Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » hope none of you are them
( ) 5 Votes
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210198 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 12:30   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Oh, I'm not saying to take the deity that a particular religion "created", I'm just saying the deity itself.
Think of it like this: Just for the sake of argument, assume that everything I'm about to state is true.
God exists and created the universe and -directly or indirectly- everything in it. Eventually some people come along and start wondering about the creator. They decide he must have acted a certain way, and wanted us to do certain things. Eventually this small group tell others about their view, and get them to believe the same thing. Soon, someone doesn't like that idea, and thinks a few things are wrong, so he goes out and starts his own belief system.
Time passes.
A new concept of this creator develops and is held as the true way. The old view is deemed obsolete, and is abandoned as heracy. Science eventually proves that even this way is the false way of interpreting God.
/End
Ok, now this is what I am getting at. It was proven that the ways of interpreting God have been false. However, one thing still exists. Read the first two words of that example and you'll (hopefully) see what I am getting at about the two being seperate.
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210205 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 13:08 |
 |
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Yeah so it's like this:
Matter of faith #1 - This is the God that has always been. He created everything.
Matter of faith #2 - This is a religion that describes the God's ways, e.g. Christianity. This is spawned from #1, but is just a guess at best.
What Crimson is saying is "I don't believe #1(God) because #2(Guess) is BS"
So, yeah, the religion might be BS but the God still exists. However, if you deny the religion, you are left with a God that you know absolutely nothing about, except that he/it started everything (even this isn't provable, but it's often the basis of an omnipotent God). It's not very easy to believe in that, but it's beside the point. Warranto's argument isn't there to support any religion or beliefs. In fact, the only effect it seems to have is deny any religion in the first place, but not deny God. As I've stated in other threads, I too believe in a higher force, but not the one described in any curent religions. I make my own observations of this force, but I'm quite open-minded about the whole thing.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Fri, 28 July 2006 13:10] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210214 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 13:47 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Higher forces, indeed- then again we are higher ourselves than some other forces. So what is to say that each higher force does not have another, even higher force above it, ad infinitum? Are there really any limits, or is it merely easier to picture the universe when it can be put in perspective using an imagined solid frame of reference?
Not trying to say anybody is right or wrong, but if infinites are possible- which they certainly are, at least in the form of the infinite nothingness that is space- why can there not be an infinite number of different levels of existence, which would mean that there is no ultimate force or power?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210216 is a reply to message #210214] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 14:02 |
|
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 28 July 2006 16:47 |
Higher forces, indeed- then again we are higher ourselves than some other forces. So what is to say that each higher force does not have another, even higher force above it, ad infinitum? Are there really any limits, or is it merely easier to picture the universe when it can be put in perspective using an imagined solid frame of reference?
Not trying to say anybody is right or wrong, but if infinites are possible- which they certainly are, at least in the form of the infinite nothingness that is space- why can there not be an infinite number of different levels of existence, which would mean that there is no ultimate force or power?
|
Sure it's possible. In which dimension do you mean infinite though? In size? Distance? Both? Or perhaps in the way that the universe is "pulsing", expanding and collapsing again and again. I have to admit that current science quite firmly shows that objects can't be of infinite size. And with that mean, objects aren't infinitely small. However, quantum science or whatever is still in early stages, who knows what we'll find from inside, say....electrons. As far as I know, they're currently just some negatively charged "things", we don't really know what we would see if we could zoom closer...
Anyway, it still wouldn't answer the basic question, "What's the meaning of life?". We would no doubt keep expanding and adventuring farther away from home in order to become the new God, even if we knew that we can't have everything...you know, just because we can.
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210229 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 16:48 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
It was once thought that atoms were single particles, the smallest possible. It was also once thought that Earth was the extent of the universe. Every major discovery pertaining to the possible minimums and maximums of the known universe has expanded, not contracted, the number of possibilities. There is no reason to believe that trend will ever reverse itself, unless you follow a faith that calls for the end of existence at some point in time.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210244 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 19:20 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
In that case, why not keep my comments directed towards those who ARE religious and follow a specific religion, even though I still deny the existence of an ultimate deity. So we both agree that man-made religions are bullshit, big deal.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210272 is a reply to message #207824] |
Fri, 28 July 2006 23:00 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| KIRBY-098 wrote on Mon, 24 July 2006 20:45 |
Java, come back please.
|
I'm afraid you're not the only one struggling to make day to day life work blissfully ad infinitum. I haven't posted recently because I wanted to reflect on the information and make sure that my position is clear, at the very least, to myself.
