More religious bone-headedness

[Brother None]

First blatant use of logic? So now your saying that logic is crap when it does suit you? And i dont think that evolution is random, so what are you smoking? Also just becasue you reply to a statment i make does not always mean that you have won the argument. If you wanna win this arugment make clear statments, and no short, stupid comments that only show how anable you are to directly challenge the question. Like with the theory i presented some of you instead of intellignetly anayasing you critisize it but with no base or substance.

 

Well ain't this the pot calling the kettle black?

 

Excuse me, but I would suggest you go back in the thread and count the number of times the following has happened:

1) You ignored arguments as it suited you

2) You replied to arguments with exactly the same statement as that argument countered.

3) The only reply you give is "you people are fools, it says so in the Bible" or some such claptrap

 

Now for the more relevant part

 

Step One: Existence Proof of Higher Worlds

 

(...)

 

But it follows from the incompleteness proof and Leibniz's Law that there must be such a system. Hence, higher worlds exist.

 

Wow, that was kind of an interesting read.

 

I love the way they mix up a lot of unnecessary complex words to confuse the reader, but here's the problem...Mostly with the last sentence.

 

It follows from the incompleteness proof and Liebniz's Law (which is, apparently, simply accepted as true, even thought Liebniz was a Rationalist, a brand of philosophy which has long since been discarded) that a higher being exists based on one premis: "S is consistent", which in this case is human logic "being consistent"

 

There's a problem here. Lack of comparative material. G

[Arvax]

When there is something factual to respond to, I respond to it. When it is just a bunch of baseless arguments strung along to sound intelligent, I don't bother.

 

I only accept evidence based on experimentation (IE Scientific evidence). This is mostly because I am actually a scientist (Microbiologist) and as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as an experiment that can prove God. As no such experimental evidence has been presented, but a lot of largely meaningless and generally baseless philosophy has, then it isn't worth replying too.

 

Unless you have hard, EXPERIMENTAL evidence that proves either of those two ideas, then it isn't worth replying too (For me, someone who does philosophy might however). It just falls into the same thing as faith, you either take it at first hand and believe it, or you don't. As there is no evidence that supports or refutes it, there is no point in bothering to discuss it for me.

 

I'll never look for evidence to prove God incidently, as that is impossible and defeats the entire point of having any faith to begin with.

 

All hail Science, bringer of Truth. It is rather unfortunate that the utter conviction you have in empirical verification requires a dogmatism not very dissimilar from religious faith.

 

What makes this experimentl evidence so special, I wonder? Why would one base one's views on that, and that alone? What constitutes this experimental evidence, for that matter? Because all those neat scientific facts aren't given immediately as experimental evidence. There are numerous layers of interpretation in between. How do you know there are such things as cells? As a scientist, you must be aware that experiment requires interpretation. You must also be aware that not all experiments are equally valid.

 

What you don't seem to be aware of is the fact that you take for granted without question quite as many beliefs as other people do, religious or otherwise. You blithely assume that science is the key to reality. That, my dear, is no less an act of faith as belief in a higher Deity would be. The strict distinction you, and many others with you, make between faith and evidence suggests they are different in kind. They're not. The one is not mere belief and the other hard, incontrovertible fact. Facts never are incontrovertible, they are merely as certain as the collective body of justification they rest on. And you cannot possibly so foolish as to believe that experiments yield incontrovertible and unambiguous results.

[Aegeri]

All hail Science, bringer of Truth. It is rather unfortunate that the utter conviction you have in empirical verification requires a dogmatism not very dissimilar from religious faith.

 

You've missed a key point, science is REPEATABLE. If someone claims that their E. coli strain can do this under x conditions, then I can repeat their experiment and establish that they are correct/or simply talking out of their rear end.

 

For example I can say with 99.99% certainty that tommorow I can let go of an apple above the ground and it will fall downwards due to gravity. Simple repetition would indicate this is the case.

 

What makes this experimentl evidence so special, I wonder?

 

Because it is repeatable. REPEATABLE.

 

Wonder no more.

 

Why would one base one's views on that, and that alone?

 

Because it is what I do for a living, and I find an argument based on actual facts actually has some meaning.

 

What constitutes this experimental evidence, for that matter?

 

Simple, a repeatable experiment or observations based on actual tangible evidence.

 

What on earth are you actually trying to (ham fistedly) argue?

