Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Religion


  • Please log in to reply
2248 replies to this topic

#1741
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
QUOTE (hasjustbeenpwned @ Aug 6 2009, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What happened before god? my problem with the big bang versus god argument is that their has to be something before it but religious people just tell me "god has always been" why could god have just been there but the big bang is impossible to "just be"? Someone said i'm over thinking this but what created the creator? or what caused the big bang for that matter?
Here's one possible explanation: "2. The physical approximation of the NOTHING.

One concept in physics is that all atoms and energy consist of vibrations and wave appearances. In a material way, every atom or form of energy is caused by vibration. The physical approximation (tilnærmelse) describes the nothing of the idea of vibration - and does not touch on the spiritual aspects and the consciousness of matter. It does not distinguish between the "nothing" and the spiritual "No-Thing" (the ALL). It only recognizes the material aspects of the nothing.

If everything is vibrations or waves, then it is not necessary to speak of matter or energy, then Creation is fundamentally based on this concept of vibration. The primeval vibration (before the limitation) can be described as infinite in time, infinite in all its aspects and possibilities, infinite in frequency and amplitude and existing in all time directions (omnitime). Unchanging, timeless and powerful to all limited vibrations in every bound power. It is the omnipotent definition.

In this approximation the nothing is more simple to understand. Before the creation - the infinite omnipotent vibration existed- but a vibration in every direction and of infinite frequency and amplitude is not a vibration. The apparent paradox can be eliminated by stating: Only at the instant when this infinite vibration blocks itself by interference, as in a flash, all bound waves and frequencies were created. This condition is very close to the existential view of the Creation out of NOTHING in Chapter 1.

The nothing (here) has no counteraction, but in contrast the omnipotent vibration - can manifest itself only by counter-acting in such a way that the infinite allows the nothing to be. So one can also state that all vibrations were created because the nothing bound itself by a mechanism of interference quenching (ble dempet) - (counteracting vibrations) of infinite force, which blocked the infinite possibilities of these vibrations. This universe can only be considered as the limitation of the unbounded nothing." - Taken from "Contact with the Iargans"
QUOTE (hasjustbeenpwned @ Aug 5 2009, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
seeing as this topic has been rather.... dead recently. I figured i'd try to get the ball rolling again if at all possible.

Recently i've been thinking more and more about religion, the universe and the likes, and it always leads me back to a few things.

One of which is huge to me, not because i live my life striving to get into a heaven or keep myself out of a hell, but we all at some point in time realized their is the true religion out there somewhere (atheism included in my "true religion" concept) but if their is a god, why would he only let people into whatever form of heaven if they believe in him, why wouldn't he choose people that live morally sound lives and adhered to the rules he set forward? For example say some random sect of Christianity was the true religion. Would god only accept us into heaven if we accepted Jesus as our savior (i don't know what word to use there), or would living a good life abiding by his 10 commandments and other rules allow us entrance to heaven, though we followed a different religion? I personally think (hope) that that's how it will be, for the simple fact of their being so many different religions available to us and god hasn't given us a sure sign to which one was the real one, or maybe that's a sign that atheism could be the true religion, maybe if there was a god he would've showed us which religion to follow but their isn't so he didn't, or maybe that's a sign showing that he wouldn't care what religion we follow?

Another is the start of everything. I understand the big bang theory, but i've never been able to grasp what was before it. I've heard people say "God caused the big bang" which to me could make sense, but what was before god? If the universe can't just be then how could god just be?

so what do you guys think? is their a true religion and would belief in it be the only thing that would get you to it's form of heaven? or could living a good life get you there also?
Are you aware of Christian Universalism? You are speaking of heaven, hell, and God in a very specific belief set/dogma/doctrine of Judeo-Christian beliefs. There are many views. Here's some more information on Christian Universalism:

"Christian Universalism is a set of theological beliefs about God, Christ, and the origin and destiny of the human soul, emphasizing the unconditional parental love of God and God's plan to redeem, restore, and transform all people through Christ. This spiritual belief system has existed in various forms at various times during the past 2000 years.

