope, simple physics, that's all. Many Indians and other tribes thought certain plants allowed them to talk to god, we now call those "halucinogens", it is all in the user's brain. Electricity once was thought to be magical, now we know better. People use 'God' to explain everything they can't otherwise understand, but just because we can't understand it doesn't make it magic. My wife has no idea how the internal combustion engine works, but she doesn't think he car is magic, and I expect that someday everyone will feel the same about, for lack of a better term, life, the universe, and everything.

I've heard people say things like "If you've ever witnessed the birth of a child, you know that that beauty can only be the result of God". Sorry, I've seen it, , and it's pretty gross. Yes, when it's your OWN kid, it seems magical, , but no, it's not. Think about movies tha tdepict an Alien giving birth and how gross that is. Then think about an alien seeing a HUMAN birth, which would look to them equally disgusting. Would that STILL prove the existence of God? Think about that the next time you're high. .

As time goes on, we see less miracles, especially since methods of recording them have become commonplace. Many 'miracles' are explained, others, their surrounding story changes, sometime in defence of explanation.

One of the things that stick out in my mind is the interview of a death-row inmate: His claims were that a) Sin is sin, , murder no more so than any other. b) we have all sinned, therefore none of us are any better than him. c) He asked for forgivness, therefore he is going to heaven. d) because EVERYONE didn't 100% forgive him for murdering his victim, WE were going to hell. So, the murderer goes to Heaven, everyone else to hell. Yea, that's right and just.

As human beings, we are always striving to be smarter today than we were yesterday, and for tomorrow to be a better day than today. OK, that's understandable, but, religon as I see it was fabricated as a way to convince ourselves and others that this will always be true. It is not. Some people have a REALLY bad day, a day which is also their LAST day. Religon is a way of confirming to ourselves that here is always hope, someday we will know everything. Well, I'm not convinced there is. We live, we DIE, and there's NO hope of changing that. That's what makes life worth living is that there's a challenge in making a difference in your extremely finite lifespan. We are all going to die with a great many unanswered questions, and that's OK. Just recently a 50+ year old experiment to try and simulate what is thought to be a likely scenario that would create the basic building blocks of life here on earth (Amino acids), was found to be much more successful that was previously thought. I see people trying to discredit it through science, under then name of God. How convienent, just when we were supposed to ignore SCIENCE for FAITH, now we're supposed to embrace SCIENSE and twisted probability (I'm referring to the 'Ferrari arguement').

All in all, just do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Remember that the better you make the world, the better of a world there will be for everyone else.

Personally, I think that the sceneario of their being a God is flawed based soley on the existence of man. Man has been the WORST thing for existence as I see it.

That's my $.02, take it for what it's worth.

(http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/3664/unclesamxt2.jpg)

I have some sympathy with AndyC's position, especially with respect to the existence of dog.

Just to muddy the waters, ER, I should point out that you haven't defined the term "God."  Theoretically, you could convince anyone of the existence of God by simply defining "God" as the cause or basic underlying nature of reality.  Einstein and Osama bin Laden both claimed to believe in God, but neither would accept the other's position because they don't call the same thing "God".

Since I assume you meant some being essentially like the Christian God, I voted "probably not."  I don't believe in a God that takes an active part in human affairs and intervenes in history, using the occasional miracle to selectively break the physical laws he created, just in order to impress us with his existence.  I also can't see any reason to believe in any sort of personal immortality, beyond wishful thinking. 

But I do see a logical need for a "first cause" or an "uncaused cause" for the universe to exist at all, and a mystery at the metaphysical basis of reality, much like Einstein did.  So, I could easily have voted "probably" or "absolutely" if I thought the term "God" had been defined that way.

WARNING WARNING WARNING, EXPLICIT CONTENT... NSFW!  (you were warned)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
George put into words most of my thoughts on religion...

I've seen things in my life that makes me wonder if some kind of force exists in the universe.  Certain things have happened in my life that make me wonder if it was meant to be that way for a reason. Then theres a side of me that makes me wonder if its just all timing and shear coincidence. 