 

Because all those neat scientific facts aren't given immediately as experimental evidence

 

They aren't evidence nor are they scientific facts.

 

There are numerous layers of interpretation in between. How do you know there are such things as cells?

 

Ever looked down a microscope, more importantly, ever looked down an electron microscope.

 

I know they exist, would you like a picture of one? Would you like 1000+ journal articles explaining cells?

 

Do you know what you're talking about (the more important question here). The answer is probably no.

 

As a scientist, you must be aware that experiment requires interpretation.

 

Yep, and when I can see a cell for myself, well you just shot yourself through the foot anyway didn't you?

 

You must also be aware that not all experiments are equally valid.

 

Indeed. You're not saying overly much.

 

What you don't seem to be aware of is the fact that you take for granted without question

 

I see he's missed the point

 

You are aware that the entire reason for that is so that someone can REPEAT the experiment and establish that the initial experiment was correct.

 

Don't try to argue something you haven't understood to begin with.

 

You blithely assume that science is the key to reality.

 

But I haven't, it is the main way of proving something. You made the point that how do I know cells exist, simple because I can look down an electron microscope and directly see them.

 

I know ribosomes exist because they too can be seen, plus we can inhibit them using specific chemicals to demonstrate they do exist and what their function is.

 

My incredibly complex point (not really, but clearly to you) that you missed is that we can do no such experiment to prove God, or some of the other general rubbish Craftsman has pointed out as 'facts'. Therefore these are not 'irrefutable proofs', because they aren't actually able to be experimentally proved or disproved. Therefore you ONLY accept it on faith.

 

That, my dear, is no less an act of faith as belief in a higher Deity would be.

 

Actually, no.

 

Nice try though.

 

The strict distinction you, and many others with you, make between faith and evidence suggests they are different in kind. They're not.

 

Sadly, you've failed to demonstrate otherwise here.

 

The one is not mere belief and the other hard, incontrovertible fact. Facts never are incontrovertible, they are merely as certain as the collective body of justification they rest on.

 

Indeed, this is about the only sensible thing you said in your entire post.

 

And you cannot possibly so foolish as to believe that experiments yield incontrovertible and unambiguous results

 

Thank you for completely missing the point.

[Arvax]

It's repeatable? Who'd have thought. And exactly how does that give it a special status, again? It makes it useful for predicting certain things, certainly. The mere fact that it is useful, however, is hardly sufficient condition for calling it true.

 

Science generates models, that's all it does. Fancy ways of predicting a limited range of phenomena. That does not grant you some deeper insight into the structure of reality. It's a set of tools, nothing more. If you do not believe in God, that is your prerogative, though atheism strikes me as no less flawed than theism. If you want to dogmatically cling to the tenets of science and those of science alone, that too is your prerogative, though I do not believe it is actually possible to do so in quite the way you imagine. You might do well to realise, however, that there is more to this world than science can reveal. It takes only a moment's reflection to realise this.

 

The point I am making, is that your precious science is not the stable foundation you think it is. It is strung together from assumptions in quite the same way any other belief system is. You quite predictably bring up the microscope. Yes, I have used them, quite frequently in fact. I am hardly ignorant of biology in general or microbiology in particular. That, however, is not relevant. What the scientific mode of thinking precludes you from seeing is the rather obvious fact that all these claims about cells are only as reliable as what is used to support them. As any philosopher could have told you.

 

In citing observations made with the microscope as supporting those claims, you implicitly assert the veracity of the observations microscopes can offer. And therein lies the problem. You say you want evidence to support claims, but you fail to reflect on what it is, precisely, what you're asking. Even when I explicitly frame the question, you seem unable to look below the surface. The claim that a certain observation is evidence for a given claim is itself a claim needing further support. Following a strictly scientific line of reasoning, that in turn would require evidence, leading to an infinite regress. Certainly, one can and often will stop at some point and say that some claim is evident, that it needs no further evidence to support it. And for practical purposes, this is fine. But this does not constitute accepting a claim on the weight of evidence, it is accepting a claim because to you, it just appears evident. You accept it simply because it is utterly convincing, because the alternatives are too implausible. You accept it not because the evidence merits it, since there is no further evidence. You just accept it. As, for example, one might accept a fundamental religious tenet. Your treasured repeatability does not save you from that. It is an instance of the same principle, in fact. There are no incontrovertible foundations, which means that your dogmatic faith in the superiority of the scientific method, and more generally in empirical observation, is entirely misguided. It is one possible approach among many. Exactly what makes yours better?

