2248 replies to this topic

[RustyNail]

Well, I believe logic is everything. We use it in everything, even if it may seem illogical at first, it is often a calculated action. Are you suffering from the common delusion of logic as something soulless and unfeeling? I don't see your point; I accept that my desire to be altruistic comes from it's evolutionary advantage (and some cultural upbringing), but, too me that doesn't

1: belittle Altruism
2: Make me not care about it; I want to be Altruistic, therefore it is logical to *be* Altruistic, even too the point of self - sacrifice. I get urges, it makes sense to follow the urges.

I explained the herd instinct (evolutionary advantage) explanation. It doesn't add up. Also, logic is motivated by feeling. Here's an example:

Your best friend has just become a father to a son. He's holding his new baby. You walk up to him, you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." This is completely, 100% logical. It's a logical thing to say. Still, if you said it, people would think you're an immoral piece of trash.

Morality, whether culturally based or pushed along by an omnipotent creator, is a fantasy. This is my point. Logic is not everything. We do things because they feel right, not because they're logical.

[BlackCow]

How about we all worship the sun, we can see it, it provides us with warmth, food, water, vision, life. And the sun has never threatened me with hell. Hurray for sun worship!

In all seriousness all the religious originated from sun worshipers, I have a youtube video you should all watch, its extremely interesting and talks about how all religions are based off the sun and stars but just changed the story over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q

Honestly, religion is just storys to make us feel better about the big scary universe. The only true way to understand the nature of the universe and "god" is through science, yes it make take a long time but eventually when humans have colonized planets throughout the galaxy we will understand.

Just be a good person, be human, make your mark in history, and whatever happens when you die (heaven, pure energy being, ghost, merging with a super computer in hyper space, reincarnation, or just plain rot and die) happens.

And don't impose your religion on other people, no you do not have all the awncers and its just plain not nice.

[Dohregard]

I explained the herd instinct (evolutionary advantage) explanation. It doesn't add up. Also, logic is motivated by feeling. Here's an example:

Your best friend has just become a father to a son. He's holding his new baby. You walk up to him, you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." This is completely, 100% logical. It's a logical thing to say. Still, if you said it, people would think you're an immoral piece of trash.

Morality, whether culturally based or pushed along by an omnipotent creator, is a fantasy. This is my point. Logic is not everything. We do things because they feel right, not because they're logical.

your confusing logic with technicalities.

just because its technically true doesn't mean its logical. sure, you could argue SIDS is sudden and without warning (duh) but logically the chances of that baby ACTUALLY dieing are slim to none. a 1 or 2 percent chance of anything isn't logical in the least.

[Pawnator]

How about we all worship the sun, we can see it, it provides us with warmth, food, water, vision, life. And the sun has never threatened me with hell. Hurray for sun worship!

But it threatens you with skin cancer.

[Fin]

Protestants and other sects either don't believe in that at all, or they believe in consubstantiation, which is the spiritual embodiment of Christ in the host, rather than physical.

yes, eating the cookie (imo it needs more taste.. Cheese maybe) and drinking the wine is symbolic.
just like burning the doll of care(negative stuff) with the fire of friendship in front of a owl , symbol of wisdom.
btw, you didnt answere my question yet.. was there actual "leaders of the world", from OUTSIDE America? like Brittish royal family etc etc.

or is this the world you know ?

[fykusfire]

How about we all worship the sun, we can see it, it provides us with warmth, food, water, vision, life. And the sun has never threatened me with hell. Hurray for sun worship!

In all seriousness all the religious originated from sun worshipers, I have a youtube video you should all watch, its extremely interesting and talks about how all religions are based off the sun and stars but just changed the story over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aW2N46vf4Q

Honestly, religion is just storys to make us feel better about the big scary universe. The only true way to understand the nature of the universe and "god" is through science, yes it make take a long time but eventually when humans have colonized planets throughout the galaxy we will understand.

Just be a good person, be human, make your mark in history, and whatever happens when you die (heaven, pure energy being, ghost, merging with a super computer in hyper space, reincarnation, or just plain rot and die) happens.

And don't impose your religion on other people, no you do not have all the awncers and its just plain not nice.

I think you are referring to Atenism. I think it is important to point out though that Judaism and Atenism were both Monotheistic religions around at the same time. And only Atenism, which was an ancient Egyptian religion, referred to sun/light worship.

[RustyNail]

your confusing logic with technicalities.

just because its technically true doesn't mean its logical. sure, you could argue SIDS is sudden and without warning (duh) but logically the chances of that baby ACTUALLY dieing are slim to none. a 1 or 2 percent chance of anything isn't logical in the least.

