Jump to content

Smart people don't believe in god...


Recommended Posts

Hmmm, 5:30 already.  Enjoy your all-nighter, mine's almost over...

 

Lucky you. I still have a short story and a personal-reflective essay to write.

 

Eris?  I am unfamiliar with her...

 

Eris Discordia was the Greco-Roman god of Chaos, Discord, and Quarrels. Legends say she started the Trojan War. Unlike most religions, Discordianism has very few rules, (most of which contradict each other), and stresses competition and innovation over tradition and order. You can find a transliteration of our holy book, The Principia Discordia, here. However, much of the Principia's chaotic beauty is lost in that version.

 

As for knowing its the right being, I became convinced of the Bible's truth, and decided to live by it's commands, and prayed to God for forgiveness.  Since then, I've felt great peace.  I have "faith" that the God of the Bible is the one true God, and that the presence I feel is him.  Of course you can argue I'm being totally decieved, but that's not going to convince me I'm wrong...

 

So no chance you'd believe me when I tell you you've been led astray by Greyface? I'd hate for you to spend an eternity in hell as a result. :p

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

... or the jews. :p

 

No, actually, the Rabbi's today teach that non-believers go to a sort of purgatory and are cleansed for eons, then let into heaven. Sound strange? I thought so too...

Hadn't heard that bit of gossip. Then again, Christianity is just a group of schismistic offshoots of Judaism, anyway. How many sects of Judaism are there? Hassidics, progressives, conservatives? I dunno lots.

 

I haven't got the figures to hand, but, assuming Christianity is about 1 billion, that leaves upwards of 5.5 billion people who aren't going to heaven. Not sure what the most populous religion is -- Hinduism, Islam; Buddhism; maybe Taoism? Certainly there are going to be a lot of disapointed dead people. Unless they're all dead. (Nihilism.)

And there are more people alive today then were ever alive during the whole of human history. (oops, that should have been in the useless info thread. :ermm: )

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rationality is on atheist side.  You can debate that god exist or unicorns and its the same debate as i see it.

 

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it.

do you usually beleive only in the things that you have good reason to believe in, or do you beleive in every thing that hasn't been shown not to exist? can you prove that unicorns didn't exist? sound familiar?

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess worst-case senerio is that I'm totally wrong, but the consequences of being an "infidel" are very mild in most of the other religions...unless the Fundamentalist Muslims really are right, then I'll be in deep, deep trouble.

... or the jews. :p

 

No, actually, the Rabbi's today teach that non-believers go to a sort of purgatory and are cleansed for eons, then let into heaven. Sound strange? I thought so too...

Hadn't heard that bit of gossip. Then again, Christianity is just a group of schismistic offshoots of Judaism, anyway. How many sects of Judaism are there? Hassidics, progressives, conservatives? I dunno lots.

 

I haven't got the figures to hand, but, assuming Christianity is about 1 billion, that leaves upwards of 5.5 billion people who aren't going to heaven. Not sure what the most populous religion is -- Hinduism, Islam; Buddhism; maybe Taoism? Certainly there are going to be a lot of disapointed dead people. Unless they're all dead. (Nihilism.)

And there are more people alive today then were ever alive during the whole of human history. (oops, that should have been in the useless info thread. :ermm: )

 

Well, they all contradict each other anyway, or at least they do if you haven't bought into relativism, so may aswell pick one...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, they all contradict each other anyway, or at least they do if you haven't bought into relativism, so may aswell pick one...

... or -- thanks to the Reformation and the consequential political upheaval of the eighteenth century -- none. :p

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rationality is on atheist side.  You can debate that god exist or unicorns and its the same debate as i see it.

 

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it.

do you usually beleive only in the things that you have good reason to believe in, or do you beleive in every thing that hasn't been shown not to exist? can you prove that unicorns didn't exist? sound familiar?

 

There is more evidence for an intelligent (any intelligence) creator who designed the universe than there is for the idea that it just all happened. I recommend Micheal Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".

 

As for unicorns, we can only speculate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your intrest in Eris truely religious or merely out of Philosophical intrest?

 

Truly religious I suppose. The way I see it, something had to have created the universe. But when you look at the universe, stars aren't placed in lines, plants don't grow naturally in rows, entropy in the universe is always increaing, and the most complex and highly ordered system we know of, mankind, only uses such a highly ordered system to spread even more chaos and disorder. With all this chaos around, how can any religion that stresses order, inner peace and following rules millenia old be correct? Why would a creator make a universe filled with chaos and then tell us not to participate? Thus it seems to me that if there is a Supreme Being, it has to be one that sees benefit in Chaos. And Eris is that Supreme Being.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is your intrest in Eris truely religious or merely out of Philosophical intrest?