[Aegeri]

It's repeatable? Who'd have thought.

 

Obviously not you initially :D

 

And exactly how does that give it a special status, again? It makes it useful for predicting certain things, certainly. The mere fact that it is useful, however, is hardly sufficient condition for calling it true

 

So are you denying that, for example, how gravity functions or how bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance? Oh wait, I forgot, these things aren't actually true, they are all part of the smurf conspiracy. I can put things in your mouth too (shock horror!)!

 

Science generates models, that's all it does. Fancy ways of predicting a limited range of phenomena.

 

Well no, actually it does a lot more than that I'm afraid. It also tells us a lot about the world around us and why things happen. Now some of that is through models, but some of it is just through the fact that it IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SEE. Observation is another key part of science.

 

Of course, the point you've actually made is exactly what I was trying to get across, science can never prove something like a God, because you cannot test/observe God. Therefore you must accept God based on faith. If there is evidnce that proves God (what someone is saying in this thread), I want it presented.

 

Somewhere along the line you've come in and completely missed that subtlety. Now we're having this little conversation

 

That does not grant you some deeper insight into the structure of reality.

 

Ahhh putting words in my mouth, is this what your entire argument is based on? Try arguing against what I wrote thanks.

 

It's a set of tools, nothing more. If you do not believe in God, that is your prerogative, though atheism strikes me as no less flawed than theism.

 

I actually haven't said if I do or not, I've just said you can't prove God exists, hence why we need faith.

 

If you want to dogmatically cling to the tenets of science and those of science alone, that too is your prerogative, though I do not believe it is actually possible to do so in quite the way you imagine

 

It's given me the technology to have this silly conversation with you right now hasn't it :D Or does it work on the smurf conspiracy too? If someone says, there is a pink elephant in my backyard, should I believe them right away, based on the fact I haven't seen a pink elephant before?

 

Yes (bet that surprised you), because I can indeed go to their house and attempt to photograph it. If no such pink elephant eventuates, or if they never provide any tangible proof there is such a pink elephant, then it is very safe to assume there probably isn't a pink elephant. Evidence would in fact suggest that.

 

Now, if there ARE pink elephants is not immediately discounted, there could be one in some random place on the planet. The thing is, we can say with 99.99% certainty that there is indeed no pink elephants on earth.

 

Sounds like Gravity doesn't it?

 

Now with God, it gets more complicated, because you cannot say that he ISN'T there with any certainty, nor can you say he is. Therefore, the decision comes down simply to faith and has nothing to do with science or tangible evidence.

 

You might do well to realise, however, that there is more to this world than science can reveal. It takes only a moment's reflection to realise this.

 

Like? If you mean metaphysically, it is irrelevant anyway, science only deals with what can be tested and observed.

 

For someone who claims they know about science themselves, you are grossly deficient in understanding the basic ideas of it.

 

Also very good at putting words in my mouth again.

 

The point I am making, is that your precious science is not the stable foundation you think it is. It is strung together from assumptions in quite the same way any other belief system is.

 

Ahhh yes, that are based on evidence.

 

I think we've missed that part somewhere haven't we?

 

You quite predictably bring up the microscope. Yes, I have used them, quite frequently in fact.

 

And you haven't seen a cell? Tsk tsk.

 

I am hardly ignorant of biology in general or microbiology in particular. That, however, is not relevant. What the scientific mode of thinking precludes you from seeing is the rather obvious fact that all these claims about cells are only as reliable as what is used to support them. As any philosopher could have told you.

 

Indeed. Again, would you like 100 or 1000 papers to prove cells exist? Would you like to prove a cell doesn't exist? Really, you're falling into a catch-22 soon. Do you have evidence to suggest that cells don't exist, contrary to well over a hundred years of seeing such structures? Care to disprove cell fracturing experiments that have aptly split the cell wall apart revealing it to be a phospholipid bilayer?

 

Well?

 

In citing observations made with the microscope as supporting those claims, you implicitly assert the veracity of the observations microscopes can offer

 

This is like saying "I can see Zebras with my eyes, but maybe they don't exist, it could be that smurf conspiracy again".