The fact that I said there's a chance makes the statement factual and therefore logical. Semantics and irrelevant. But okay, here:

You go to your uncle's funeral. You turn to your mother, his sister, and say: "He'll definitely be consuming less of the world's natural and technological resources now."

Same deal. Logical, but completely rude and immoral.

[Dohregard]

I think you are referring to Atenism. I think it is important to point out though that Judaism and Atenism were both Monotheistic religions around at the same time. And only Atenism, which was an ancient Egyptian religion, referred to sun/light worship.

I was talking to one of my roommates, and he said that a lot of the stories of Judaism come from Greek mythology that was dated hundreds (or thousands) of years before Judaism was even a religion.

[Pawnator]

I was talking to one of my roommates, and he said that a lot of the stories of Judaism come from Greek mythology that was dated hundreds (or thousands) of years before Judaism was even a religion.

Yeah. That's chronologically impossible.

The very beginning of Greek religion, a very primitive form, was 1600-1400 BC

The Hebrews had that beat with Judaism by centuries; as early as 1900 BC, though it was probably much earlier.

Sure your roommate didn't mean another mesopotamian culture's religion?

[Pawnator]

If you raise a child to believe in nothing, when they are older they will believe anything. Religion ftw....
EDIT: I don't know why my browser decided to submit this form twice.

"Young men wishing to remain atheists should be careful in their reading."

That was the jist of something C.S. Lewis once said.

[Dohregard]

Yeah. That's chronologically impossible.

The very beginning of Greek religion, a very primitive form, was 1600-1400 BC

The Hebrews had that beat with Judaism by centuries; as early as 1900 BC, though it was probably much earlier.

Sure your roommate didn't mean another mesopotamian culture's religion?

could very well be, I'll check out the book he was reading when i get home. But, they had alot of the stories such as Noah and the Ark and Adam and Eve and all that.

[Hrugnir]

Err... So if Judaism was older, doesn't that make the Greek the copycats?

[Count_Pwntaculr]

"Young men wishing to remain atheists should be careful in their reading."

That was the jist of something C.S. Lewis once said.

C.S Lewis REALLY should of known better. Anyway, it would be foolish to engage in famous figure quote war with Atheists, we have essentially every renowned intellectual since 1850 . Since when would anyone *want* to be an atheist? Personally, I would rather be a Christian, much more comforting, but it doesn't make sense to me.

On a side note, I can't believe that 90 percent of "religious" people actually believe. Seriously, if I knew that heaven was just around the corner, and really belived it, I could *never* be unhappy. I get excited enough about the weekend, knowing that I would be in paradise in a heartbeat. I don't know how I could ever be unhappy.

Secondly, I would likely be happy for someone when they died.

[Pawnator]

C.S Lewis REALLY should of known better. Anyway, it would be foolish to engage in famous figure quote war with Atheists, we have essentially every renowned intellectual since 1850 .

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that there were more renowned atheist intellectuals than theist intellectuals? What about Albert Einstein? What about Robert Oppenheimer? What about Charles Darwin? Show me some statistics on that, but don't say something that probably isn't true like that with NO proof.

And no one was getting into a famous figure quote war. I posted a quote because it mirrored what Schiltz was saying so he could see it, not to begin a quote war. Thing is, you know that. You're not stupid.

[fykusfire]

could very well be, I'll check out the book he was reading when i get home. But, they had alot of the stories such as Noah and the Ark and Adam and Eve and all that.

You are referring to both Zoroastrianism and Mithraism respectively. Technically this specifically is Mithraism, but most of their followers believed their original prophet to be Zoroaster, which links the two. Zoroastrianism is a Middle Eastern religion for reference, however, and is the other monotheistic religion that in some scholar's opinions predates Judaism. However, according to popular belief, neither of the two religions go any further back than 600 BC.

C.S Lewis REALLY should of known better. Anyway, it would be foolish to engage in famous figure quote war with Atheists, we have essentially every renowned intellectual since 1850 . Since when would anyone *want* to be an atheist? Personally, I would rather be a Christian, much more comforting, but it doesn't make sense to me.

On a side note, I can't believe that 90 percent of "religious" people actually believe. Seriously, if I knew that heaven was just around the corner, and really belived it, I could *never* be unhappy. I get excited enough about the weekend, knowing that I would be in paradise in a heartbeat. I don't know how I could ever be unhappy.

Secondly, I would likely be happy for someone when they died.