Christian Universalists claim that their beliefs were the most common interpretation of Christianity in Early Christianity, prior to the 6th century. Today it is regarded as a heretical view of the Gospel by most Christian denominations. However, a substantial minority of Christians from a diversity of denominations and traditions appear to believe in the controversial tenets of this belief system, such as the reality of an afterlife without the existence of an eternal hell.

Beliefs
The central beliefs of Christian Universalism are as follows:

God is the loving Parent of all people.

Jesus Christ reveals the nature and character of God and is the spiritual leader of humankind.

Sin has negative consequences for the sinner either in this life or the afterlife (some concept of karma or purgatory), but the penalty for sin is not everlasting (i.e. doctrines of damnation to hell and annihilationism are rejected).

Universal reconciliation: All souls are reconciled to God without exception.
Theosis as the meaning of salvation: All souls will ultimately be conformed to the image of divine perfection in Christ.

The first five of these beliefs were found in the Five Principles of Faith adopted in 1899 by the Universalist General Convention, a historical Christian denomination which was later called the Universalist Church of America. All six of these beliefs are found in the statement of faith adopted in 2007 by the Christian Universalist Association. The inclusion of the last belief reflects a modern revival of the concept of theosis (often called "Manifest Sonship" or "Christedness") among Christians who believe in universal reconciliation, especially those with a background in the Charismatic movement or the New Age and New Thought movements.

Biblical origins
Christian Universalists argue that Jesus taught Universalist principles including universal reconciliation and the divine origin and destiny of all people, and that these teachings were further developed by Saint Paul, Saint Peter, and Saint John the Apostle. They also argue that some Universalist principles were taught or foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

Christian Universalists often point to the following Biblical teachings as evidence of Universalism:

Jesus' Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matthew 18:12-14, Luke 15:1-7)

Jesus' Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-31)

Jesus' prophecy that he will "draw all men" to himself (John 12:32)

Jesus' teaching that God is "Our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9)

Jesus' teaching that "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40)
Jesus' teaching that all things will be renewed. (Matthew 19:28)
Jesus' teaching that the unforgiving servant will be turned "over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed." (Matthew 18:34)
Jesus' statement that human beings are "gods" (John 10:34, quoting Psalm 82:6)

Paul's teaching that human beings are God's "offspring" (Acts 17:28)

Paul's teaching that there is "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6)
Paul's teaching that "from [God] and through him and to him are all things" (Romans 11:36)

Paul's teaching that Jesus is the "firstborn among many brothers" (Romans 8:29)

Paul's prophecy that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Paul's teaching that "just as the result of one trespass [by Adam] was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness [by Christ] was justification that brings life for all men. ... through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:18-19)
Paul's statement that God "is the Saviour of all men, specially of them that believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
Paul's teaching that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19)

Paul's prophecy that "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11)

Peter's teaching that Jesus "died for sins once for all" and "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago" (1 Peter 3:18-20), so that they may "live according to God in regard to the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6)

John's teaching that "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)

John's teaching that "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5)

John's teaching that "[Jesus Christ] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)
The angel announcing the birth of Jesus to shepherds, saying, "I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people." (Luke 2:10)
Old Testament teaching that men and women are created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27)
Old Testament teaching that "[God's] anger lasts only a moment" (Psalm 30:5)

Old Testament teaching that "[God] is good; his love endures forever" (Psalm 106:1, 107:1)
Non-Universalist Christians interpret these Biblical teachings in ways that do not imply Universalism, or point to other verses in the Bible which seemingly contradict Universalist beliefs. Christian Universalists contend that some key words in the original Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible have been mistranslated to strengthen the traditional argument for eternal hell.

Liberal Christian Universalism (specifically what I personally am a part of)
A variety of people who have liberal interpretations of Christianity hold Universalist beliefs and can be considered Liberal Christian Universalists. This category of Christian Universalism includes some members of mainline Protestant denominations, some people influenced by the New Age and New Thought movements, some people in the emerging church movement, some Unitarian Universalists who continue to follow Jesus as their primary spiritual teacher, and some Christians from other religious backgrounds who may or may not attend church.