 

And therein lies the problem. You say you want evidence to support claims, but you fail to reflect on what it is, precisely, what you're asking.

 

O_o I've think you've got yourself confused, I know what I asked for.

 

Even when I explicitly frame the question, you seem unable to look below the surface.

 

No, I just said "present solid factual evidence that directly proves the existance of God". As you cannot the question is irrelevant (my point) and you must accept it on the basis on faith.

 

An entirely different thing from proving that bacteria have type III secretion systems.

 

And are cells (Though those smurfs again...)

 

The claim that a certain observation is evidence for a given claim is itself a claim needing further support.

 

Good, when you've got your nobel prize for disproving that microscopes work, then you may have a point.

 

Incidently, this is again, your words and not mine. I said that you base something on experiments which can themselves be repeated and validated. Obviously we haven't got any further in this discussion yet. You keep making up what you want to reply too though.

 

Following a strictly scientific line of reasoning, that in turn would require evidence, leading to an infinite regress.

 

Not really. You see, when you discover something in science we immediately ask, what MORE can we know. So of course, when you find one thing, it leads to another, and then to another until you build up a more complete picture. The thing is, you build up that picture by establishing through experimentation exactly how everything works. You build models on how you think things work from your observations (Theories) and then these theories are tested, revised or thrown out based on further experimentation.

 

Your initial misinterpretation is the problem here.

 

But this does not constitute accepting a claim on the weight of evidence, it is accepting a claim because to you, it just appears evident.

 

No. Because of the fact that I can do it for myself, I can see exactly what they did and maybe even see something new by expanding their experiment.

 

As, for example, one might accept a fundamental religious tenet.

 

Not really, I suggest you understand the basic tenants of what we're discussing first

 

Your treasured repeatability does not save you from that. It is an instance of the same principle, in fact. There are no incontrovertible foundations, which means that your dogmatic faith in the superiority of the scientific method, and more generally in empirical observation, is entirely misguided.

 

You try and use a lot of big words to hide the fact your argument is utterly baseless. It is interesting to note that I'd like to know where I said that anything I believe is set in stone or is impossible to dispute. However, what I did say is that I accept what is based on experimental evidence, that which can be repeated and verified. This is a logical process, I take nothing on faith really, because the established facts are there. If I wanted to, I could prove older experiments to myself because I could follow their methodology, again, REPEATING what they did.

 

Does this mean these aren't actually up for review constantly? Of course not, that is your daft ideas being put in my mouth and has nothing to do with anything I've said. I've had to constantly move with a very rapidly changing science, and things are constantly being revised in the age of genetics.

 

But, your logic has one gaping flaw that you really can't refute: Gravity still works. It might be the case that gravitational theory is revised in the future to accomodate a better understanding, but that it holds objects onto the Earth is almost certainly 99.99% fact. Unless you care to prove otherwise, the scientific understanding of gravity is MORE relevant than your ideas of how it would work. If you were to tell people that what holds people to the earth is a giant hamster gyrating in a cage in the core, they would regard you as an idiot. Unless you could experimentally prove such a thing, nobody would take you seriously. Hence gravity, with its established laws and proven formulae, would still be the accepted model. Now someone could come up with a better model (who knows), but they would do so by presenting testable evidence.

 

Not by having a discussion like this where arguments are made without even the slightest backing of empiracle evidence. Think about that one for a while.

 

My point is, that you cannot make an argument based on faith to people who do not believe the way you do to begin with. This is where the realms of science and logic come in. If you can prove something, with tangible facts, like walking up to their house and introducing God to them, that is pretty hard to ignore. When you go on about philosophy, the occasional bit of poor pseudoscience and other arguments which actually offer no conclusive 'proof' that makes things impossible to convince anyone who doesn't think like you.

 

On the other hand, if I am arguing with someone that I can make a pathogenic strain of E. coli, I can prove that based on evidence. Very hard to refute that after you've been on the toilet for a few hours

[neriana]

Aegeri, your patience is incredible.

[chevan]

Yes, I agree. A big hand for Aegeri!

 

(in no way was that meant to be sarcastic)

[Chile]

Hats off to Craftsman and a few others for noting that there is a really really big question of "why".

