The :God logic)

For discussing religion and related topics.

Re: The :God logic)

Post by orwell84 on Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:48 pm
([msg=20404]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Dredric1 wrote:think of life how can nonorganic matter become living. it cant. how can it create thought. it cant. how can a person fear death wen the nonorganic matter that fears the death will simply return to its original state and not change. the change is wat is feared. can you help someone wen goodness and helpfullness is relative.
did you realy help them. the only way people can love is because there is a loving GOD. if there was no GOD, lov would be selfish. does selfish lov work? no. who invented marrage. in a GODless world marrage is lov that is selfish. in a GOD fearing world lov is self-less. if ur interested in proof of prophesy which is proof of GODs word read "The Shape of the Coming Crisis"


a) If inorganic(*) matter cannot become living or create thought, then where did "god" come from? Apparently he made everything out of nothing. Even if you believe in "god", you are still believing that everything came out of nothing. However, you aren't, because it came out of something, which was "god". Or is he nothing? Then how did he make everything? I'm done on this topic, I'll let you hash out how this logical fallacy is to be reconciled...
b) As for your second part about fear of death and change, I can barely tell what you're saying. Shouldn't "god" help you spell better?
c) WRONG. Absolutely wrong. As for who invented marriage, people invented it when society became organized enough that they didn't want all the confusion of not mating for life, I guess. And sure, all love is selfish anyway. What's wrong with that? Everything is selfish; humans can't think about anything else. As for the phrase "god-fearing", could you explain how fear creates love? EXCEPT in 1984? Because a lot of religion seems to follow the patters of doublethink and such...
d) I deleted it from the quote, but you also mentioned the bible. I really don't have much to say except a possibility:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter
^-----eh? bible in 2k yrs?
Mens et manus.
User avatar
orwell84
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:15 pm
([msg=20555]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

you missed the whole piont all i can get out of what you said
is that you are terribly confused didnt read the whole topic and its arguments
or you have a failed prespective of life

if everything is selfish then there is no hope
hope is the thing that makes things worth while

you intend to convince me that there is no hope, no GOD

i prefer the life style i have right now
why would you want it otherwise


___________________________________________________________________________________
Eewa enkauti o dorbin inio
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Charlieace on Sat Mar 28, 2009 5:00 pm
([msg=20811]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Where did God come from?
Proof please.

good comeback. i believe in god, but am perfectly willing to accept the fact of whether or not he exists. I believe evolution happened, and I still believe in God. i think he let science do it all but intervenes once in a while.

and who the hell came up with the idea that he's a big old man with a white beard? seriously! i think he's what he wants to be, and i don't wanna be old.
GET ME OUT OF AMERICA! MOVE ME TO IRELAND! IT LOOKS COOL THERE!

"In a world where stupidity has become the normal, it is better to be strange."

The Internet is my classroom.

Silence is the enemy.
Charlieace
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:01 pm
([msg=20861]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

this movie sheds light on darwinism
you should check it out

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

i've been asked for proof of GOD before and it always goes the same way

i can not prove it to you
the only way you will know is to
stop telling people to do the work for you
and go out and try to prove him yourself

if you try to disprove him that is easy and you wont
get anywhere cause all you have to be is a pesimist

if you try to prove him it takes brains
but you will not suceed because GOD wants people to
believe because they love him and not because
he scientificaly exists
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by orwell84 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:20 pm
([msg=20865]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Dredric1 wrote:you missed the whole piont all i can get out of what you said
is that you are terribly confused didnt read the whole topic and its arguments
or you have a failed prespective of life

I'm not terribly confused, I know exactly what I'm saying. That's the problem with you people. You think you're always right, and that there can be no other "right answer" than yours. I will admit that I did not scrutinize every single post on this topic. However, I did read (most of) them. I don't believe that I have "a failed prespective of life" (note the misspelling). In fact, that's exactly what I think about you...

Dredric1 wrote:if everything is selfish then there is no hope
hope is the thing that makes things worth while

Hold on here. Hope makes things worthwhile? So when you're done with doing something, it's all worth it because you have hope? Could you go back and explain how this works? You get satisfaction out of the completion of something because you hoped you could? I don't really know where you were going with this, quite honestly...