Liberal Christian Universalism emphasizes the all-inclusive love of God and tends to be more open to finding truth and value in non-Christian spiritual traditions compared to the attitude of other forms of Christian Universalism, while remaining generally Christ-centered. In contrast to Evangelical Universalism, Liberal Christian Universalism views the Bible as an imperfect human document containing divine revelations, is not necessarily Trinitarian, and often downplays or rejects blood atonement theology in its view of the crucifixion of Jesus. Some Liberal Christian Universalists believe in mystical, Gnostic, or New Age ideas such as Panentheism and the preexistence and reincarnation of the soul, and New Thought ideas such as the law of attraction. Liberal Christian Universalists sometimes do not view homosexuality as sinful and may advocate equal rights for gay people in the church and in society.
The Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship is an organization for Liberal Christian Universalists, especially those who belong to the Unitarian Universalist Association. The Liberal Catholic Church and the Unity Church are liberal Christian denominations which teach some Universalist beliefs.

Issues of disagreement among Christian Universalists
There are many religious issues on which Christian Universalists disagree with each other, depending on their theological background and denominational tradition. Some examples include:

A wide range of ways of understanding the Bible, such as Biblical inerrancy, Biblical infallibility, Biblical criticism and higher criticism. Also various views of the Biblical canon and apocryphal texts.

Whether God is best described by the orthodox Christian concept of Trinity or in some other way, such as Modalism, Unitarianism, Panentheism, etc.

Whether Jesus Christ will literally return at some future time (futurism and dispensationalism), or returns metaphorically in the present (amillennialism) or future, or whether these prophecies were fulfilled in ancient times (preterism).

The specific nature of the afterlife (literal versus metaphoric heaven and hell, purgatory, reincarnation, other ideas).

Whether the shed blood of Christ on the cross is a literal atonement for the sins of the world or whether this is metaphorical, and what the atonement accomplished -- Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction (Roman Catholic view), John Calvin's penal substitution (Reformed and common evangelical view), Hugo Grotius' moral government (classical Arminian and Methodist view), Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor (Eastern Orthodox view, commonly held by Anabaptists), or Peter Abelard's moral influence (modernist-liberal theological view), etc..

Whether non-Christians can be saved in Christ (inclusivism), whether salvation in Christ is even necessary for all people (pluralism), or whether salvation occurs only after profession of belief in the Lordship of Jesus Christ (exclusivism).

Whether homosexual relations should be considered sinful in light of the New Testament.

Whether Christian Universalists should attend denominational churches in the hope of transforming them, or should start their own new churches, or should leave the organized church entirely.

Status as a new religious movement
Currently, Christian Universalism seems to be entering a phase of increasing organization and outreach to various types of Christians. There are some indications that it may be consolidating into a distinct new religious movement. However, some of the leaders of churches and groups that teach Christian Universalism are strongly opposed to forming any type or form of organization or movement.

It is unclear whether Christian Universalism will eventually develop into a new branch of Christianity with one or more new denominations, or whether Christian Universalist beliefs will become common in one or more existing branches of Christianity, or whether Christian Universalism will remain a little known belief system regarded as heretical by most Christians. A significant question is whether Christian Universalists of various types and backgrounds will rally around their shared beliefs to form a cohesive tradition and movement, or whether Christian Universalism will continue to be fragmented into small and isolated groups, limiting its potential for growth and influence."

Link: http://en.wikipedia....an_Universalism

Edited by fykusfire, 12 August 2009 - 02:10 PM.


#1742
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
Sigh, I accidentally wiped my post while trying to post it so I gotta type it out lawl.

I'm commenting on the whole "atheism is a religion" phenomenon.

Atheism is not a religion or a system of beliefs or a way of life, as someone above already supplied, its definition is simply someone who does not believe in a deity.

Lacking a belief in the supernatural does not = some form of doctrine of how one should live their lives, nor is there any specific way someone looses their belief in a god.