Honestly, I know how you feel, and I understand where you are coming from. I just wanted to put up an article that talks about atheists from what should be the Christian perspective which was written by a Christian intellectual:

ATHEISTS IN THE RAIN

There was the church sign: ATHEISTS HAVE NO INVISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT.

I didn’t like it; I knew it was wrong. No invisible means of support? Then what powers the atheists? Their own strength? The devil? I would not give either the atheist or the devil that kind of credit. Only the spirit of God causes anything to live and move. Satan can’t create life, and neither can he sustain it; all is out of God. The creature certainly cannot will itself into life, or sustain its life day by day.

Scripture says that God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. Rain, in biblical days, was a great blessing. In an arid land so dependent on agriculture, rain was life. The presence of it even reflected, to the people, the presence of God.

"He causes His sun to rise on the wicked and the good, and He makes it rain on the just and the unjust. For if ever you should love those who are loving you, what wages have you?" (Mt. 5:45-46).

The apostle Paul testified to this truth as well. Before the philosophers and intellectuals and atheists at Mar’s Hill, Paul said, "In Him, we are living and moving and are" (Acts 17:28). That’s a big "we" there, and it illustrates a grand truth: even atheists are somehow moving in Christ.

But the church sign knew nothing of this monumental truth because the pastor who erected it loved cleverness more than truth. No invisible means of support. Get it? Ha, ha. Good one. If the goal of the pastor was a clever saying, then the pastor succeeded and my writing is presumptuous. But if the words were meant to reflect Scriptural truth, then the pastor tumbles into the abyss of human ignorance.

The first dictionary definition of "support" is "to bear or hold up, to sustain." We read in Romans 11:36 that "of Him and through Him and to Him are all things." This verse is even better in the Amplified version: "All things originate with Him and come from Him; all things live through Him, and all things center in and tend to consummate and to end in Him."

The part of the verse I want to emphasize is: "All things live through Him." God sustains all creation. Nothing that lives, lives apart from Him. What keeps atheists alive? Their own wickedness? The devil? Neither. God keeps atheists alive, for "all things live through Him." Even at the cross, Christ gave breath to the very soldiers who cursed Him. Such is grace.

Let us never become exclusive by imagining ourselves the only recipients of grace. Either God sustains and supports atheists, or someone else does. Either God sustains and supports atheists, or grace fails. How could grace include everyone but them without losing its essential meaning? How could God tell mortal men, "Love your enemies" if He, Himself, is incapable of doing the same?

Job 8:20 says, "Behold, God will not support evil doers." But who said that? It was Bildad, the Shuhite, one of Job’s so-called friends. But what does God say of the sayings of Bildad? Job 42:7- "The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for YE HAVE NOT SPOKEN OF ME THE THING THAT IS RIGHT." God would say the same thing to the fashioner of the terrible church sign. I wonder if they know that their doctrine is that of Bildad?

So we rightly conclude that God supports evildoers. But then the question arises: Why does He do that? Because, as with Pharaoh, doers of evil help fulfill God’s purpose.

Proverbs 16:4- "The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

Isaiah 54:16- "I have created the waster to destroy."

Romans 9:17- "For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee."

Another dictionary definition of support is "maintenance, as of a person or family." One way God raises up His pharaohs and keeps them there is by supporting them physically. Thus, "He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, for if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?" (Mt. 5:46).

Obviously, then, God loves and supports atheists. Why did the sign contradict that truth? (Hint: it was a church sign.)

Another definition of support, and I quote directly from the Random House Collegiate dictionary: "To endure with patience." Startling it will be for some to learn that these are the exact words Paul uses concerning the wicked in Romans 9:22. From the New American Standard Bible: "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?"

But according to this church sign, God endures (or supports) them not.

As for atheists, they are no different than we once were. We came to God, not of our own initiative, but because of Christ’s spirit. We came because He first loved and called us (1 Jn. 4:10, Jn. 6:44). He will one day call atheists, too, because His love is the selfless kind that does not rest until it seeks and saves the last lost sheep (Mt. 18:12, 1Tim. 1:15, Is. 45:23, 1Cor. 15:25). The blood of Christ’s cross is the most effective prescription for all enmity, either on earth or in heaven (Col. 1:20).

Remember, "God locks up all in stubbornness that He should be merciful to all" (Rom. 11:32).

Let Scriptural truth, not clever phraseology, guide our church sign erectors, not that I have any real hope of this happening. It will never happen in this eon—unless, that is, I start a church. Now there’s an idea. The message on my church sign would teem with life and Scriptural truth. My message would stop people in their tracks (or in their cars), and probably cause several accidents. It would be a message so simple, so true, so resplendent with the wisdom, grace and mercy of God, that none but the scripturally ignorant and proud of heart would attempt to refute it. My church sign would read:

GOD LOVES ATHEISTS, TOO.