I've managed to find the time to thoroughly read through your article and I've got some issues I'd like to talk about. It's interesting to note that the author managed to provide a fairly effective argument to justify objective truth in favour of the Bible using subjective conditions. My concerns however, deal with the frameshift the author used in affirming the "philosophical" by means of the "historical". This of course, I'm refering to the argument of "Who is Jesus". Like I said before, the New Testiment is something I regard in a truthful historic light due to the high level of correspondence used in its formulation. I've got a few quams about that as well, but I'll get to those later.
The author mentions that it is futile to try and argue the case for the philosophical aspects of the Bible (miracles and God's existence) from the historical point of view when the individual denies or reserves judgment on the possibility of either. This has the potential to work out nicely, but it doesn't exactly cover all the tracks. From the agnostic point of view, the reservation of knowledge isn't because such knowledge doesn't exist, it's because the form of the knowledge is supposedly unknowable; so even if you did "know" it, you wouldn't know you knew it. The point is, if you're "unsure" about the existence of God or miracles, you can't possibly subscribe to the conclusions provided as a solid link to the objective truth claimed by the Bible. Thus, any such conclusions made, while possibly logically coherent, are entirely dependent on whether or not the individual's epistemological criteria allow for it to be truth. While a bit confusing at first, I'll explain it a bit more in a moment. I understand it seems to be grasping at straws, but it is rather a fundamental question that needs answering before anything else can be considered. An example is better to get this point home:
On the topic of euthanasia, it's easy enough to say: "Euthanasia is wrong because it is murder". But when drilled about it, it comes down to asking where the moral code comes from and why it is authentic. Assuming a Christian debator, it goes such that "the Bible (thus God) teaches that murder is wrong, therefore it is wrong." Simply put, the argument has escaladed from an ethical dilemma to a metaphysical one. The issue of the existence of God (save the meandering details of Biblical authenticity) is now the focus. A similar objection is brought up: How do you know God exists? The question is reasonable, and fundamental toward determining whether or not euthanasia is moral or not. Regardless of whatever answer given (generally); "I know God exists because *insert answer*", the response is inevitably "How do you know that is true?". The argument shifts to an epistemological conundrum because the nature of knowledge invariably is fundamental before even touching the subject of God, the Bible, morals, etc. So the philosophical argument for any given situation (again, in general) is: Epistemology --> Metaphysics --> Morals --> Anything else
So to bring it full circle, epistemological questions need to be answered before you can start going about saying "this is true" and more in context, "the Bible is true because *blah blah*". So while we use the historical evidence to point to an accurate account of the events that transpired, the issue lies primarily with the epistemological problems that arise. If the history of the Bible is assumed true as written, then obviously the whole package is assumed truth by association. However, the philosophical issues can't be discredited merely because the history seems to be the encompassing factor. The author doesn't seem to answer this issue at all, so I find contention with it. That being said, I do not think that anyone is trying to trick anyone else. That is, I do not believe that Biblical authors intentionally meant to decieve.
For example, take the book written by Ezekiel. I have no reason to believe that Ezekiel did NOT literally see what he claims to have seen (I'm aware this is OT and not NT). I do, however, have reason to believe that what Ezekiel saw did not happen in the reality (I use that loosely, for philosophical reasons) that you and I exist in. This isn't some silly existentialist metaphor or anything, it's simply that the events that occured in the book of Ezekiel defy the natural logic of the universe. Let me be clear however: I'm not saying the events could not have happened. I am inclined however, to believe that they did not actually happen because it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be broken in such a contextual and specific manner to suit a certain ends. I understand it sounds like I am picking and choosing, but from my point of view I am not. I would no more take the word of the Koran, which claims similar miraculous events to support a metaphysical proof for the very reason that I find miracles to be a highly contestable subject.
It seems to me that, while miracles are epistemologically possible, they are unlikely to fit the criteria established by the Bible. Sadly, it is another circular argument. For, in order for the God of the Bible to be affirmed, we must take the word of the book which establishes the very God it claims to exist; proved by the miracles claimed in the Bible caused by the God claimed to exist, proved by the miracles...
The point is, the question of "Who is Jesus" is historically viable; But the evidence for His divinity is circumstantial and highly contextual. I am quite unsure as to how the events described in the New Testiment considered miraculous actually occured. I personally don't believe that anyone intended to decieve, but I am swayed by logic and probability to say that something is fishy to which I do not have enough evidence to make judgment on. Now, I have made one large assumption here that makes my argument quite weak. I'm assuming that because by "modern standards" the authenticity of the Bible is justified, that it must be true. While I most definately do consider most literature I read as truth, I would be less then inclined to do so about something, however historically viable, regarding the divine and objective. I say this purely for philosophical reasons that I've elaborated beforehand. For example, if I were given a choice on historical documents, all considered historically viable by modern standards, all claiming contact with the divine, and all having claim to miracles which actually happened... how am I to choose which is truth? Why is the word of one man worth more then the next? Historic viability does not seem to confirm the authentic existence of miracles, nor does it seem to make it probable. Which leads me to my next point: The authors of the New Testiment.