I haven't figured that out for sure yet but I feel that the Bible is just a book of philosophy and history (some real, some horribly exaggerated).  Granted a lot of it is a good guide to being a good person.  That and it has some great lessons on life. However, to paraphrase George in the video above, so don't most fairy tails.  I find churches a waste of space that can be used for a much greater cause for the community.  That and the fact they live tax free...ok...I know George covered that so I'll spare you the tangent.  :wink:  Most religion to me is a giant crutch for people to fall back on when things go apesh*t.  My philosophy though is if it works for you (depending on potential illegalities of your religion), go with it and keep it to yourself.  Hence why I'm probably not going to get into any flame wars if they come up here. 

 So if this is based on a Christian God, I vote for "absolutely not".  Although I see Andy's point about this being "asinine" seeing "god" means different things to different people. 

Edit:  To add to AndyC's thoughts, here is a Mog
(http://www.spaceballcity.de/spaceballs/images/barf2.jpg)

Reminds of some funny points Bill Hicks made NSFW

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qSyxAqmlOTE

Yep.  I believe so.

I feel that if there is not a literal God, there is at least some benevolent force in the universe that watches over us and deals out some form of karmal (is that right?) punishment.  I do feel that there is some form of afterlife, even if it's not the steryotypical heaven we have created for t.v.  Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm right, but as Slartibartfast said, "I'd rather be happy than right any day."

Plus, if I am wrong and there is no God, what'll I care I'll be dead.

Of course there is a God.  The complexity and wonder of the universe is too marvelous to be an accident.  And for all that Science has explained, there are many things that it cannot, still.  And many of the things we thought science had explained a hundred years ago have turned out to be dead wrong.  How many of the things in our textbooks today will people laugh at a century from now?

  I believe in the God of the Bible with all my heart.  I believe He was incarnated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth nearly 2000 years ago, and that He still lives today.

  I try not to browbeat people with my faith, but I make no secret of it either.  I would challenge those who summarily reject the notion of deity to read three books with an open mind and see what conclusions they lead you to. The first is the Gospel of John.  The second is Lee Strobel's powerful work, THE CASE FOR FAITH. If that one intrigues you, go on and read THE CASE FOR CHRIST by the same author. 

  I do not believe in forcing anyone to my point of view, ever.  But neither do I believe that I must keep my mouth shut about my views just because some others don't share them.  The marketplace of ideas is free and open.

I voted Assinine.
I don't see how god is relevent because I'm such a lowly being that's only capable of sin, and I can't knowingly communicate with God. I can never be devine, and any attempt would be wrong, because I'm human.

Religion was used to try to explain things; sometimes sill, governmental reasons like law and order, and still to comfort people when a loved ones dies. Religion and science are incompatible because their coming into being are thousands of years apart. We developed our scientific skills of investigation into a discipline later; that's why nothing in the Bible can be explained scientificly, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

However, Nietzsche said that science just describes things better then religion, but doesn't explain them. This came from a man who said "God is Dead".

So I just find it totally useless to even try to contemplate God, and I find comfort in not screwing with people, because I will get screwed with back.

If I do go to hell, all the best revolutionaries will be there, and we will overthrow Satan and rule Hell!

Not really, , The most marvelous thing man has ever seen is simply one end of the spectrum of things man has seen. There always has to me a 'most' and a 'least'. As for complexity goes, it sounds a bit arrogant to me to feel that just because man can't understand it, there must be something mythical behind it. Again, it's only one end of the spectrum.


Like?

Anatolian shepherds are beautiful dogs.

(http://www.i-love-dogs.com/dog-breeds/images/Anatolian-Shepherd.jpg)

Somehow I figured that once the election was over and politics have immediately become a dead topic until the new guy takes the reins, religion was going to rear its head onto the board again... Haven't we all agreed already during the 30 or so other discussions on the topic that the faithful will remain faithful and the logical will remain logical? Is there really anything left on the topic left to be said that can't already be found by digging through the archives? Nobody's going to convince anybody to change their opinion on the matter. We might as well just record our positions on cassette tapes, put 'em on an infinite loop in a room full of reel-to-reels, and leave it at that. Unless you're talking about those goofy-ass Left Behind movies, religion and ethics have about as much place on a bad movie board as I have in a house of worship. :drink:

Think maybe that might be why it's in the off-topic board? 