Link: http://www.martinzender.com/Zenderature/at...in_the_rain.htm

[Pawnator]

could very well be, I'll check out the book he was reading when i get home. But, they had alot of the stories such as Noah and the Ark and Adam and Eve and all that.

That sounds like he's describing ancient Sumerian legend. There is a Noah and the Ark parallel, and a Creation of Man parallel, but not a direct Adam and Eve parallel.

[Dohregard]

Err... So if Judaism was older, doesn't that make the Greek the copycats?

well, most monotheistic religions have some of the same stories, and even the polytheistic religions have a lot of the same themes as the monotheistic religions.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that I'm very certain that everyone is praying to the same god. some believed it was comprised of many different aspects, while others think its just one single omnipresent entity. If every god ever thought of has the basics of every other god, then the only difference is the group of peoples cultural differences that make their god so unique.

[fykusfire]

That sounds like he's describing ancient Sumerian legend. There is a Noah and the Ark parallel, and a Creation of Man parallel, but not a direct Adam and Eve parallel.

well, most monotheistic religions have some of the same stories, and even the polytheistic religions have a lot of the same themes as the monotheistic religions.

Basically, what I'm trying to get at is that I'm very certain that everyone is praying to the same god. some believed it was comprised of many different aspects, while others think its just one single omnipresent entity. If every god ever thought of has the basics of every other god, then the only difference is the group of peoples cultural differences that make their god so unique.

Yep, that is because the source was either the Watchers/Grigori/Annunaki, or the creator of said group (and all of creation otherwise), God the Father/YHWH/Allah/Anu.

[Count_Pwntaculr]

What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that there were more renowned atheist intellectuals than theist intellectuals? What about Albert Einstein? What about Robert Oppenheimer? What about Charles Darwin? Show me some statistics on that, but don't say something that probably isn't true like that with NO proof.

And no one was getting into a famous figure quote war. I posted a quote because it mirrored what Schiltz was saying so he could see it, not to begin a quote war. Thing is, you know that. You're not stupid.

Haha, no need to get angry. I am sure, if you wish I can provide you with many things detailing you on the ratio of intellectual theists to atheists . For starters, two of the three people you mentioned were avowed atheists (no idea about Oppenheimer. Einstein and Charles Darwin were famous atheists, however, after their death many of their recorded works were often misquoted by eager theists in an attempt to claim them as their own. . When Einstein refers to "God" in his works, he is merely referring to the scientific sense of God - more a poetic term used to describe "the creator" or whatever process made the universe than what "God" is commonly held to mean.

Wow, here is a quote from Einstein that pretty much seems to demolish any possibility of him being a theist in the commonly held sense of the word: I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
-- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

Oh, on Oppenheimer, I couldn't find anything on his "theist" beliefs, but I did find after about five minutes that he was a member (or at least a supporter) of the communist party which is..err..generally staunchly atheist...

As to intellectuals mostly being atheist, well, after about 5 minutes searching I found this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm.

Trust me, I have looked before, there is a much greater amount of atheists in "intellectual" positions than are in the general population - almost a reverse of the average American statistics of belief. You can either find the statistics yourself, or if you feel it is necessary, ask me to find some more. Actually, if you look a couple of pages back you will see some more statistics I have given in support of this.

[Count_Pwntaculr]

I explained the herd instinct (evolutionary advantage) explanation. It doesn't add up. Also, logic is motivated by feeling. Here's an example:

Your best friend has just become a father to a son. He's holding his new baby. You walk up to him, you say, "You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." This is completely, 100% logical. It's a logical thing to say. Still, if you said it, people would think you're an immoral piece of trash.

Morality, whether culturally based or pushed along by an omnipotent creator, is a fantasy. This is my point. Logic is not everything. We do things because they feel right, not because they're logical.

I don't quite understand your example. Why is it logical to *state* that his baby may die? Everyone knows it. You would be just be reminding them of something, which for "logical" reasons (to preserve babies lives) disturbs them. It is logical from a evolutionary standpoint for fathers to be disturbed to think of their children dying.

Things feel "right" because they are (or were) helpful to our survival as a species in general. Often our evolutionary instincts overlap and can cause problems i.e. people still wish to have sex, but not for procreation. Clearly the desire to have sex is one fostered by evolution, but modern technology has cut out the procreation. Our desire for sex is just a part of evolution "cut off" by modern technology.