The astro thingy about Jesus can be dismissed. People have done this. Watch the video on youtube going against the Zeitgeist.
edit:
"Weren't you trying to show that god's genocides were plans to avoid a greater evil?"
Yes. But in turn, I'm also trying to say what you say below:
"If you can misrepresent/misunderstand my point of view, which is written in modern English, and we are both from the United States, why would you think you can understand the biblical stories, which were originally written in ancient Hebrew dialect, then translated to Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated to old English?"
Exactly. This is also profound in nature. Interpretation is deadly or beneficial or anything in-between. This is why I understand the need for material proofs. We just can't take anyone for what they claim to say.
People have been burned because a town said this person practiced witchcraft, or that this nation is evil.
This goes to other things like extremism, passivism, and secularism. (correct the spellings or actual terms) And especially why there are so many denominations and sects.
"The chances of finding god is that same as finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's really quit dishonest to tell people to trust in something that may not even exist. It's also quite dishonest to say that the unknown is unknowable because of divine intention."
Quite true. This is why I am against people forcing their belief or non-belief on other people, especially if those beliefs are geared towards teaching people things that will make them proper gentlemen and women. It is sad that not many teachers are able to address issues on a personal level, and rather go into categorical approaches.
And calling people sick and making "faith" to be a mental illness is absurd. It's just a flag that is waved, but each individual does have their true beliefs, guidelines, principles, or "faiths" by which they are animated.
No, the spaghetti monster does not exist. I've had monster amounts of spaghetti, but never a spaghetti monster. God is a completely separate subject from the spaghetti monster.
OT:
FDFederation, why do you put things like Spaghetti monsters and things? It just makes me feel like your not seriously trying to discuss and issue, but is rather already convinced on a particular idea, belief, or what ever that is called.
Also, if you can totally not give an answer to this, but I've since become curious of what you believe in and why you believe in what you believe. I want to look into what you know and see it for myself and understand it.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math here.
There were no such thing as math when the bible was being created, so religion lovers have no opinion about it, while science lovers probably have nothing against it either.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against the correctness of math
here.
There were no such thing as math when the bible was being created, so
religion lovers have no opinion about it, while science lovers probably
have nothing against it either.
There may not have been a theory of math yet(although there was), but that doesn't mean math wasn't understood at a more fundamental level. Math includes things like the definition of numbers. I hold up one finger, I am understood to be indicating the number one. That's a part of set theory. "One" is the name for the quantity of a set of "one" element. Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is going to take the meaning of the number "6000" on a completely separate faith than the religious one they are defending.
I just like to play devil's advocate against religious people. I place my trust in things that can be measured in several ways, from which data can be gathered, etc. I also place my trust in explanations that can be verified by experimentation/duplicated by any curious individual. If there are multiple verifiable explanations, I apportion my trust according to the amount of data supporting each explanation. I do not place my trust in things for which there is little evidence to support. Technically, in the absence of measurements/verifiability, all speculations remain possible and have equal probability of being true and untrue (uniform probability distribution), until technology allows us to make better measurements and helps further experimentation. As a philosophical thought game, it is fun to discuss possibilities of speculations to be true and false and the implications.
How do you know that the Pythagorean view of the universe isn't the truth? Everything appears to be defined by numerical values, hence everything is literally made of numbers.
Democritus, an ancient Greek pagan, apparently "prophesized the existence of the atom", but no one ever calls him a prophet.
You've never experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster because your faith in him is not strong enough. Once you open your mind to his noodliness, he will grant you your own pasta strainer pirate hat.
On a side note, no one can really disprove that Clint Eastwood actually spoke with Invisible Obama.
I'm beginning to enjoy your humor FDFederation. :)
I will look into those subjects.
I shall also contact the ministers of shroom and climb the holy mountain of shroom, and partake with them the holy shroom water, in an effort to summon the Flying Spaghetti Monster amidst the wonderful colors of the kaleidoscope of shroom heaven.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
My argument against everything being numbers is that the concept of the number is itself a human construct. Numbers don't exist in nature, we just use them to describe aspects of nature that we observe with our distinctly non-discrete, non-numerical senses.
Pythagoras also tried to fit the heavens into shapes conforming to the platonic solids. He failed.
2.You don't see the hypocrisies in your inconsistent interpretations of Bronze Age folklore? .You are making literal interpretations one moment, then twisting words/meanings the next moment. 3.If you haven't seen god's penis, then you can't really be sure "he" is the correct pronoun to use. 4.More truth exists in evolution than in creationism. 5..Humans have a lot in common with chimps, as well as the rest of the animal kingdom: conflicts over resources, territory, mates, etc.