 

Truly religious I suppose. The way I see it, something had to have created the universe. But when you look at the universe, stars aren't placed in lines, plants don't grow naturally in rows, entropy in the universe is always increaing, and the most complex and highly ordered system we know of, mankind, only uses such a highly ordered system to spread even more chaos and disorder. With all this chaos around, how can any religion that stresses order, inner peace and following rules millenia old be correct? Why would a creator make a universe filled with chaos and then tell us not to participate? Thus it seems to me that if there is a Supreme Being, it has to be one that sees benefit in Chaos. And Eris is that Supreme Being.

 

An interesting theology. Thanks for sharing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Micheal Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".

Is this guy saying that evolution on a small scale is false? what i get from the summary is that from a microscopic level it is. and i disagree. i can see the the sifting of genes as we go through our lives and how it can change a speacies over a long period.

 

I recomend The Selfish Gene By Richard Dawkins

 

Fabric Of The Cosmos By Brian Green

Always outnumbered, never out gunned!

Unreal Tournament 2004 Handle:Enlight_2.0

Myspace Website!

My rig

Link to post
Share on other sites
... stars aren't placed in lines...

Actually, stars are in spherical orbits, in equi-distant layers travelling outwards from a central point (we can currently see a couple of degrees of an arc and about three layers using the Hubble telescope), consistent with the Big Bang theory (aptly named telescope).

 

Asimov wrote an interesting short story about how to reverse entropy, about fifty years ago. ...

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
... stars aren't placed in lines...

Actually, stars are in spherical orbits, in equi-distant layers travelling outwards from a central point (we can currently see a couple of degrees of an arc and about three layers using the Hubble telescope), consistent with the Big Bang theory (aptly named telescope).

 

Asimov wrote an interesting short story about how to reverse entropy, about fifty years ago. ...

galaxy.jpg

 

I see a big clump of stars arranged in no particular order spinning around. Considering that there's a big clump in the middle, either these layers aren't of a uniform thickness or some parts of that galaxy have more layers than others. That's not perfect order. :)"

 

If they were arranged in lines, I'd be able to draw a line through all of their centres without touching any other stars except in the centre.

 

If they're not in those sorts of lines, then they are, at least to some degree, arranged in a chaotic manner. And if so, you're saying that they're roughly this and rouhly that, and I would say you're trying to impose your need for patterns on a chaotic system. :p"

 

:p

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rationality is on atheist side.  You can debate that god exist or unicorns and its the same debate as i see it.

 

Rationality is on the theist side. You can debate that atheistic evolution exists or unicorns and its the same debate as I see it.

 

i'm sorry... are you refuting the theory of evolution now? :)

 

btw, what is atheistic evolution? the theory of evolution, like the big bang theory, doesn't disprove god. it has nothing to do with religion at all...

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you don't care what Buddhists think and yet you're willing to attack Christianity on their behalf.  Okay.

 

...And, by attacking all Christians, you are attacking me personally.  I thought that would be apparent.

 

As for your other arguments, I'm more than willing to let them stand beside my own and let others decide which of us is more tolerant.

I think the argument is derailed: we are not necessarily talking about physical violence.

 

The issue I believe revolves around the Christian imperative to actively evangelise: it is a hostile act to assume moral, spiritual and theological superiority and try to convert the "heathens" to the word of God.

 

If you are a Buddhist, you do no such thing. Live and let live.

 

:)

 

I am a Christian. I have not argued against any belief in this thread. I have been, I submit, more tolerant than the people who question my religion.

 

Hell, the only thing I've done is disagree with folks who, from what I can tell, assume an air of moral superiority to me.

 

...And yet I'm not really angry about this. The discussion has been remarkably civil and no belief deserves to exist if it cannot survive scrutiny.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Your use of faith - for instance - is what I would call belief. Faith is not an articulate set of precepts - rather it is, for me, what one knows through discernment. Beliefs are linguistic attempts to intellectually describe faith. The problem is that once written, there is a tendency to concentrate upon the word and not the fact that it is the expression of one person at one moment who would likely describe it otherwise the next time. Though this may seem semantic, perhaps even pedantic, it is important to normalise such discussion in order to attempt to establish a shared vocabulary. In such a pluralist society, there is a tendency for two people to debate a point, using the very same words, when they are fact in possession of very different meanings."

 

Good God, Fionavar, we're brothers. ...And not only in Christ! :)

 

I much prefer to find areas where different parties can agree, make sure that they understand to what they've agreed, and then get to work on areas of real disagreement.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Metadigital: "Your literacy notwithstanding, I find christianity in general a patronising social contruct. Defending it merely impoverishes your credibility: why aren't women permitted to be Bishops? (Let alone homosexuals -- didn't Jesus preach inclusion -- prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, anyone except gays?)"