It is to my understanding that the authors of the New Testiment were not limited to those who have been selected for the Bible. I'm not sure who selected Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and *the* Gospels, but I am quite sure there are more pieces of correspondence to the New Testiment that apparently didn't make the cut. This may or may not be a necessary piece of information to have. For should the information contridict, or introduce foreign elements to the Bible, does that not effect the overall clarity and "objectivity" of the Bible? Why were these documents not included? If it were for religious reasons, then we have a serious man-made problem here. I am trying to discern how it is that what we have now called the Bible is God-inspired and for all intents and purposes "perfect". I would also like to know how it can be considered a perfect document when it is people like you and I, fallable, silly people have the ability to slip words in and call it the word of God. Worse, we have the ability to slip possibly contradictory gospels from the same era by the same people that followed Jesus around. I've asked this question to some Christian friends, and the common response is "God wouldn't let that happen." I'm sure you can understand why I don't buy that. Unfortunately, it's another circular situation. The God affirmed by the Bible wouldn't allow the Bible to be tweaked with new books and gospels, but without the exact content of the Bible as it is now, it would be "less perfect", thus not the word of God, thus wouldn't affirm the God that says that it can't be tweaked. It's self-affirming, so it's covering it's ass. Unfortunately, we have to fall back onto philosophical problems in order to discern whether or not the God of the Bible is who He says He is.
Regardless, enough time has been spent on the New Testiment. I am thoroughly unsure about it's application in my life because there are many philosophical loose ends that can't simply be fixed by assuming something is truth because the Bible says it is truth. Surely God would help us solve these problems without telling us to close our eyes and just nod... right?
The Old Testiment is a whole new story. I'm sure I don't need to remind you how crazy it actually sounds upon reading it the first time. I understand that in Biblical context, the Old Testiment was a different time because of the nature of sin. I am confused as to some of the explanations given to describe why it is the old testiment stories are possible. I understand that according to the new testiment, Jesus said all of it was true, but as I've already tried to contend, I'm not sure that's a good enough answer (as arrogant as that sounds). Almost everything about the New Testiment defies the logic that you and I live by today. I am either left thinking that God was a big meanie who was far more involved in our lives insomuch that people seemed to frequently talk with Him (which would, at least to me, be the deciding factor in this big cosmological game) and get responses, or the stories written in the old testiment were greatly exaggerated and changed over time before actually being recorded. I call attention to Genesis, where it claims that people live for upwards of nine HUNDRED years. Everything we know about biology says this can NOT happen. So either we weren't human back then, or something is awry in the story. Likewise is the story of the flood, and how Noah managed to fit two of every animal into an arc that physically could not contain two of every animal. The point is, the God introduced in the Old Testiment seems to be so ficticious and unapplicable to our lives today because of the events claimed to have happened, that calling it truth is comparable to saying that I can fly if I REALLY try hard enough.
I have a few more issues I want to call attention to, but I want to let you respond before I start making the same arguments that you've answered time and time again and thus wasting both our times.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #210966 is a reply to message #210303] |
Wed, 02 August 2006 08:40 |
aveator
Messages: 6
Registered: July 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
Its not that I dont believe in devinietes or God, Jesus, Ala, Satan, or what ever else, it's the fact that there is so many different views on one religion that I dont agree or follow in any way. Even if they be true or not, I can base this of religion. Judeisism doesnt believe in Christ like christins do, their view of him is very different.
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #211008 is a reply to message #207824] |
Wed, 02 August 2006 16:03 |
|
Scythar
Messages: 580
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finland
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Well I just stumbled upon these on Digg.com: "The 73 best atheist quotes". The page loads a bit slow due to high traffic at the moment. As I've stated, I'm more agnostic than atheist, but many of these quotes are quite insightful (although I disagree with some).
http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php
Some of those have been used in this thread too. Good read. Does anyone know of a good pro-religious list of quotes?
Edit: Might help if I posted the link too...
There's a hole in the sky through which things can fly.
[Updated on: Wed, 02 August 2006 16:04] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: hope none of you are them [message #213384 is a reply to message #207824] |
Tue, 15 August 2006 12:05 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
bumpity bump bump
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 23 06:44:31 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01587 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
