Religion Thread

[U MAD???]

Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.

Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.

I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.

Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.

I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.

TY someone who finally gets it

[AlphaWeeaboo]

This thread isn't to force beliefs. It's a supposed to be a simple debate on your thought on religion and what you make of it and why you think that. If you take it for anything other than that you are either clearly reading an idiots post or taking too much offense to this subject.

[U MAD???]

Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.

Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.

I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.

Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.

I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.

What fact? It's already been established that theories are not fact. Science is simply an attempt to answer questions. The only fact is that science is unable to prove or disprove God thus it puts aside the possibility of God existing due to it's flawed man-made system. I never said anywhere that you have to believe what I believe. I am simply conveying a thought process in reaction to what information/argument is presented before me.

You brought up time, interesting thing really, a good debate idea. Here is some logical thinking about time vs God through a mathematical thought process instead of science:

This unit you call time is also made by man. It is a measurement, nothing more, nothing less. The idea of time limits the brain's comprehension and is only used to help explain situations or calculate distance/velocity. To man, there is a beginning and an end. In a mathematical viewpoint, there is no start or finish unless otherwise defined. Everything falls between infinity and negative infinity. The universe is said to be ever expanding to negative infinity to positive infinity. Keep in mind that infinity is impossible to comprehend. Now since time is man made, God is not bound by such a thing. Since everything falls in between negative infinity and infinity:

let; negative infinity = past = a; infinity = future = b; 0 (origin) = present = c; God = x

Since God is omnipresent. Not only is He everywhere, He is every 'time' as well. So with the given info, this can be stated:  [!= means not equal]

x = a
x = b
x = c

a != b
b != c
a != c

Now this does not make any mathematical sense. For it to make sense it would have to be:

x = a = b= 0
[God equals Past equals Present equals Future]

which is mathematically wrong.. or

x != a != b !=0
[God does not equal Past does not equal Present does not equal Future]

Mathematically this is correct, however, it does not meet the conditions of God. It can be concluded that:

1) Math as is, which knows no limits, cannot explain God's omnipresence.
2) God is able to do the mathematically impossible by being both equal to and not equal to something at the same time.
3) Time cannot limit God.


I would go more into this thought process but I'm exhausted. x-x

Their is always an end to everything nothing last forever and one day the universe will end also since the big bang the universe has been expanding but in millions /billions of years it will contract bag into 1 atom and will start another big bang this theory is called the big crunch theory and if u say "god" is ever lasting what happens everytime the universe resets itself? p.s. Fuck logic

[dirtylaundry022]

Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.

Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless.  You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias.  There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded.  Keep that in mind

FURTHER RANT!

regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself.  Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice.  you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god.  It's still faith, and thus still technically theism. 

it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices.  If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian.  doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out.  OR, you might not be, there are exceptions.  If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions. 

On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead.  I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives. 

Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter.  so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.

[Priest]

I think it's just adorable that the Christian is trying to defend his beliefs. They're so cute when they get all riled up.

[JohnCyKlopZ]

E=MC^2

I am now perfect.

[dirtylaundry022]

I think it's just adorable that the Christian is trying to defend his beliefs. They're so cute when they get all riled up.

I think its quite ironic your name is priest.
 


god the has so much use in the religion debate thread, or any debate thread for that matter.

[crypto]

Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.

Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless.  You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias.  There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded.  Keep that in mind

Open-mindedness does not entail acceptance of all ideas. I have given theism fair consideration, found it wanting, and rejected it.

regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself.  Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice.  you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god.  It's still faith, and thus still technically theism.

No, you are not. Atheism is lack of belief; it is not itself a belief system. It's the default. There's no leap. It's square one.

it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices.  If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian.  doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out.  OR, you might not be, there are exceptions.  If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions.

There's no reason not to separate Christianity's philosophy from its theology. A religion might have some admirable ethical stances; that doesn't mean that in order to take those stances you should also believe in its gods.

On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead.  I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives.

Neither do I, until people start flying planes into dense population centers based on religious convictions. Well, that's not necessarily true. I'm highly intolerant of idiocy and I think it's vaguely immoral to just sit back and watch as people are led astray by irrational delusions. But still.

Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter.  so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.

Okay. That's just not true. Atheist or not, I am open minded. I am receptive to religious arguments. Just because I am receptive of them, though, does not mean I accept them. Rejection of a worldview built on falsehood and superstition is not an exercise in close-mindedness.

[dirtylaundry022]

Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.

Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless.  You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias.  There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded.  Keep that in mind

Open-mindedness does not entail acceptance of all ideas. I have given theism fair consideration, found it wanting, and rejected it.

regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself.  Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice.  you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god.  It's still faith, and thus still technically theism.

No, you are not. Atheism is lack of belief; it is not itself a belief system. It's the default. There's no leap. It's square one.

it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices.  If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian.  doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out.  OR, you might not be, there are exceptions.  If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions.

There's no reason not to separate Christianity's philosophy from its theology. A religion might have some admirable ethical stances; that doesn't mean that in order to take those stances you should also believe in its gods.

On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead.  I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives.

Neither do I, until people start flying planes into dense population centers based on religious convictions. Well, that's not necessarily true. I'm highly intolerant of idiocy and I think it's vaguely immoral to just sit back and watch as people are led astray by irrational delusions. But still.

Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter.  so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.

Okay. That's just not true. Atheist or not, I am open minded. I am receptive to religious arguments. Just because I am receptive of them, though, does not mean I accept them. Rejection of a worldview built on falsehood and superstition is not an exercise in close-mindedness.

1.  I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto.  I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded.  you got confused somehow

2.This is just a circle arguement, thus me responding would only continue the circle

3.I'm not saying there isn't, I pointed out there are exceptions, and a good number of them, if you cared to read my whole statement.  While separating the 2 is fine, I was just stating from personal experience that this doesn't happen too often, if not at all.  In your/others lives, this may be different.  I wouldn't know

4.I agree.  That's why I don't let myself become irrational or follow religions that advocate/celebrate that sort of behavior.  and if you even bring up the crusades, I will point out to you that many catholics, including myself, believe that was horribly wrong. 

5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal.  I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded.  I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life.  However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness.  Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.

[crypto]

1.  I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto.  I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded.  you got confused somehow

No, it ISN'T. Some ATHEISTS may be close minded, but ATHEISM, as a worldview, is NOT close minded.

5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal.  I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded.  I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life.  However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness.  Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.

It's less an "understanding," a term which tries to tiptoe around the truth, than adherence to an assumption that has yet to be disproved. Regardless, "understanding" something does not necessarily equate with being close minded to alternatives. "Understanding" something while refusing to examine alternatives is close minded; "understanding" something after fairly examining and fairly rejecting alternatives is by definition NOT close minded.

[dirtylaundry022]

1.  I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto.  I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded.  you got confused somehow

No, it ISN'T. Some ATHEISTS may be close minded, but ATHEISM, as a worldview, is NOT close minded.

5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal.  I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded.  I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life.  However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness.  Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.

It's less an "understanding," a term which tries to tiptoe around the truth, than adherence to an assumption that has yet to be disproved. Regardless, "understanding" something does not necessarily equate with being close minded to alternatives. "Understanding" something while refusing to examine alternatives is close minded; "understanding" something after fairly examining and fairly rejecting alternatives is by definition NOT close minded.

but once again I will argue that it is, from my personal perspective.

faith proves itself through theology, which I define as faith seeking understanding. it is not science based. 
atheism sees itself proven through science, which looks at physical concrete evidence.

through this specific perspective, if you attempt to prove religion through science, it will neither be directly proved nor disproved.  God true or not, is beyond physical comprehension. 
If you look at atheism from a PURELY theological perspective, you see that it rejects higher powers not through faith, but through human philosophy.  Higher powers, unable to be comprehended directly by humans without divine revelation, are not provable through just human philosophy, higher powers are above that, if they are to exist.

If atheism were open-minded, from either perspective, it would be uncaring whether gods existed or not.  Though science, it is neither provable nor disprovable, since any God would be above worldly limitations.  through theology we see that god is only perceptible through divine relvelation, which if you don't believe in these powers will not make sense to you anyways.  Thus, another stalemate.

If atheism was uncaring, therefore, it would be open-minded.  but most atheists, I'm not saying anyone here, just the ones I know personally, take the position that no god exists, which really isn't provable.

If you just choose to believe in no god for that perspectives own sake I have no problem. that in itself has no implied close-mindedness
 
the close-mindedness occurs if it is insisted that there cannot be gods, and that this can be proven.  that in itself simply cannot be proven, unless you are completely closed to the possibility from the start.

[Jorgen]

are we really discussing close mindedness now?

I am sorry to say we can't say anything is close minded my dear boy, because that is like saying all afro americans are stupid, or like me saying religion is close minded. but i won't cus it is generalist and stupid-.-

besides, lets leave the bickering it has come down to nothing but forcing things upon eachother, one slinging shit the next only to get shit back. even though i would think the christians should have been better at this than us, seeing that dirtylaundry sais we are non believers because we are afraid of being punished.... lets just say "turn the other cheek" trololololololol hohohoho.

anyways this is not hardly a serious debate anymore-.- please just stop further embarasment and take a chill pill and let this thread lonely die.

[Holy]

are we really discussing close mindedness now?

I am sorry to say we can't say anything is close minded my dear boy, because that is like saying all afro americans are stupid, or like me saying religion is close minded. but i won't cus it is generalist and stupid-.-

besides, lets leave the bickering it has come down to nothing but forcing things upon eachother, one slinging shit the next only to get shit back. even though i would think the christians should have been better at this than us, seeing that dirtylaundry sais we are non believers because we are afraid of being punished.... lets just say "turn the other cheek" trololololololol hohohoho.

anyways this is not hardly a serious debate anymore-.- please just stop further embarasment and take a chill pill and let this thread lonely die.

Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.

If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.

Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.

[Jorgen]

actually i said it was generalist and stupid, not generalist is stupid.

I am more looking at you and crypto talking trash -.- some of your statements are hardly debating, they are trash talking. besides why bring in them jews, Israel - Pakistan need i say more?

If there was any usefull things being flung back and forwards i'd have no problem with it, but lately i don't feel like it hardly has to do much with the theme at hand.

[Priest]

Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.

If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.

Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.

I just came in my pants. What a racist comment. LOL