Oh yeah, good point. This is about as off-topic as you can get. I'll go back to staying away from it now.  :drink:

I figure that well find out soon enough, and might find out at any time.  So why sweat it? 
So I'll go the the playground wth my daughter. 
-Ed

(http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1258/20030421zi5.gif)


Go buy Mark Parisi stuff, he's an extremely nice guy....

I went with "perhaps not", only because you can't actually disprove the existence of god, and I was raised Catholic and I'll still say a little prayer if a family member is having health problems or something.  Hey, couldn't hurt.  But no, I don't believe in god.  Like others have said, it was a concept created by ancient people who had no knowledge of science.  Also, everyone fears death, and an afterlife is extremely comforting.  And people like to believe that there's some grand purpose to our existence.  It's a handy tool for politicians as well.  For instance, in ancient Egypt the Pharaoh had people lugging around huge rocks to build a tomb, in the desert heat for pete's sake, and many of them died.  Under normal circumstances, the people would have said that this is absurd, we could be tending our crops and raising our children, let's overthrow this idiot.  But of course, the Pharaoh was also a god, so if you went against him, you were damned in the afterlife, and maybe he would make your crops fail and perhaps the sun wouldn't rise any more. 

Basically, the concept of god makes no sense to me.  Why would a god need to be worshiped?  That seems extremely vain.  If he wants us to follow his commandments, why didn't he just make us incapable of disobeying them?  If he wants us to worship him, why give us no proof of his existence for 2,000 years?  It's like a huge sick game.  Little different than buying an ant farm and killing all the ants that walk to the left and rewarding all the ones who walk to the right with a nice piece of cake or something.  And what about all the other religions?  How does a person know they're following the correct one?  What if you're a good Catholic all your life, but it turns out the Lutherans were right?  Or maybe Zeus and Apollo are the ones who really hold all the power.

Having said that, I bear absolutely no ill will towards religious people.  In fact, I'm a bit jealous of this sense of inner comfort people find in their religious beliefs. 

I feel that my religious convictions have waned a bit over the years, but I still believe in God.  Logically you can't prove or disprove God's existence, but the whole faith thing comes into play and I try to stick with it. 

Even if God isn't in the form of the Christian God, I still think that it's kind of foolish to deny some greater force behind everything, whether or not it's an omnipotent being, or some unconcious power or whatever.  Science can explain a great deal and it's an exciting thing, and rather than being disillusioned by any discoveries it makes life more exciting to me.   It's kind of like the work of an illusionist; I marvel at what my eyes may have just seen and am amazed by the trickery, but I'm also fascinated to learn the mechanics behind the trick.  Of course that sort of wonder is what's behind science in the first place, I would say.

Does anyone have any explanations for man's love of music?  I haven't really heard any yet.  To me there's nothing much more mystical than music that moves me in some emotional way..  It's fun to make noise in a primitive sense, but I find music to be more complex and elusive than making racket.

I believe in Big Dog. I'm not yet convinced of the existence of Chihuahua.


Bingo. Exactly what was in my mind as I read this thread. I voted "probably yes" but thought "though we haven't defined the term". Similarly, I call myself a Christian but when explaining my philosophy to somebody in another forum, I was told that basically I was espousing agnosticism. I would probably have been burned at the stake for my "Christian" beliefs not too long ago. Afterlife? Dunno. Can't know. Not important to know. Divinity of Christ? Dunno. Can't know. Probably not. Not important. Historical accuracy of the biographical details of Jesus in the Bible? Dunno. Not important.

Much to my amusement, I got into an argument online with some guy who admitted that he was not a Christian and didn't know much about Christian theology, but nevertheless insisted that I was not a good Christian.