 

I believe in God. I see God in the actions of strangers. I have experienced terrible circumstances, and survived them through the aid of unknown folks. Some might call it luck, others might call it coincidence. Maybe I am happy to attribute it to the Hands of God working through the hands of others. My gratitude isn't lessened by my belief in God. I thank all equally.

 

 

So, we wonder "why" things are true. And, this is a good thing to question. For while we continue to search for "why", science brings us closer to "how" things are true. But, having said that, we still question "why", and we should never be satisfied with half an answer. I suspect the uncertainty is why some people choose not to believe in God. They read the Bible, and whatever other scriptures, and do not find all of the answers.

 

I feel the same way about science. So, maybe there is a connection?

 

Amazingly, the Bible can only answer doubters by stating that God works in Mysterious Ways.

 

To that, I can only add that God does work in mysterious ways.

[neriana]

Chile, Aegeri will probably be better at this than me since it's his job, but science and religion are completely different things.

 

The Bible ansers that God works in mysterious ways. Science doesn't correlate to the Bible, but through scientific research we have discovered that, for instance, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. That's not mysterious at all; though it may be difficult, it can be understood logically.

 

If something cannot be understood logically and reproduced through research, it is not science.

[Chile]

"If something cannot be understood logically and reproduced through research, it is not science."

 

Respectfully, if something cannot be reproduced, it is a theory.

 

here is a theory:

 

The combinations of various medium can create a goop we call paint. We change the hue by changing the medium. We can even mix certain combined mediums together to make different hues. Like science, some experiments of medium combinations work well, while others do not. It is a great theory- one that is taught to us all in elementary school . However, knowing how combinations of mixed medium can be combined to produce varying hues does not explain painting, let alone art. No, some of us continue with our training, and we learn how paint changes when applied to different substrates, how temperature affects the movement of paint on the substrate, how certain paint hues affect people psychologically. Heck, we even learn how to manipulate the viewer to see colors that weren't even painted.

 

And after all of that we still don't know why artists (meaning all artists) paint, we don't know why people (certain people) will spend insane money to buy paintings, and we don't know why painting (overall) is important, but it always was important from the time man thought "I am", to now. Science cannot explain it, but it is true.

[Aegeri]

Respectfully, if something cannot be reproduced, it is a theory.

 

A theory is something that is created to explain the given evidence we have (Evolution, Gravity, Relativity, Pathogenicity (IE Germ Theory) etc) on hand. If a theory gains enough evidence or support, then we then term it a law. Hence why we have the "Law" of Gravity, instead of the "theory" of gravity.

 

It is best to understand what is meant by theory first, before making an irrelevant analogy.

[severxsever]

Who would have thought that a thread centered around religion would turn into such a monolithic, writhing circle jerk.

[neriana]

Ooh, a troll! And one who apparently doesn't know what the term "circle jerk" really means! Quelle surprise...

 

Aegeri, would it be correct to say that something that has not been proven, but may be proven through experiment, is a hypothesis, while something that has been proven through experiment and attempts to explain a physical phenomenon is a theory?

[Craftsman]

As I search the net on opionions on Mel Gibsons film 'The Passion' i found a readers resonse that is o so perfect, and is pretty much what I am trying to get through to you people.

 

A QUESTION FOR ALL NON BELIEVERS....

 

By geth

 

I have been on here for the last few days watching and reading people bashing God wanting proof that he was alive and wanting reason to believe. Let me explain how I think it works.

 

In your life you have friends, when a friend breaks one of your rules (such as stealing from you or hurting you in anyway) then they are no longer your friend...but become your enemy. God created humans so he could see who of us were his friends. The reason God doesnt come prove to everyone that he is alive is because he wants to see who are his true friends. Why would God want to open heaven up for murderers and stealers that hurt God? If you are able to follow God and do as he asks (the 10 commandments) as well as other things from Lust to Glutony, without needing visual evidence beside the Bible that he exists, then that shows you are one of Gods true friends.

 

My theory is that life is a test. We are all put here to see which of us will follow God. Who wants to get up and follow him? Who wants everlasting life? or who wants to do what they want thinking its ok to commit the sins they do? God wants to see who wants to be his friend. For people out there who have committed crimes of any kind...you need to understand that God still loves you. I have met alot of people you feel as though they're lives are over they're is no help for them. Any sin that you have committed no matter what the extremity of it was. If you ask God into your heart and really feel sorry for any sin you have committed God will forgive you. Watch the movie...thats what he did, he died for our sins. But remember you can't just go commit any crime you feel and then think there is a loop hole in it thinking God will forgive you if you pray...he knows what is in your heart...he can see it all. Please remember this for anyone that reads this post, all im trying to do is help. God loves us all.