6.The Holy Church of Ceiling Cat is obviously the only one and true religion. How could any force stand against his mighty army of Bread Cat Minions and Peek-a-Boo Kittens? Ceiling Cat maded dem hoomons to be survantz to catz everywherez.
2. I haven`t twisted anything. Sorry, but bad excuse.
3. Now I know your intelligence is too simplistic(Like a chimp?). What pronoun should we use for God?, "It" ?, No `he` is simpler and easier to relate to and understand. Not that God has a Sex(male), but his `qualities` and attributes are shown more male than female
4.In all honestly you are not knowledgeable in either. I probably know more about evolution than you, and discussing aspects about it to you would be a waste of my time.
5.You dont say? "conflicts over resources, territory, mates, etc. " <-Mind Blown lol. `Eating`, we also have that in common!.
6. Evidence or some proof?. Nothing?. Ok:(.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
How do you know that the Pythagorean view of the universe isn't the truth? Everything appears to be defined by numerical values, hence everything is literally made of numbers.
Wow, awesome example, how religions always fail in logic.D
Btw there are many things you cant define with numbers. Like what spin will take photon... aka there are many random things, which cant be predicted by math or by anything. Good thing almost all religious people cant comprehend quantum physics....
@Hookah604: Go
neither can almost all non religious people... just saying, oh and FD was defending atheism.. lawl...
I was going to post in here anything I thought could help.. but I read over it and realized... its just a post that has been taken WAY off topic, as soon as Someone said they were christian.. and then atheist started the bash fest... meh.
Math includes things like the definition of numbers. I hold up one finger, I am understood to be indicating the number one. That's a part of set theory. "One" is the name for the quantity of a set of "one" element. Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is going to take the meaning of the number "6000" on a completely separate faith than the religious one they are defending.
This is an interesting observation. So, everyone, who uses numbers, implies math to be right, otherwise, his using of numbers wouldn't have any meaning, because math provides the interpretation of numbers.
But physics and chemistry are based on math. Cosmology is based on physics. Biology is based on physics and chemistry. Evolution theory based on biology and cosmology. And if math isn't wrong, evolution theory isn't wrong either.
So, everyone who uses numers, even in sentences like "Earth is 6k y.o., so evolution is a fiction", implicitly considers evolution and cosmology to be right. This is funny, isn't it.
But, fortunately, human mind has nothing against contradictions between the ideas it believe in. Othervise, all christians would be either badly insane or never use numbers due to incompartability with the idea of Jehovah.
This is an interesting observation. So, everyone, who uses numbers,
implies math to be right, otherwise, his using of numbers wouldn't have
any meaning, because math provides the interpretation of numbers.
But physics and chemistry are based on math. Cosmology is based on
physics. Biology is based on physics and chemistry. Evolution theory
based on biology and cosmology. And if math isn't wrong, evolution
theory isn't wrong either.
So, everyone who uses numers, even in sentences like "Earth is 6k y.o.,
so evolution is a fiction", implicitly considers evolution and cosmology
to be right. This is funny, isn't it.
But, fortunately, human mind has nothing against contradictions between
the ideas it believe in. Othervise, all christians would be either badly
insane or never use numbers due to incompartability with the idea of
Jehovah.
Not quite. You've got your pointers reversed. Math is science's dependency, not the other way around. Like I said, math has a completely different epistemological foundation from science or religion. It takes more than math to believe in science, you also have to believe in the correctness of the scientific method. A religious person can deny that without denying the correctness of math. Look at me, playing devil's advocate again. :P
Your other comment, however, is totally true. Religious people aren't necessarily insane. The accurate term is "deluded". Nowadays delusion seems like an insult on par with insanity, but it's not. Sane, intelligent people can be deluded, too. Descartes' entire goal with his Meditations was to epistemologically prove God's existence(don't even get me started on what is wrong with his argument >_>). Blaise Pascal, famous for his triangle depicting the coefficients of factors of high-order exponential terms, is also famous for his wager argument for belief in God(once again, don't get me started, it's ridiculous that anyone should have to argue against this one in a modern era like this). Sane, intelligent people who believed in God.
Christians: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Jews: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Sikhs: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Hindus: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Muslims: "my faith in the evidence proves that my religion is the best"
Except the evidence in the bible is vastly greater and superior than any other religion. Funny how you mention Jews and Christians there, When its the same thing. Hinduism has virtually no evidence behind it and is illogical, It truly is the greatest `faith` religion. Only the bible serves reliable to testing, Which I can demonstrate to you against every other religion.
I'll keep it short because this thread is rapidly turning into an incomprehensible mass of text.