If even that can be defined. I find it patently obvious that the "Jewish God", the "Christian God" and the "Moslem God" are equivalent, and can't understand people in one camp who want to hate those in another on the basis of "Yes, I believe in a single all-powerful Creator, but I hate those people because *they* believe in a single all-powerful Creator, the heathen!"


I think I'd agree with you there. But I'd also say that I believe there's something more around here than what we perceive in our day-to-day existence. Might be "God". Might be "angels". Might be "invisible aliens from Planet Nine". Might be "normally untapped areas of human consciousness". Might be "my delusions". Dunno. Can't know. Not important to know.

I summarize this aspect of my beliefs as "prayer works".

But my definition of "prayer" might not be yours.

Ditto with my definition of "works".

(http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t214/morrisawilliams/gog.jpg)

Gog exists, and he's in Glorious Eastman Color.

I believe in G.O.D. Sometimes two of them.

(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7126/pkvolvogoded5.jpg)

I once knew of a Hindu family who had its OWN personal Hindu god who belonged just to them and them alone. I guess if your religion has 330,000,000 divine beings and there are only 200,000,000 Hindu families on planet earth, there are spare gods to go around!

I worship Don Johnson  :tongueout:

(http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/writers/gary_van_sickle/12/18/yearend.quiz/t1_johnson.jpg)

No, seriously...

Yes.


1.  God is perfection

2.  in order for something to be perfect,  it must exist.  you couldn't say something is perfct if itn't not there to be perfct.


3. therefore, because god is perfect, god MUST exist.

Saint something or other figured this out in like 800 ad

And I don't. . .  :lookingup:

How do you know that god is perfection though, who says?

ghouk circus -    because that's the definition of perfect.



if you were to make a really long dictionary entry about what the word "perfect" meant, part of it would be that it existed.


god is the embodiment if you willo of the thing known as perfection.


IF god is perfect as we've defined him then he must exist because if he didn't then he would no longer be perfect!!!

But you could use that to descibe almost anything as long as you believed it to be perfect.

Like cheese, or diamonds or "Electric Ladyland" and Angelina Jolie

I have no doubt that the WORD 'perfect' exists.

The Jolly Green Giant is perfect. .

Did I just cause the Jolly Green Giant to zap into existence?

Thomas Aquinas. He had a number of "proofs" along those lines.

Using Aquinas' logic from another "proof":

1. The Great Spaghetti-Monster is the most supreme being possible.

2. If the GSM existed only in our imaginations, he would not be as great as a being which existed independently of us.

3. Therefore the GSM must actually exist, not just in our imaginations.

Lather, rinse, repeat with "Xenu", "Zeus" or deity of your choice.

What did I say that that was supposed to be a reply to?

Faith aside, I don’t think humans can concretely know if there is a God, but Saint Thomas Aquinas, a man with a brain the size of a small planet and a stomach so large the king of France cut a wedge out of his feast table so Aquinas could fit there at dinnertime, disagreed with me for some reason on that subject. Aquinas saw science and religion as reconcilable, and in a nutshell here is one of his examples…

I recall in theology classes in Catholic school, the Jesuits made us study Aquinas A LOT, and while he was not whatcha call light reading, he did have the occasional burst of brilliant insight. In Summa Theologica he made the argument that everything, everywhere, everywhen exists because of a prior causative agent---your chair exists because someone made it out of wood or metal, etc., the tree existed because it was planted or fell from another tree, the moon exists because....etc.

Well, Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church, argued that if you trace the whole of existence backward, effect following cause, logically you arrive at a thing which had no prior event to set it into being. This was what the rotund 13th century Dominican called the uncreated creator, which in his view was a force so powerful it had no start, no creator, no causative agent, it simply existed throughout the entirety of time and reality, and this uncreated creator, the force which set all else into motion without ever having its own beginning, could only be God.

Considering what science is coming to understand about time being both real and seemingly circular, devoid a start and ending, I find Aquinas’ theory more interesting than ever. Are there counter-arguments? Plenty. Are there apparent holes in Aquinas' argument, yeah... but it makes for interesting contemplation, especially when you’re seventeen and the other things they make you study in theology class are even drier than that!