 

Finally for all the non believers. Let me ask you a question. Say one day when you are wrong and God returns, and the trumpets sound and he comes back to save all the people who decided to follow him and his wishes. And you come up to him and look into his eyes what would you say? This is the man that took a thousand lashings for your sins and died on the cross? Will you say im sorry? By that time it says it will be too late. He gave you enough time before the apocalypse to trust and follow him. Im just leaving this question for you and i am only trying to help.

 

God Bless Mel Gibson and for making this amazing movie. Its a true life lesson for all of us Christian people out there and hopefully many followers to come.

 

 

...

[Chile]

It is best to understand what is meant by theory first, before making an irrelevant analogy.

 

I will stand by my example because everything I mentioned about Color Theory can be scientifically explained with the exception of the last three attached lines.

[Aegeri]

Aegeri, would it be correct to say that something that has not been proven, but may be proven through experiment, is a hypothesis, while something that has been proven through experiment and attempts to explain a physical phenomenon is a theory?

 

Sort of, it kind of works like this.

 

You start off with an idea or question that you want answered. Usually this is very general, for example, you see someone dying of some unknown disease. You then attempt to answer this by posing a question called a hypothesis. For example, it could be that you think the causitive agent is a small, single celled organism that are previously unknown to science. So you try and answer your own question by designing an experiment that either proves or disproves your hypothesis.

 

If you are proven right, for example you find some odd looking thing that doesn't resemble the human cells around it, you ask further questions.

 

So in this sense a hypothesis is simply a question that you have posed to answer (by doing an experiment/experiments) and then prove/disprove.

 

Now lets say that you start finding that many other diseases are caused by small single celled organisms. For example, you look at the lungs of patients suffering from tuberculosis, or the joints of those suffering from leprosy, and you find an odd trend=More little single celled organisms. So you pose a further hypothesis that perhaps other diseases are caused by other little single celled organisms, and inevitably you find things that seem to cause typhus, diphtheria and other diseases.

 

Now you have a large set of data, with some common features=That many human diseases appear to be caused by unknown little single celled organisms. So now you propose, based on the evidence on hand a theory that explains why you see these particular trends. Now note that theories are used to explain a large group of data or observations. For example, the theory of evolution is based on a lot of evidence such as molecular biology, particularly in the use of comparative genomics and using molecular clocks. It also uses the fossil record, animal physiology, animal behaviour, population genetics and a wide variety of other data. Gravity isn't just based on the fact things fall to the ground either, but a larger number of observations.

 

So hypotheses are just questions posed that you intend to answer by your experiments. A theory is something that is used to explain or put a common theme over a wide range of observations (In this case, small organisms that appear to cause disease).

 

This is why chiles example is still completely irrelevant, because it isn't in any way scientific nor is it a proper theory.

 

Clarification: To make things easier here is an example from my above.

 

Firstly, I'd start (knowing nothing about bacteria or viruses etc) by proposing the hypothesis that these unusual looking cells are somehow responsible for causing the observed disease.

 

I would then design an experiment that answers that question, by determining if people with that disease have the same cells compared against those who do not have a disease. If this is the case, I still have not proven my hypothesis, just supported it. Even if the fact that those cells are not present in healthy people, I have yet to establish that they are not a result of the disease, or they have nothing to do with it.

 

So I design further experiments that give me more and more knowledge. Inevitably I have enough evidence to support or refute my hypothesis. If I find a wide range of these organisms, and a trend in organisms like the one I first discovered that cause diseases, I might make a theory to explain those observations.

 

You could call it disease theory, or whatever you felt like at the time. One current theory is that many things we ascribe to genetic problems or environmental problems, heart disease, various cancers or mental illnesses are actually caused by infectious microorganisms [somehow*]. This is called Germ Theory and is largely out of the scope of this thread. But I hope you can clearly see the distinction.

 

*IE They manipulate the host into damaging itself to make colonisation easier.

[Craftsman]

As I search the net on opionions on Mel Gibsons film 'The Passion' i found a readers resonse that is o so perfect, and is pretty much what I am trying to get through to you people.