Muslims say the same about the Quran. Jews say the same about the Torah. Hindus say the same about the Bhagavad Gita, and Sikhs, well, I don't know anything about Sikhs, but I'd wager they say the exact same thing. Furthermore, you would be saying this exact paragraph about the Quran if you were born in Saudi Arabia.
How can you be so sure that you're not simply indoctrinated?
You get offended quite easily. I'm so glad you give me credit for having at least some intelligence. :)
"discussing aspects about it to you would be a waste of my time" is a phrase used by very many pretentious people/egomaniacs. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument. You obviously didn't think it was a waste of your time to bother replying considering that the internet forum affords you all the time to think about and create a reply at your leisure.
I must be ego-maniacal, because I sincerely cannot see how this post is anything but a waste of space. Calling people names and spamming memes does not make an argument. I wouldn't address your points either if that's all your argument consisted of.
The astro thingy about Jesus can be dismissed. People have done this. Watch the video on youtube going against the Zeitgeist.
edit: "Weren't you trying to show that god's genocides were plans to avoid a greater evil?"
Yes. But in turn, I'm also trying to say what you say below:
"If you can misrepresent/misunderstand my point of view, which is written in modern English, and we are both from the United States, why would you think you can understand the biblical stories, which were originally written in ancient Hebrew dialect, then translated to Greek, then translated to Latin, then translated to old English?"
Exactly. This is also profound in nature. Interpretation is deadly or beneficial or anything in-between. This is why I understand the need for material proofs. We just can't take anyone for what they claim to say.
People have been burned because a town said this person practiced witchcraft, or that this nation is evil.
This goes to other things like extremism, passivism, and secularism. (correct the spellings or actual terms) And especially why there are so many denominations and sects.
"The chances of finding god is that same as finding the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's really quit dishonest to tell people to trust in something that may not even exist. It's also quite dishonest to say that the unknown is unknowable because of divine intention."
Quite true. This is why I am against people forcing their belief or non-belief on other people, especially if those beliefs are geared towards teaching people things that will make them proper gentlemen and women. It is sad that not many teachers are able to address issues on a personal level, and rather go into categorical approaches.
And calling people sick and making "faith" to be a mental illness is absurd. It's just a flag that is waved, but each individual does have their true beliefs, guidelines, principles, or "faiths" by which they are animated.
No, the spaghetti monster does not exist. I've had monster amounts of spaghetti, but never a spaghetti monster. God is a completely separate subject from the spaghetti monster.
OT: FDFederation, why do you put things like Spaghetti monsters and things? It just makes me feel like your not seriously trying to discuss and issue, but is rather already convinced on a particular idea, belief, or what ever that is called.
Also, if you can totally not give an answer to this, but I've since become curious of what you believe in and why you believe in what you believe. I want to look into what you know and see it for myself and understand it.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
There were no such thing as math when the bible was being created, so religion lovers have no opinion about it, while science lovers probably have nothing against it either.
There may not have been a theory of math yet(although there was), but that doesn't mean math wasn't understood at a more fundamental level. Math includes things like the definition of numbers. I hold up one finger, I am understood to be indicating the number one. That's a part of set theory. "One" is the name for the quantity of a set of "one" element. Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is going to take the meaning of the number "6000" on a completely separate faith than the religious one they are defending.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
I just like to play devil's advocate against religious people. I place my trust in things that can be measured in several ways, from which data can be gathered, etc. I also place my trust in explanations that can be verified by experimentation/duplicated by any curious individual. If there are multiple verifiable explanations, I apportion my trust according to the amount of data supporting each explanation. I do not place my trust in things for which there is little evidence to support. Technically, in the absence of measurements/verifiability, all speculations remain possible and have equal probability of being true and untrue (uniform probability distribution), until technology allows us to make better measurements and helps further experimentation. As a philosophical thought game, it is fun to discuss possibilities of speculations to be true and false and the implications.
How do you know that the Pythagorean view of the universe isn't the truth? Everything appears to be defined by numerical values, hence everything is literally made of numbers.
Democritus, an ancient Greek pagan, apparently "prophesized the existence of the atom", but no one ever calls him a prophet.
You've never experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster because your faith in him is not strong enough. Once you open your mind to his noodliness, he will grant you your own pasta strainer pirate hat.
On a side note, no one can really disprove that Clint Eastwood actually spoke with Invisible Obama.
I'm beginning to enjoy your humor FDFederation. :)
I will look into those subjects.
I shall also contact the ministers of shroom and climb the holy mountain of shroom, and partake with them the holy shroom water, in an effort to summon the Flying Spaghetti Monster amidst the wonderful colors of the kaleidoscope of shroom heaven.
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
@GnaReffotsirk: Go
Ramen, brother.