I went to a Saint Thomas Aquinas college, they wanted to make everyone play folk music and pray twice a day - I left after a week or two.

People attribute everything in existence including existence itself to god. I have yet to hear a decent explanation of how it could be WITHOUT everything and existence. Existence is because there is no other way.

Big Bang theory is much like how you describe Aquinas' reasoning backward. We trace back what we see the universe doing, and we get to a hypothesized state where all the matter was compressed into a small volume and was so incredibly hot that matter couldn't even exist, only particles. Go back further and all that energy was contained in an infinitesimal point.

I remember being awestruck when I first learned this stuff as a physics student. We're talking about the literal moment of creation, and we can put a date on it. Physics is telling us there was such a moment. But what started it? Where did that point-full-of-everything come from? What was before that? Physics has no way to answer those questions. They aren't even exactly meaningful, since (I'm getting out my depth here) time and space themselves came into existence then.

Then later I learned about the cosmic background experiments of George Smoot, looking for tiny variations in the radiation in the sky that are essentially footprints left over from the first instants of the universe. And they're out there. I still get a chill thinking about that. We can point our telescopes into the sky and literally see the fingerprints of Creation. Whether you believe in God or not, the fingerprints are there for all to see.

I totally agree, the only thing that bugs me is space - where does it end? How did space come into being? Here's hoping they get that damn collider working again.

"If god is perfect". .
I don't believe god exists, therefore there is nothing for me to believe is perfect.

This is the typical "I believe in god, and you don't, therefore I will always be right, so I am right in my belief that god exists" arguement. Create a self-supporting logical loop, swear it is correct due to it's own insistence that it is correct, , repeat. Once you get by whatever illusion was used to draw attention from the fact that one needs to take "Saint something or other's" word for it, it looks pretty transparent.

Amen to that.  :teddyr:

But... but.. I really do believe in Angelina Jolie. And the perfect cheese, for that matter.

Ok, what cheese is perfect?

Applewood cheese. Bet god doesn't taste this good?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Applewood_smoked_cheese.jpg/250px-Applewood_smoked_cheese.jpg)

Oh my, , only an immoral, uneducated, unenlightened applewood lover would think like that. There is SO MUCH proof all around us that Havarti is the best, most perfect cheese, you just choose not to admit it because of your own rampant ignorance and greed. It's applewood lovers like you that make me glad to love havarti, you're really proving my point for me, since only an applewood lover would think like that. But, I still love you. .

Hahahha, , you shoulda seen that coming. . . :teddyr:

as far as i'm concerned, space does not end. furthermore, it doesn't matter to me if it does or not.

both religion and science, two sides of the same coin, are used to obfuscate and distract us from the reality that we live in. science can give us a greater understanding of our world, and religion, for some, can give us a greater understanding of ourselves, but they're both pushed way too far in the aim of creating a purpose for our being here, and all of that takes away from our actually BEING here, existing, and enjoying life.

to paraphrase nietzsche, once we understand something in our minds it is dead in our hearts.

Pepperjack is the perfect cheese, end of story.

Try this one on for size:





Ten Ways I know God exists….


Without God we would not have buttercups, therefore God exists…

I know God exists because I pray to him…

God exists, because the Bible says God exists…

I know God exists because atheists and agnostics are a bunch of stupidheads…

I know God exists because the devil exists, and God made the devil…

God exists, because Jesus said we no longer have to keep kosher…

God exists, because a million churches full of believers can’t be wrong…

God exists because without God’s design, our earthly home would be a barren rock in lifeless space…

God exists, because he gave us the Republican Party, Wal-Mar, and NASCAR…

God exists because he made me so special…






Hmm, I wonder if I should duck now?

I agree with one of those, ER -

God made you special all right! :teddyr:

My dog enjoys an occasional bit of cheddar, making it Dog's chosen cheese.

Sadly, there has been endless fighting between the old, medium and mild cheddar factions, not to mention all the bloodshed over white vs. orange cheddar.

And yet, if one is willing to see, it is obvious that we all have a common enemy. Velveeta, the anti-cheese.

