honest tea Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 *conciousness *the universe * math (sacred geometry,the flower of life the fibonnocci sequence) *existance those are all proofs of something, remember god is just a word made up by man and translated over time relying on words to explain things to you will hardly ever get you anywhere all of that was probobly already said but enjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonsOfSulkendastron Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 nsmbfan: Did you ever see that documentary on some of that mayan(?) or some civilization where even by todays standards, the archetecture/physics of the remaining ruins were impossible? They showed a huge pillar, like some huge gigantic tonnage, and 3/4 of it was underground with the remainder above ground, and it all supported this large stone structure. The thing is, the pillar was made of a type of stone that can only be found 10 mountain ranges away or somthing. Furthermore, the cuts and inscriptions on alot of the stone they were saying couldnt even be done today by lasers-they were that precise, even thru thousands of years of weathering. I forgot what channel it was on, but it was some crazy stuff! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I find the arguement of science and religion to be pointless, science has an idea, questions it and then trys to either backup or refute the theory with hard evidence. Religion says this is what it is deal with it, there is no questioning, no trying to prove or disprove (because even religious people know there is no way to prove that their fairy tales are true because theyy aren't), no reasonable suggestion of anything factual of evidence based or with any grounding in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keso cheese Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 Ive kind of agree with Decyferon on this argument. But at the same time neither side really has evidence to support their claim (there are always missing links) but I think the argument is a waste of time. If you believe in God or alien space lizards or that there is no devine spirit thats fine but it doesnt make sense to worry about others beliefs. I mean we'll all find out someday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I don't really like Spinoza. My views on a supreme being are very closely tied to Judaism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 I'm well aware. We have had gone back and forth on this before if you remember. I was droppin Spinoza just to elucidate some different views of the word "God" in philosophical history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 25, 2009 Share Posted November 25, 2009 oh, i said you should look into him directly... whoops. whatevs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I also agree that the use of the word "god" can be seen in a somewhat secular sense. I think, however, that for those of us with such a view, the word "reality" suffices and fits our ethos much better. Take certain particular uses of the word "god" in regular religious idioms; "God works in mysterious ways." and things like that. Replace the word "god" with "reality" and you will a striking functional equivalence; "Reality works in mysterious ways." "God willing" versus "Reality willing" The phrasing may seem awkward, but the semantic content remains almost completely unchanged. Both refer to an external realm of forces and uknowns. In the latter case the semantic function refers to the future, to that which is yet to be seen or known. In the former it refers to the way the entirety of existence happens and "works." I don't think that this interpretation of the word "god" is necessarily secular. It's risky to generalize about religions the world over, but I think many religious visionaries throughout history have had a similar definition. Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" is a pretty interesting examination of this. It's not exactly philosophically rigorous, but he demonstrates some convincing parallels between eastern and western religions that revolve around this "reality" based conception of god. I think the origins of gods, both in monotheistic and polytheistic traditions, arose out of reverence and awe of various aspects of the natural world, or, in monotheism, the entirety of reality itself. The abstraction of the idea of god from a sort of underlying, animating force to an actual being, a "creator" in the human sense seems like a perversion. I suppose I like to continue using the term "god" because of the timeless weight the word carries, despite its baggage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 As I said before, I was have only been using the form of "God" as hinted at and laid out at the beginning of this thread by NSMBFAN. I am not trying to say these comments extend to every interpretation of that word, capitalized or otherwise. Thus my reticence to say it applies to Mar's "G-d," etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Ugh, I keep seeing carelessness on my part. I meant "God," not "god." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I couldn't believe in a god if I tried! Unless dude made me aware of his presence in a way he knows I would buy. If I'm ever on the road to Damascus and get blinded by the light, I'll pay attention. Until then, science is my little lantern in this corner of the dark universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 I agree cracked, I have always said that the only thing that would convince me of god would be him appearing in front of me and doing some crazy god like stuff to convince me of his ultimate power, otherwise I'm not buying it. I mean I wouldn't believe in god if I died and someone appeared in front of me claiming to be god, they need to exercise their power before I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemFailure Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 Shit, we are always trying to validate our existence somehow. My opinion? Accidents happen all the time, plus I prescribe to the Everett model. I honestly think being faithful for some gives them a sort of reassurance that they're living for a higher meaning. Gives em steam to get by. And unfortunately incubates egocentricity and acts as a handy veil to hide ignorance and intolerance. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the possibility of an accidental existence. Perhaps those who prescribe to a deity need that "meaning", and if they were to accept an accident their lives would unravel. But what do I know? Not much at all and I'm cool with that. Remember, we are living on a speck of dust nestled in an infinitesimal pocket of space. Be Cool, SystemFailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetA Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 it seems to me that this thread may serve to feed trolls on both sides of the issue. i personally belive God created me and everyone out of love. i personally plan to be a catholic priest. i understand why some either never developed faith or have lost it, and i pray for those individuals everytime i do pray, and i also dont disrespect those who have no faith. that is what we are taught (or should be tought to belive) that god will accept anyone and loves everyone, and i figure if God accepts and loves everyone who am i to throw His teachings away just because i dont agree with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeToys Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 NSMBFAN- One of the more interesting arguments for existence and God's creation of it, at least in my mind, is along the lines of Leibniz and his concept of possible worlds. God, in his infinite nature must create everything for it would be delimiting him and his powers were he not to. And because god is infinitely good, he must only make that which is infinitely perfect, or in this case, the best. Because of our existence, it stands to reason that this is the best of all possible worlds and thus the necessity of our creation stands on that point. Therefore god created Detroit, therefore god is not good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnomeToys Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 i personally belive God created me and everyone out of love. i personally plan to be a catholic priest. Why not just follow the religion without fucking 7 year old boys? Ba dum ching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted November 27, 2009 Share Posted November 27, 2009 ^^^ haha I was gonna say the same thing, I don't know why anyone would want to follow the catholic religion with all it's crazy ideas, anti birth control which has helped increase AIDS in Africa because of their stupid missionaries, anti abortion, and then with the Catholic church covering up horrendous child abuse allegations and allowing their priests to stay having contact with children even though they know they are abusers, fuck I swear the Catholic church is one of the most disgusting and corrupt organisations in the world, they aren't religious good people they are greedy self centred bastards who have no care about what harm their pathetic ideals do. I haev no problem with individual's beliefs but the huge organisations that exploit these people's faith are what I am against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonsOfSulkendastron Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 i hate it when people force their beliefs and try to say that their religion is the right one and your a goner if you dont believe something similar. that pushes more people away from what their preaching than anything in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbs Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 FUCK JESUS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 This is Crossfire, there's a slightly higher standard of seriousness of debate. Just a reminder to take the shallow flames to Ch. 0. I am a big detractor of the Catholic viewpoint, but not every Catholic priest is a pedophile or conspirator with pedophiles. There are a few honest if naive practitioners who are decent people and believe that they are helping others. They just don't seem fit for serious debate. I haven't met one who can take the first basic non-naive step of noticing the geographical and familial patterns involved in the passing on of a particular religion (i.e. you were raised Catholic, so that's what you go with, yet you will tell the faithful Muslim who was raised Muslim that he errs). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 yes I agree not every catholic priest is a paedophile, however there was a huge cover up by the catholic church of the abuse of children, this is why I made my comment, people who would normally find child abuse disgusting (real priests) helped cover the backs of less than reputable priests who were abusing children, this is systematic abuse that happened over decades. The fact that the church covered this up to help protect it's reputation is completely unforgivable and completely outweighs any good the organisation may do, in my eyes. Not to mention the backwards ideas on contraception and abortion and divorce which causes people misery the world over. Considering they follow rules made up by men to control men they could just move with the times, it doesn't help when you have the pope making comments against contraception and making generally poorly thought out and negligent statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted November 28, 2009 Share Posted November 28, 2009 * math (sacred geometry,the flower of life the fibonnocci sequence) Wow, it pains me to quote your usually idiotic ass plus the fact that you gayed it up with flowers. I think the only reason you haven't got more tampons is because people just ignore you en masse.... but... This is the ONLY good argument for a master manipulator I have ever heard. The Mandlebrot or Julia series, the divine proportion... Back in '95 I was at a small dinner party with a bunch of strangers. I was forced to talk to the guy on my right, a physics instructor at Annapolis. We talked about time travel, or, more to the point, the