Atheism is often confused as synonymous with the scientific method, this is a false assumption. Being an atheist does not mean you came to your godless conclusion via:



My friend is a classic example, he doesn't have any specific reason for being an atheist, he just thinks that religion is stupid (those are his words icon_biggrin.gif ). This guy does not have the cranial capacity to understand anything about the big bang or... pretty much anything to do with life and the big arguments between science and religion.

This is contrast to me, who was an staunch catholic, up until I started doing my own research and forming my own conclusions on things and finally one day realized that it was highly improbable that any deity exist.

Atheism vs theism is totally different from the scientific method vs christianity. Please understand the difference between someone who uses the scientific method as a way of life (such as myself) and people who simply don't believe that a deity can exist.

Then also understand that the way the scientific method works in comparison to the dogmatism of a religion makes them completely different.



#1743
Pawnator

Pawnator
  • Members
  • 5,495 posts
  • Gender:Male
http://en.wikipedia....nitents_Compete



#1744
MaxDamage

MaxDamage

    IRC Awards 2006: Friendliest | i r beefcaek. ph33r me!

  • GA Private
  • 3,653 posts
  • xfire:maxdamagus
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK
  • Interests:Rockin', art, gaming, listening to good music, etc...
  • Wii:will rock you
  • Gamer Army ID:108
QUOTE (Pawnator @ Aug 19 2009, 03:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a genuine fear of said show ending up similar to this:
http://www.break.com...one-normal.html

UUr16xn.png
I don't need tattoos to look hard. I AM hard.


#1745
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
Woah, what a bizarre idea for a show. I don't know what to think of that one.

#1746
Afrohorse

Afrohorse
  • Members
  • 132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax
  • Interests:Vidya Gaems
  • Steam ID:Caeliv
  • Xbox / GFWL:Selxxa
I think Religious debate over who is right and wrong is silly. Instead, you should try to come to a common conclusion. The first method gets you nowhere, neither side is willing to change their views to fit yours, ever. You'll never convert somebody through debate, or at least they'll never admit it.

My religious views are constantly changing, but I'd probably classify myself as an Agnostic, but more on the Atheistic side. I've seen nothing to convince me of God, but I still don't believe that it can ever be proven that there is none. My "Spiritual" beliefs are more that of Deism, I don't believe in miracles or that "God" interacts with us, ever. My idea of "God" is something, not necessarily Sentient, which sparked the Big Bang.
Vidya Gaems

#1747
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,927 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Afrohorse @ Aug 19 2009, 02:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think Religious debate over who is right and wrong is silly. Instead, you should try to come to a common conclusion. The first method gets you nowhere, neither side is willing to change their views to fit yours, ever. You'll never convert somebody through debate, or at least they'll never admit it.

My religious views are constantly changing, but I'd probably classify myself as an Agnostic, but more on the Atheistic side. I've seen nothing to convince me of God, but I still don't believe that it can ever be proven that there is none. My "Spiritual" beliefs are more that of Deism, I don't believe in miracles or that "God" interacts with us, ever. My idea of "God" is something, not necessarily Sentient, which sparked the Big Bang.




This isn't the "Work to solve the worlds problems" Section. Its true that religions need to come together and solve this stupid cycle of war based on intangible beliefs, but we're not trying to do that here icon_razz.gif

#1748
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Aug 12 2009, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
My friend is a classic example, he doesn't have any specific reason for being an atheist, he just thinks that religion is stupid (those are his words icon_biggrin.gif ). This guy does not have the cranial capacity to understand anything about the big bang or... pretty much anything to do with life and the big arguments between science and religion.

This is contrast to me, who was an staunch catholic, up until I started doing my own research and forming my own conclusions on things and finally one day realized that it was highly improbable that any deity exist.
Do you believe the "big bang" somehow refutes religion? I'm not sure why your friend's inability to comprehend such a thing has anything to do with that set of beliefs. Also, what led you to ultimately become an atheist if you don't mind me asking? Trust me, this isn't for me to convert you. I really am just wondering what led you that way.