Rogue River Blue!

http://www.roguecreamery.com/pilot.asp?pg=RogueRiverBlue

If there was a god of cheese, he would eat this.  Unless he was allergic.
-Ed

Does god exist? Mess with me if you want to find out!  :wink:

My dog loved Velveeta, , used to give it to him then leave, it gave him horrible gas.

It's called the Ontological Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument), it originated in this form with St. Anslem around 1100 AD.  As you might guess, subsequent philosophers haven't exactly embraced it as an airtight argument. 

It doesn't make sense to me.  I can't accept the premise that whatever we can conceive must exist somewhere outside or minds.  It seems more likely to me that some of our "absolute" concepts, like infinity or perfection, are simply features of our consciousness, our frame of looking at things, and they don't bear much reference to ultimate reality. 

The Aquinas argument that ER mentions (the argument from causation) is to me the most convincing.  The only problem is, if you accept it, it only proves the existence of a first cause, not the existence of the Christian God.  Aquinas makes a rather startling leap when he says at the end of his argument "this all men recognize as God."

When I was younger I used to love arguing back and forth with my friends about these proofs.  Then one day I realized that for centuries people much smarter than me had been arguing the point back and forth, and getting nowhere.  I can't claim to be as smart as either Aquinas and Descartes on the one hand or Nietzsche and Hume on the other, yet they all reached different conclusions.  That's all the evidence I need to show that the existence or nonexistence of God is not something that can be established through brute reasoning.   

Nowadays, I'm more interested in the psychological angle, in seeing how different people approach the question.

These arguments are a nice way to sharpen your mind and your debating skills, but that's about it.

Proof of God's existence

(http://www.victoryseeds.com/candystore/images/junior_mints/jr_mints.jpg)

Really?

(http://5g8.net/smileys/lol-065.gif) (http://5g8.net)

Ohhh....how did I miss that?

Not only does that leave itself open to so many potentially coarse replies...


:lookingup: Oh, for example:

Put your faith where your mouth is

or

That's one way to get ahead in church (say it aloud)


...I could also concurrently offend every believer in this thread.


Ohhh...how did I miss that?





You go bro :thumbup:

Havarti Rules!!!

Not only is it the best cheese in the world, it's got a damn cool name too.

 :teddyr:

I've always found that stuff rather mind boggling.  Like, the big bang - what came before that?  Obviously there must have been something that caused it.  I've heard theories about planes of different dimensions coming into contact with each other and releasing gigantic amounts of energy, i.e. the big bang.  Maybe there are trillions of universes, they're just too far away for us to detect.  But why is there anything?  Why does matter and energy, or some more basic form of the stuff, exist in the first place?   And what would there be if there was no matter, energy, space, time, etc?  Not only nothing, but no space for the nothing to not occupy.  Is that even possible?  My imagination runs into a wall there.

I guess I don't take it as a proof for the existence of god, just because of the way my brain works.  If god exists, then obviously there must have been something that caused him as well.   Besides, it's infinitely more interesting to try to figure the whole thing out than to just write it off to god.  We've really only been studying astronomy in any serious sense for a few hundred years, and the same with advanced mathematics and physics, chemistry, etc.  A mere tick of the clock in human existence.  We're only grasping at the most basic of knowledge at this point.  Imagine a thousand, or a million years from now.

great spaghetti monster in your example is another name for god.  so yes, the great spaghetti monster exists and is perfect

actually, the flying spaghetti monster is an argument for the absurdity of beliefs of divinity, so you've just said that faith in a "god" is a bunch of silly nonsense.

They're no atheist in foxholes...


... and Jarlsberg is the best cheese.

 

I don't want to argue for or against faith, the whole point of "faith" is that you believe without evidence or the need of proof. But I do want to argue against Aquinas' silly arguments, or the idea that there can be a scientific of philosophical proof of the existence of a God. I sketched one out to my wife yesterday. She's a very spiritual and intelligent woman, with not a lot of background in (or patience for) philosophy. As soon as I started saying "therefore God must exist" she started drawing big circles in the air and saying "circular argument".