 

A QUESTION FOR ALL NON BELIEVERS....

 

By geth

 

I have been on here for the last few days watching and reading people bashing God wanting proof that he was alive and wanting reason to believe. Let me explain how I think it works.

 

In your life you have friends, when a friend breaks one of your rules (such as stealing from you or hurting you in anyway) then they are no longer your friend...but become your enemy. God created humans so he could see who of us were his friends. The reason God doesnt come prove to everyone that he is alive is because he wants to see who are his true friends. Why would God want to open heaven up for murderers and stealers that hurt God? If you are able to follow God and do as he asks (the 10 commandments) as well as other things from Lust to Glutony, without needing visual evidence beside the Bible that he exists, then that shows you are one of Gods true friends.

 

My theory is that life is a test. We are all put here to see which of us will follow God. Who wants to get up and follow him? Who wants everlasting life? or who wants to do what they want thinking its ok to commit the sins they do? God wants to see who wants to be his friend. For people out there who have committed crimes of any kind...you need to understand that God still loves you. I have met alot of people you feel as though they're lives are over they're is no help for them. Any sin that you have committed no matter what the extremity of it was. If you ask God into your heart and really feel sorry for any sin you have committed God will forgive you. Watch the movie...thats what he did, he died for our sins. But remember you can't just go commit any crime you feel and then think there is a loop hole in it thinking God will forgive you if you pray...he knows what is in your heart...he can see it all. Please remember this for anyone that reads this post, all im trying to do is help. God loves us all.

 

Finally for all the non believers. Let me ask you a question. Say one day when you are wrong and God returns, and the trumpets sound and he comes back to save all the people who decided to follow him and his wishes. And you come up to him and look into his eyes what would you say? This is the man that took a thousand lashings for your sins and died on the cross? Will you say im sorry? By that time it says it will be too late. He gave you enough time before the apocalypse to trust and follow him. Im just leaving this question for you and i am only trying to help.

 

God Bless Mel Gibson and for making this amazing movie. Its a true life lesson for all of us Christian people out there and hopefully many followers to come.

 

 

...

[chevan]

In your life you have friends, when a friend breaks one of your rules (such as stealing from you or hurting you in anyway) then they are no longer your friend...but become your enemy. God created humans so he could see who of us were his friends. The reason God doesnt come prove to everyone that he is alive is because he wants to see who are his true friends. Why would God want to open heaven up for murderers and stealers that hurt God? If you are able to follow God and do as he asks (the 10 commandments) as well as other things from Lust to Glutony, without needing visual evidence beside the Bible that he exists, then that shows you are one of Gods true friends.

So, humans came into being because God got lonely and wanted some friends?

 

And, based on my personal experience, I'll say this.

 

Let's say my friends and I are talking, when all of a sudden, one of them kicks me in the shin for no reason. Sure, I'd be angry, but I get over it. It's happened to me before, and it'll happen to me again.

 

Let's say I'm at a friend's place, and he takes something I brought with me. After running around for half an hour, I got it back, and thought nothing of it.

 

Those are both real occurences that happened to me. We didn't become enemies because one of us got hurt, we just dealt with it. That's what we (my friends and I) all see as a sign of friendship: When you can take each other's critisicisms and jests, and not care about it, either you're friends, or you really don't care what people think about you. For me it's both, but the first applies to most cases.

 

My theory is that life is a test. We are all put here to see which of us will follow God. Who wants to get up and follow him? Who wants everlasting life? or who wants to do what they want thinking its ok to commit the sins they do? God wants to see who wants to be his friend. For people out there who have committed crimes of any kind...you need to understand that God still loves you. I have met alot of people you feel as though they're lives are over they're is no help for them. Any sin that you have committed no matter what the extremity of it was. If you ask God into your heart and really feel sorry for any sin you have committed God will forgive you. Watch the movie...thats what he did, he died for our sins. But remember you can't just go commit any crime you feel and then think there is a loop hole in it thinking God will forgive you if you pray...he knows what is in your heart...he can see it all. Please remember this for anyone that reads this post, all im trying to do is help. God loves us all.

 

Okay, so again, we were put here as an experiment from God, to see which of us would follow him? Seems like God is a little insecure.

 

I agree with the idea of living your life according to good morals, but the rest isn't going to persuade an atheist.