#1749
Fin

Fin
  • Members
  • 1,347 posts
QUOTE
Do you believe the "big bang" somehow refutes religion? I'm not sure why your friend's inability to comprehend such a thing has anything to do with that set of beliefs.

for some reason many christians belive that all atheist reject religion because science. Which ofcourse might be true on many cases, but understanding science is not one of the requirements of being an atheist.

#1750
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
QUOTE (Fin @ Sep 3 2009, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
for some reason many christians belive that all atheist reject religion because science. Which ofcourse might be true on many cases, but understanding science is not one of the requirements of being an atheist.
Yeah, that's how I always understood it myself. The big bang confirms the Genesis account anyway. It doesn't refute it whether atheists and and Judeo-Christian religions want to argue about it or not.


#1751
anatomy187

anatomy187
  • GA Corporal
  • 2,574 posts
  • xfire:anatomy20
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana / Philly
  • Steam ID:anatomy187
  • Xbox / GFWL:anatomy187
  • PSN:anatomy187
  • Gamer Army ID:2743
  • Company:Delta
QUOTE (MaxDamage @ Aug 18 2009, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I have a genuine fear of said show ending up similar to this:
http://www.break.com...one-normal.html

Mother of God...it took them 2 minutes just to figure out what the fuck 'Indian' even means....and then they still didn't.

It seems that for every genuine Christian there are 10 ignorant 'Christians' out there. That video was painful in many ways sir...

#1752
Master C

Master C
  • Members
  • 5,511 posts
  • xfire:masterca
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Xbox / GFWL:Renegade Con
  • Wii:4710238335790963
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
QUOTE (Fin @ Sep 3 2009, 07:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
for some reason many christians belive that all atheist reject religion because science. Which ofcourse might be true on many cases, but understanding science is not one of the requirements of being an atheist.



QUOTE (fykusfire @ Sep 3 2009, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeah, that's how I always understood it myself. The big bang confirms the Genesis account anyway. It doesn't refute it whether atheists and and Judeo-Christian religions want to argue about it or not.


Science doesnt disprove gods existence. However it does prove that god doesn't need to exist for this universe to work: So the simplest solution is he doesnt.

Edited by Master C, 04 September 2009 - 04:35 AM.


#1753
fykusfire

fykusfire
  • GA Private
  • 1,316 posts
  • xfire:fykusfire
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Steam ID:fykusfire
  • Gamer Army ID:1293
  • Company:Hotel
QUOTE (Master C @ Sep 4 2009, 04:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Science doesnt disprove gods existence. However it does prove that god doesn't need to exist for this universe to work: So the simplest solution is he doesnt.
I am quite familiar with Occam's Razor. It is at least interesting to me though that those who were inspired by what they considered the creator of the universe came up with the Genesis account of creation, and then thousands of years ago science comes along and tells the same story as the Torah/Old Testament, and sparks what has probably been one of the most controversial on-going debates in recent history simply over literal interpretation, fundamentalism, and semantics. Don't these two accounts at least to some of you sound familiar?

Matter + Anti-Matter = Explosion (Let there be light!)
Primordial Plasma flowing to both sides of explosion forming large rock masses, gases, and other chemical compounds (Creation of the Heavens and Earth)
Gases like methane, ethane, and other complex compounds trapped in the rock creating craters (Creation of the Land)
New compounds form elements essential and non-essential to life such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. Oxygen and hydrogen bond creating new liquid water (Creation of the Sea)
Life forms forming in the oceans in the newly created water and oxygen (Creation of the Sea Creatures)
Life forms eventually coming onto land and living in the newly formed atmosphere (Creation of the Land Creatures)
Creation of Man

Taking all of the arguments over creationism and evolution (which I believe are the exact same thing), it will always stike me as odd that the big bang was described so systematically thousands of years prior to modern science being created. That at least has to be some sort of case for an intelligent being's inspiration.