OK, you made me do this:

1. The universe is run by 17 perfect beings named "Joe" who live in your basement, eating Cheese Whiz and pretzels and watching old reruns of Gilligan's Island. Since they are perfect beings, they don't even need a television to do so.

2. If they didn't exist, they wouldn't be perfect, would they?

3. Therefore statement number 1 must be true.

Yes, so by that, even I could be god...

(http://www.undergroundartunion.com/images.master/i_gallery/pribly/art/001.jpg)

again, the 17 guys are just another name for god.  but you are arguing that in order to be perfect they HAVE to live in my basement and watch gilligans island which is not part of your definition for perfect.


also, why are people MAD at my 600 year old arguiment.  jeez

You're still skirting the issue. YOU decided there is something, and that it is perfect, and are trying to pass of the fact YOU believe it is perfect as FACT, and then citing that supposed FACT, as proof it exists. CIRCULAR ARGUEMENT, period.

Also, nobody said they were MAD. This is simply an age-old tactic that people of faith use to try and discredit poeple who do not share the same beliefs: Make one's non-belief into anger or hatred. As for the 600 year old comment, didn't people think the world was flat 600 or so years ago?

I'm not trying to discredit anything in any age old fashion.  I'm just trying to participate in a thread.  it's light entertainment.

and I didn't decide that god was perfect.  I'm saying that God is by definition perfect.  that's the difference between god and man in the dictionary.  man makes mistake, god doesn't. 

But who wrote the dictionary?

Assigning the quality of "perfect" to something, real or not, does not prove it's existence. Not sure what is so hard to understand about that. Surely you'd not let that logic apply anywhere else.

As for discrediting people, I have a hard time believeing that. I've heard too many discussions about religeon that turn to "Why are you so mad" for no real reason just like you did, or "So tell me why you hate Jesus" for no apparent reason. The only explanation I have come up with is that it is a ploy to discredit. Accuse a person of being mad, associate that with defensiveness, and parlay that into insecurity. It's a simple tactic of diversion, just the same as labeling someone as evil and hate-filled by posing their non-belief as hatred.

As for "I didn't decide god was perfect", yes, you did. You were presented at some time with an idea. That idea was that there is a god, and that that god is perfect. you DECIDED thtat is a credible idea. You DECIDED that was the truth. By saying you didn't decide that, is just simply more "I'm right because I'm right". Again, more circular arguement.

He did:
(http://5g8.net/upload/webster.jpg)

I don't recall seeing that in the dictionary. Also, going by the 'ol circular logic, man makes mistakes, god made man - something imperfect, therefore god isn't perfect.  :teddyr:

I've never heard that said by anyone that has actually BEEN in a foxhole. I have been, and I'm still an Athiest. So guess again.. . . This is just crap said by people of faith to try and proclaim that only people of faith are brave enough to serve their country, and try and claim that deep down Athiests know they are wrong. It is incorrect, and most people that say that will never find themselves in a foxhole, therefor will never know how wrong they are.

(http://mysite.verizon.net/sportinlife/postimages/ft-foxhole.gif)

In extreme situations, some people move away from religion, others begin to believe in it.  I don't know which is more common.  That's about the best summation, I think.

I've talked to a few combat veterans before, that's what basically all of them seem to say. 

In any case, I still like the quote I've heard about that...  "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn’t an argument against atheism, it’s an argument against foxholes." from James Murrow.

??  so because you are paranoid you have the right to be rude to me?




yes it does.  because it couldn't be perfect if it didn't exist.

He's not being paranoid and he's not insulting you at all.


Again, like I said before, you can apply that comment to anything you want. It still doesn't mean anything and is somewhat generic.

I'm not paranoid, but again, you try and discredit me. I wasn't rude, please point out where I was. More skirting the issue.