My argument against everything being numbers is that the concept of the number is itself a human construct. Numbers don't exist in nature, we just use them to describe aspects of nature that we observe with our distinctly non-discrete, non-numerical senses.
Pythagoras also tried to fit the heavens into shapes conforming to the platonic solids. He failed.
@Saltpeter: Go
:)
2. I haven`t twisted anything. Sorry, but bad excuse.
3. Now I know your intelligence is too simplistic(Like a chimp?). What pronoun should we use for God?, "It" ?, No `he` is simpler and easier to relate to and understand. Not that God has a Sex(male), but his `qualities` and attributes are shown more male than female
4.In all honestly you are not knowledgeable in either. I probably know more about evolution than you, and discussing aspects about it to you would be a waste of my time.
5.You dont say? "conflicts over resources, territory, mates, etc. " <-Mind Blown lol. `Eating`, we also have that in common!.
6. Evidence or some proof?. Nothing?. Ok:(.
I know you were making a point by absurdity, but damnit, people really believe that stuff. ;>.>
Wow, awesome example, how religions always fail in logic.D
Btw there are many things you cant define with numbers. Like what spin will take photon... aka there are many random things, which cant be predicted by math or by anything. Good thing almost all religious people cant comprehend quantum physics....
@Hookah604: Go neither can almost all non religious people... just saying, oh and FD was defending atheism.. lawl...
I was going to post in here anything I thought could help.. but I read over it and realized... its just a post that has been taken WAY off topic, as soon as Someone said they were christian.. and then atheist started the bash fest... meh.
I love how religious people take it offensive, if somebody dont agree with their religion.
This is an interesting observation. So, everyone, who uses numbers, implies math to be right, otherwise, his using of numbers wouldn't have any meaning, because math provides the interpretation of numbers.
But physics and chemistry are based on math. Cosmology is based on physics. Biology is based on physics and chemistry. Evolution theory based on biology and cosmology. And if math isn't wrong, evolution theory isn't wrong either.
So, everyone who uses numers, even in sentences like "Earth is 6k y.o., so evolution is a fiction", implicitly considers evolution and cosmology to be right. This is funny, isn't it.
But, fortunately, human mind has nothing against contradictions between the ideas it believe in. Othervise, all christians would be either badly insane or never use numbers due to incompartability with the idea of Jehovah.
Bill Nye on Creationism:
Scientists don't get offended when someone says that their version of reality is wrong. Religious people shouldn't either.
Though I admit that George Carlin clip is always too funny not to post. :P
@Gradius12: Go
If either party wasnt offended would it have continued for 215 post over the course of 1 week... lawl.
Not quite. You've got your pointers reversed. Math is science's dependency, not the other way around. Like I said, math has a completely different epistemological foundation from science or religion. It takes more than math to believe in science, you also have to believe in the correctness of the scientific method. A religious person can deny that without denying the correctness of math. Look at me, playing devil's advocate again. :P
Your other comment, however, is totally true. Religious people aren't necessarily insane. The accurate term is "deluded". Nowadays delusion seems like an insult on par with insanity, but it's not. Sane, intelligent people can be deluded, too. Descartes' entire goal with his Meditations was to epistemologically prove God's existence(don't even get me started on what is wrong with his argument >_>). Blaise Pascal, famous for his triangle depicting the coefficients of factors of high-order exponential terms, is also famous for his wager argument for belief in God(once again, don't get me started, it's ridiculous that anyone should have to argue against this one in a modern era like this). Sane, intelligent people who believed in God.
I'll keep it short because this thread is rapidly turning into an incomprehensible mass of text.
Muslims say the same about the Quran. Jews say the same about the Torah. Hindus say the same about the Bhagavad Gita, and Sikhs, well, I don't know anything about Sikhs, but I'd wager they say the exact same thing. Furthermore, you would be saying this exact paragraph about the Quran if you were born in Saudi Arabia.
How can you be so sure that you're not simply indoctrinated?
@EternalWraith: Go
You get offended quite easily. I'm so glad you give me credit for having at least some intelligence. :) "discussing aspects about it to you would be a waste of my time" is a phrase used by very many pretentious people/egomaniacs. It just shows how little faith you have in your argument. You obviously didn't think it was a waste of your time to bother replying considering that the internet forum affords you all the time to think about and create a reply at your leisure.
@Eiviyn: Go
Indoctrination...
Religious people tend to be too deluded to realize the effects/symptoms of indoctrination, just like Chuck Norris.
@Hookah604: Go
:)
@FDFederation: Go
I must be ego-maniacal, because I sincerely cannot see how this post is anything but a waste of space. Calling people names and spamming memes does not make an argument. I wouldn't address your points either if that's all your argument consisted of.