#1754
Master C

Master C
  • Members
  • 5,511 posts
  • xfire:masterca
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Xbox / GFWL:Renegade Con
  • Wii:4710238335790963
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
You can break down any vague extract and draw the meaning you want from it (see every conspiracy theory ever). It doesn't prove anything and really shouldn't be used in debate. Its typical of drawing a conclusion and then seeking evidence for it (rather than vice versa).

Creationism and evolution cannot co-exist, because creationism implies purpose. Evolution ceases to be evolution when you push a purpose on it. There is no design to evolution. It just happens.

Edited by Master C, 04 September 2009 - 03:22 PM.


#1755
Myth

Myth
  • Members
  • 4,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:1234567890qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
QUOTE (fykusfire @ Sep 5 2009, 04:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am quite familiar with Occam's Razor. It is at least interesting to me though that those who were inspired by what they considered the creator of the universe came up with the Genesis account of creation, and then thousands of years ago science comes along and tells the same story as the Torah/Old Testament, and sparks what has probably been one of the most controversial on-going debates in recent history simply over literal interpretation, fundamentalism, and semantics. Don't these two accounts at least to some of you sound familiar?

Matter + Anti-Matter = Explosion (Let there be light!)
Primordial Plasma flowing to both sides of explosion forming large rock masses, gases, and other chemical compounds (Creation of the Heavens and Earth)
Gases like methane, ethane, and other complex compounds trapped in the rock creating craters (Creation of the Land)
New compounds form elements essential and non-essential to life such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen. Oxygen and hydrogen bond creating new liquid water (Creation of the Sea)
Life forms forming in the oceans in the newly created water and oxygen (Creation of the Sea Creatures)
Life forms eventually coming onto land and living in the newly formed atmosphere (Creation of the Land Creatures)
Creation of Man

Taking all of the arguments over creationism and evolution (which I believe are the exact same thing), it will always stike me as odd that the big bang was described so systematically thousands of years prior to modern science being created. That at least has to be some sort of case for an intelligent being's inspiration.


Big bang is theorised to have happened almost 15 billion years ago. creationism dates the events of the genesis as mere thousands of years ago.

#1756
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
QUOTE (fykusfire @ Sep 3 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Do you believe the "big bang" somehow refutes religion? I'm not sure why your friend's inability to comprehend such a thing has anything to do with that set of beliefs. Also, what led you to ultimately become an atheist if you don't mind me asking? Trust me, this isn't for me to convert you. I really am just wondering what led you that way.


What turned me from the bible to evolution was simply wondering why there was such thing as prejudice against homosexuals, women and people of different nationalities. Nothing in religion offered a satisfactory explanation. However biologically speaking, there are satisfying explanations for why in our society there is sexism, homophobia and racism. This question from my early childhood essentially made me realize that religion does not have any truly logical answers to any questions and if one cant take "god did it" as an acceptable answer, then one must find the answers for himself.

Its not easy to answer why I left my faith behind because there was so much too it, I had strong faith and it took me many years until it finally occurred to me that I no longer had faith, but the simple answer is because I'm a naturally curious person and the more I learned about anything and everything, the more it became apparent to me that there is no point believing in anything spiritual.

Spirituality generally revolves around giving people the answers they want for a fee. If I wanted that, I would pay for a shrink, not a priest.



#1757
Hellswarm

Hellswarm
  • Members
  • 2,554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:CSS
QUOTE (Master C @ Sep 4 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Creationism and evolution cannot co-exist, because creationism implies purpose. Evolution ceases to be evolution when you push a purpose on it. There is no design to evolution. It just happens.


Creationism implies purpose. Evolution refutes method.

QUOTE
Spirituality generally revolves around giving people the answers they want for a fee. If I wanted that, I would pay for a shrink, not a priest.


That is a very broad generalization, mate.

Edited by Hellswarm, 07 September 2009 - 05:25 AM.


#1758
Extracheez

Extracheez
  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Xbox / GFWL:xExtracheeZx
QUOTE (Hellswarm @ Sep 7 2009, 05:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That is a very broad generalization, mate.