Uh, NO, it doesn't. Circular argement all over, still failing to impress me as much as you are failing to understand. If I say "The giant amoeba in your underwear is perfect", does that automatically mean there is a giant amoeba in your underwear? Apparently so, by your own claims. You are hung up on the idea that to be perfect, something has to exist. I get it as does pretty much everybody else. The part that I disagree with it your idea that if a person mrerly proclaims SOMETHING to be perfect, that it automatically must exist. I'm not sure how anyone can not see the logical flaw in that. Check your underwear, is there a giant amoeba in them?


Well then your experience differes from mine, and my experience involves the people AND  the foxhole simultaniously. There is no doubt that people's faiths become more apparent in times of need, but the idea that all Athiests suddenly decide people of faith are right at the first sign of danger is wrong, and an arguement can be made for it being downright insulting.

The traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. It's just circular contradiction, a man-made fail-safe, impossible arguement is therefore created. Well done.  :smile:

yes he did he said




he's accusing me of being some sort of religious person who attacks people with questions like "why are you so mad".  when in fact I just wanted to know why he was so mad.  this isn't the spanish inquisition, it's a board on the internet




 

he's saying Im' using a ploy.  he is paranoid


"
here he's saying Im using a tactic of diversion.  further showing that he is

1. rude to me and

2. paranoid


the whole thing Implies I am dishonest for simply ecpressing part of an interesting theory,  one that has riled him up over several pages enough to have touched a nerve.  which is interesting by defination!  but not perfect, only God is perfect therefore he must exist





no.  but I didn't say where god was just that he is

Because the theory is stupid  :wink:

well then what does it say about yuo that you can't explain why it's stupid,  just insult the person who suggested it?  nothing good

How is that an insult to you? Do you know what insult means?

Quite frankly, all I am seeing in this conversation is a lot of metaphor, but nobody has defined the value of 'x'.

If anybody thinks I'm being rude...

...yeah...you're right...

...f**k that

 :tongueout:

saying my post is stupid isn't an insult?  okay,  yuo are stupid!!  :cheers:

Here's how:

Because both of those replies looked like an insult to me.

You may not have intended it as an insult, or maybe you did (I don't know), but it came off as one...er...scuse me...two.

Both myself and Ghouck have explained ourselves and expressed our opinions that, that "theory" does not make sense.

I knew this thread would degenerate, once again religion does the only thing it truly can....cause conflict.

No, that's stating a fact. I have heard too many discussions that turn to that. You take insult in my stating of facts, so be it, it's out of my hands as far as I'm concerned.


No, I was stating that I've not yet been approached with a viable explanation, and that one was the only one I have. I am not paranoid, you are.


You give yourself far too much credit. I've found much of what you have posted laughable, but feel free to take THAT as an insult also, it's easier that way.


So that's a NO nonetheless. . .

that was a stupid response  :thumbup:


^not an insult according to cc

You said you were posting a theory, not your own, but one you agree with. I said the theory is stupid. I didn't say you are stupid.

You called me stupid, so now you are insulting me. That's the difference.

Oh and by the way you is spelt Y-O-U.  Not Y-U-O. Now I'm insulting you  :smile:

Now really, that doesn't help things; except to stoke the fire. :thumbdown:

wasalam  you're right bro.  my apologies to cc and ghouck

I've always thought that most people in foxholes are probably agnostics.

While it's true that atheists may suddenly say a little prayer from their childhood, it seems equally true that most believers are actually afraid of dying--suggesting that they may have some doubt about the reality of a life after death.   

It makes sense to me that, when faced with the very real possibility of the end of everything, both sides would have pressing reasons to question their assumptions.

Can we all agree now that religion threads are a very bad idea?

That's what I was trying to say.  Thank you.

Best post of the whole thread.  :thumbup:

No, but there IS something giant and perfect.

(http://planetxtribe.com/v-web/gallery/albums/album03/Funny_Cat_Photo060.jpg)

A rolled up pair of socks?

[Mother Abagail talks to Ralph and Nick about what God has told her. Ralph reads Nick's response.]
Ralph Bretner: Uh, Nick says that… he says he don't believe in God.
[Mother Abagail laughs.]
Mother Abagail: God bless ya, Nick! But it don't matter! He believes in you.

All right, I guess we settled that question, lol. Thanks, everybody.