 

How odd that you talk about the intolerance of Christianity and how exclusive it is to others and then make a statement that cannot be taken as anything other than divisive. I've not been so arrogant as to expect other to "defend" their religion or lack thereof. I need not defend my faith. I am more than willing, however, to discuss it. If you desire contrition, then you will find yourself unfulfilled. If you desire a rational, cordial discussion, then I am glad to comply.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i pointed out potential logical and/or unscientific flaws with the original poll data and was promptly told to shut up. eldar, if you haven't noticed, those in favor of the ideas behind this thread are not looking for debate... they merely want others that believe as they do to point out how smart they all are. ironic, oddly, that the discussion revolves around being smarter, yet at the same time, unwilling to listen to criticism. kinda violates the most holy of scientific concepts: the scientific method. very ironic.

 

taks

comrade taks... just because.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm sorry... are you refuting the theory of evolution now? :thumbsup:

 

That is a loaded question... :-

 

Before you again find your self in error, this is the second time you have both mis-read my posts and sought to put me down as irrational...I assume your silence regarding my correction of your reply to my argument on marriage in society means you agree you mis-read?

 

I am saying that pretty much all atheists have faith in an evolutionary process that happened by sheer chance, and that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Atheism is the evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

 

btw, what is atheistic evolution? the theory of evolution, like the big bang theory, doesn't disprove god. it has nothing to do with religion at all...

 

Atheistic Evolution is what I was taught in school, primarily to re-emphasise that there was no guiding hand in creation, as opposed to (for example) Theistic Evolution, which states that a god used evolution to create.

 

But the Evolutionary tree has hit a few walls, and the Scientific community is currently divided on how best to explain it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell, the only thing I've done is disagree with folks who, from what I can tell, assume an air of moral superiority to me.

 

Very true. That is because the more "hateful" (and I am NOT referring to the author of the thread) anti-christianity views on this thread are expressed by people who can't cope with others holding to a moral system that is opposed to their lifestyle. As Metadigital pointed out, if some of the world religions I have rejected are right, I am in deep, deep trouble. But that doesn't mean I run out and verbally abuse and hate Islam or muslims.

 

Who is of stronger convictions? The one who tolerates the opposition and actively supports their right to government protection from violent bigots, or the one who angrily and provocatively attacks your beliefs and hates everything you stand for enough to seek that your religion and beliefs are banned?

 

...And yet I'm not really angry about this.  The discussion has been remarkably civil and no belief deserves to exist if it cannot survive scrutiny.

 

Remarkably civil for a gaming forum, any way...It's been fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a loaded question...  :lol:

 

I am saying that pretty much all atheists have faith in an evolutionary process that happened by sheer chance, and that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to Atheism is the evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

Its called Theory of Evolution for a very good reason, it cannot be proven.

 

But there are many evidence that the theory of evolution is, for most part, correct.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?

 

Rubbish.

 

My statement is? Why?

 

Its called Theory of Evolution for a very good reason, it cannot be proven.

 

Thanks for the info, but I already knew that, and it has nothing to do with anything I said!

 

Its called Theory of Evolution for a very good reason.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? Illogical responses aside, I agree.

 

it cannot be proven.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? I also agree.

 

But there are many evidence that the theory of evolution is, for most part, correct.

 

I didn't say it wasn't! What are you talking about? I was talking about the difference between ATHEISTIC evolution (process without God) and THEISTIC evolution (process with God).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to prove a theory is to replicate it.

 

Naturaly we cannot replicate over 10 million years of evolution in a lab but there are supporting evidence (fossils for example) that supports the theory of evolution is for most part correct.

 

There is no "faith" on the evolution process, there is supporting evidence as for evolutionary process that happening by sheer chance that is incorrect since evolution is the adaptation (and expecialization) of life forms to their enviroment and there is no "sheer chance" on that, if a species grows wings there is a reason for it.

 

And that is supported by fossil evidence.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying.

 

There is no "faith" on the evolution process,

 

There is no faith in Scientific process, but don't tell me that all evolutionists are totally subjective templars of truth. When the data ends, the faith begins...

 

as for evolutionary process that happening by sheer chance that is incorrect since evolution is the adaptation (and expecialization) of life forms to their enviroment and there is no "sheer chance" on that, if a species grows wings there is a reason for it.

And that is supported by fossil evidence.

 

What species grew wings? None. Or at least none who's fossils we've found. Many species have lost things (cave fish have eyes but are born blind, wingless beetles on small islands identical to winged beetles on the continents etc.)

 

There is no good scientific reason to believe that an animal can "create" new systems from scratch, by chance. This too is taken in faith by atheistic evolutionists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...