It is and was meant to be. Care to explain why you pointed that out as if to say it was false? I think all the religions I know of offer happiness and ask for donations. Anything from Christianity to Buddhism, they all seem to have large amounts of golden statues and other nick knacks that cost a pretty penny.

Pretty much anything I have ever heard of new-age spirituality is the same, however more capitalist(buy my rocks, they make you feel better, pay me 50 bucks and ill read your tarot).

It makes me chuckle that people get so uppity about Scientology, yet think the Vatican doesn't work the same way.



#1759
Master C

Master C
  • Members
  • 5,511 posts
  • xfire:masterca
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England
  • Xbox / GFWL:Renegade Con
  • Wii:4710238335790963
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Sep 7 2009, 05:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What turned me from the bible to evolution was simply wondering why there was such thing as prejudice against homosexuals, women and people of different nationalities. Nothing in religion offered a satisfactory explanation. However biologically speaking, there are satisfying explanations for why in our society there is sexism, homophobia and racism. This question from my early childhood essentially made me realize that religion does not have any truly logical answers to any questions and if one cant take "god did it" as an acceptable answer, then one must find the answers for himself.

Its not easy to answer why I left my faith behind because there was so much too it, I had strong faith and it took me many years until it finally occurred to me that I no longer had faith, but the simple answer is because I'm a naturally curious person and the more I learned about anything and everything, the more it became apparent to me that there is no point believing in anything spiritual.

Spirituality generally revolves around giving people the answers they want for a fee. If I wanted that, I would pay for a shrink, not a priest.


Thats a...Weird reason to question your believes over and is easily answered by the free will argument. I assume you had similiar problems reconciling your believes with the existence of 'evil'?

edit also

QUOTE (Hellswarm @ Sep 7 2009, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Creationism implies purpose. Evolution refutes method.


I'm not sure what this means icon_sad.gif. Evolution...shows method is wrong?

Edited by Master C, 07 September 2009 - 11:33 AM.


#1760
Hellswarm

Hellswarm
  • Members
  • 2,554 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:CSS
QUOTE (Extracheez @ Sep 7 2009, 06:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is and was meant to be. Care to explain why you pointed that out as if to say it was false? I think all the religions I know of offer happiness and ask for donations. Anything from Christianity to Buddhism, they all seem to have large amounts of golden statues and other nick knacks that cost a pretty penny.


Oh, sure, the religious have fashioned themselves statues and temples that may have cost hundreds of thousands of their commissioners' life earnings, but which religions demand equal donation from their followers?

Commissioning a Church brings you no closer to Salvation and commissioning a Statue brings you no closer to Nirvana. Perhaps some ancient form of Roman Catholicism offered forgiveness for one's donation.

What of the Protestant denominations, who were formed almost exclusively to combat the Roman Catholic notion that monetary donations and worldly creations were of importance to their God?

What of non-mainstream religions, such as Taoism?

QUOTE
I'm not sure what this means icon_sad.gif. Evolution...shows method is wrong?


The Theory of Evolution refutes that there is a process/method to how mutations occur - they're random. The process of natural selection, however, is not.

The Theory of Evolution does not, however, suggest that there is no purpose to evolution. If there truly is no god, then at a very basic level the purpose of Natural Selection could be to refine and to promote genetic improvement in each species. A Theist might argue that the purpose of Natural Selection (defined by their respective god) was to eventually create an intelligent race.

If there was a true purpose, it would be very difficult to prove - science has a knack to be able to prove the how but not the why.

For example, Schwann (Nerve) Cells are observably larger than and in an abnormal shape compared to regular spherical body cells. However, there is no 'proof' that the the reason Schwann Cells are in such an abnormal shape is so that they can be larger. We know that a Cell with a normal shape would not survive if it were the size of a Schwann Cell, but we still can't 'prove' that the shape of the cell changed so that it could be larger. We can easily prove the how, however, and that is of course found in the Theory of Evolution.

Edited by Hellswarm, 07 September 2009 - 05:39 PM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users