attempted exposition of the uncertainty principle. He explained to me how certain experiments had basically proven that time travel happens on an atomic level, and it went on... In the end though, it's just math and behind math is more math. Euclid, Descartes, Mandelbrot... pretty powerful stuff but, in the end, it's still only human quantification of forms. The forms become increaingly complex but once the new levels are achieved we're all left in the same place. Projecting human 'understanding' on systems we can hardly understand. If this is enough to convince you of the existence of God then so be it, but I tend to think it's more like a road map to more stuff we can barely comprehend. Consider the Lilies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VetA Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 Why not just follow the religion without fucking 7 year old boys? Ba dum ching i understand what your saying but you also need to remeber that not even 1% of priests have done something so disgusting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 yes I agree not every catholic priest is a paedophile, however there was a huge cover up by the catholic church of the abuse of children, this is why I made my comment, people who would normally find child abuse disgusting (real priests) helped cover the backs of less than reputable priests who were abusing children, this is systematic abuse that happened over decades. The fact that the church covered this up to help protect it's reputation is completely unforgivable and completely outweighs any good the organisation may do, in my eyes. Not to mention the backwards ideas on contraception and abortion and divorce which causes people misery the world over. Considering they follow rules made up by men to control men they could just move with the times, it doesn't help when you have the pope making comments against contraception and making generally poorly thought out and negligent statements. I agree with all of this. I just wasn't buying the blanket statement that they're all evil and/or pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SONolAR187 Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 I personally think god/gods/religious diaties/etc is a way to make sense of the fact that you are just a highly evolved organism but atthe same time what made the chemicals that formed us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted November 29, 2009 Share Posted November 29, 2009 i understand what your saying but you also need to remeber that not even 1% of priests have done something so disgusting but you have to remember that while it may have only been a small number that did the abusing the church as a whole tried to cover it up and for many decades have kept it under wraps. The Catholic church should really look at aspects of it's religion that are dated, why shouldn't people use Birth Control, surely god gave man the ability to invent it? Why can't people get divorced, surely god gave man the initiative to come up with the idea that living in unhappiness is a silly thing to do? If God is this huge being that made everything and made man and gave man the ability to think for himself then it isn't against god's will for us to make these choices, that is what he would have wanted us to do. Fair enough if individuals don't agree with abortion etc but as an organisation the Catholic church shouldn't be dictating what is right or wrong. I personally think that not allowing a priest to be married and have children is holding him back in his ability to be able to help his congregation because he doesn't knwo the issues they face. Don't get me wrong I am very strongly anti-religious but these organisations need to move with the times and take responsibility for the terrible information they pass on to their followers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Mask Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think the churches not adopting and evolving is better, as it exposes the uselessness of the church. If something has been followed as doctrine by the church for years and is removed because it is no longer in tune with the times, then how can they tell you to follow the rest of the dogma with any real authority? how are you to know IT wont be abandoned 50 years from now as social norms change? I really dont understand this idea that you can be born and baptised into a particular sect like Catholicism, then spend most of your life doing things that are outlawed or frowned upon by the church, and still WANT to call yourself a Catholic. it seems insane to me. if you find your life and morals to be in conflict with the church wouldn't you want to look for something more fitting? I would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dowmagik Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 i personally plan to be a catholic priest. the oontz attracts em all ill be damned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted November 30, 2009 Share Posted November 30, 2009 As I said before, I was have only been using the form of "God" as hinted at and laid out at the beginning of this thread by NSMBFAN. I am not trying to say these comments extend to every interpretation of that word, capitalized or otherwise. Thus my reticence to say it applies to Mar's "G-d," etc... Right, you were clear, I wasn't disputing anything, just trying to expand on what I said previously. I was also trying to clarify why I choose to stick with the "god" terminology. The idea of "God" as a being that either exists or does not exist just seems like such a limited view, and with the help of dicktards like Richard Dawkins it's become a completely overblown debate. I guess that's why we had the 'creator' thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsmbfan Posted November 30, 2009 Author Share Posted November 30, 2009 i changed my mind. there is definitely a god. and he cares about me. BECAUSE ON THANKSGIVING I GOT LAID BY A HOT 19 YR OLD STRIPPER! that is all. i'll read the rest later and contribute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.