 

Finally for all the non believers. Let me ask you a question. Say one day when you are wrong and God returns, and the trumpets sound and he comes back to save all the people who decided to follow him and his wishes. And you come up to him and look into his eyes what would you say? This is the man that took a thousand lashings for your sins and died on the cross? Will you say im sorry? By that time it says it will be too late. He gave you enough time before the apocalypse to trust and follow him. Im just leaving this question for you and i am only trying to help.

 

An atheist isn't going to even consider the possiblity of that, as they don't believe in it. This question itself is biased towards Christianity, and I doubt an atheist is going to answer a question that challenges their beliefs and stay civilized. A better question would be:

 

A question for atheists. What would happen if it turns out that there is a God?

 

That isn't working off the assumption that God exists, as the first question was. You're giving them a chance to express thier views, without accusing them.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You know what bugs me? The arrogance that many people share about religion.

 

You ever ask or wonder about the other religions that all say they're the one true religion? Ask a priest and they'll probably say that all religions are the same, as there is only one true God.

 

Doesn't that strike you as rather arrogant? Instead of saying to somebody that practices a different religion, "You're going to hell because you're not a Chrisitian," (they'd be nonbelievers, after all) you'd say, "Guess what? You're not going to hell! Turns out you really worship our god after all!"

 

Where do we get off assuming that whatever religion we practice is the one true religion? That goes for them all, too, except the ones that don't believe in a god, if there are any.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Oh, and let's stop calling each other biased. We're all biased toward whatever side we're arguing for, so there's no insult in calling somebody else biased.

[severxsever]

Ooh, a troll! And one who apparently doesn't know what the term "circle jerk" really means! Quelle surprise...

You might want to read a little into what I wrote, baby.

 

Calling this thread a circle jerk is not to say that the posturing and vapid ego-boosting found here isn't entertaining; it's about as enjoyable as watching a blind man being led into a jet engine by a seeing-eye dog.

[neriana]

"sever", I only let my friends call me "baby". And I'm racist against large beings who have knuckles that scrape the ground and green skin, and can only be permanently killed with fire or acid, and therefore you are not in my "friendship" category. Here's a little suggestion for you: if you don't like a thread, you could perhaps possibly NOT READ IT. I know, it's a tough concept to understand. And it may indeed be counter to your innate trollish needs, in which case all we can do is pity your poor tortured self.

 

OK, back to the topic at hand. I had a friend whose attitude was "break my rules and you're no longer my friend." Notice the word "had". He's incapable of keeping friends because he insists that everything be his way at all times. You can think of God as you will; a "friend" who tells you to behave a certain way or he'll throw you out is no friend at all, but a person with some very serious control issues.

[severxsever]

If I'm a troll, then this is truly my territory. I think that I've seen Balthamael post a link to similar christian dogma parody sites in the past, always with outrageous and stunning results. Dense non-believers are suckered by the terribly subtle posts in the site's forum while god fearing christians respond to the attacks of the previously mentioned group. There are even a few select individuals who recognize the mockery for what it truly is.

 

Regardless of that, however, is the fact that any enterprising troll with working Ctrl, C, and V keys has an infinetly renewable trolling tool that can consistently be used to devastating effect thanks to hoax-forums such as those Balthamael linked us to. Take heed, sinners, tired trouble makers, for your salvation is at hand!

[Jackalmonkey]

I like this thread. It reminds me of that old thread. The one on the BIS forums. The one with the people. Arguing. GOOD TIMES.

 

Now and again I look up at the sky and it occurs to me that the universe is all a little too perfectly ordered to be any kind of mistake. And that's when I remember the message inherent in the HOLY PENTAGON and it takes me right back to the day Mr. Knudson taught us all how to make a hockey puck out've shoe polish and five pounds of basic human inadequacy. GOOD TIMES.

[Brother None]

If you ignore this message or reply with nothing better than "your ignorance astounds me", you'll have proven that you're no better than the people you just criticised yourself.

Thanks for proving me right, Craftsman

[Craftsman]

About all religions, I not sure.

 

After arguing on this topic this for a long time, I began to realise how you kept on insisting that there was no God. You repeatly kept aswering back no matter how bad it would sound. You never said ' Maybe there is a God' It appears that you will twist logic just to calm your mind that there is nothing to worry about.

 

Big Mistake.

[chevan]

Craftsman, who exactly are you replying to?