Dredric1 wrote:you intend to convince me that there is no hope, no GOD

Yes, I do intend to convince you that there is no hope, no GOD. However, I don't really expect to. You arrogant, religious types...

Dredric1 wrote:i prefer the life style i have right now
why would you want it otherwise

Well, that's just basically a plea to your own unwillingness to being malleable in any way to other peoples' ideas. I gave the whole "religious logic" thing a try, with the whole "I'd rather not find out there's no god when I believed than find out there is one when I didn't believe". And I hated it. I felt as though I was living for something other than myself. I began to realize that even if there was a god, why on earth would he want me to not live for myself, the self that he gave me, apparently?
Mens et manus.
User avatar
orwell84
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:01 pm
([msg=20871]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

you are as unwilling as i to accept and consider new ideas such as GOD or no GOD

what is your "selfish" peronal benefit of convincing me that there is no hope no GOD as you put it
you would need one because you said that everything is selfish \


i believe in the freedom of choice between believing and not believing

you probably want me to not believe because you think it would free me from
serving God and then id be more like yourself
so its your choice

am i correct

you want to "free me"
and i want to free you
lol
and since we have opposing ideas
one of us is right

so let us take one thing at a time and have a debate
what do you want to start with instead of puting down a
huge list as you did
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by alchemydragon on Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:28 pm
([msg=21084]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Okay let me put my two cents in please.

First off Darwin mad a very good observation about adaptation that the animals showed on the different islands. He called this natural selection because it works the same way making a program does. You start out making what you want. Then when you go back to upgrade it some you may take something out and put something in its place to make it work better.
The "man from monkey" idea came from another man who was trying to get his papers accepted at the same time Darwin was talking about his trip to the islands.

Second off, I like to keep up with micro science field because this is the field that both physics and computers will rely on for there future development. To sum up what Seth Lloyd, a teacher at MIT, said that when all the matter was in the "tiny ball" it was a quark that caused it to explode. Problem is that during the tiny ball phase there was no movement. Because a quark needs energy to exists, something had to cause movement or some form of energy to start the quark. So far the science field has not been able to fill in this spot of where the energy came from.

Now according to the bible God spoke and then things came into existence. Since what is known about sound waves is that they cause movement in the atoms in the air this is so far the only thing, to me at least, that makes since. Now if science can truly come up with a theory about how the bang actually happened then I will look into it. But let us also keep in mind that evolution and the big bang are still both in the theory phase.

Now I will make it clear that I do believe in God. But I also listen to science. After all the science field was first set up to search for the truth of everything around us. Now who is to say that God didn't use things like the big bang to help make the universe. Since the ancients did not understand atoms and physics that is why nothing was written down about the way it happened in detail. Plus no human was there watching it happen. And another thing to keep in mind is that the bible only talks about the creation of the earth. All that is every said about the universe was when he made the stars in the sky. And all it says is that he spoke.
alchemydragon
New User
New User
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:23 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:47 am
([msg=21103]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

Memphis wrote:your argueing about the "first cause" the what caused life question always ends up to we dont know or a god...
but the problem is we dont have A) proof B)witnesses and we probaly will never have so argueing about beleive is pointless because there will never be an end to this arguement within our greatgreatgreatgreat grand childrens life times


I think this comment by Memphis is probably one of the most useful comments made in this debate so far. In the Bible there is a writer who almost sarcastically asks the question, "Do you think you've done well to believe in God"? Then he answers his own question by saying something like "So what! Even the Devil believes, and trembles".

I think a more relevant question (whether or not this God does actually exist) would be "Is this God worth believing in in the first place"?

Someone made a comment earlier which I think relates very nicely to this idea of what one does with ones life, the purpose of human nature, and how this relates to whether or not there is a God.

Stoney wrote:"But, it's in human nature to rebel and not follow the rules."


What rules are we talking about? God's rules? Are they good rules or bad rules? I'm having a similar debate with someone over on the Ethics thread who has a problem with people believing in the existence of God, (i.e. that it leads to abusive religion). I've asked him a couple times to tell me what rules he has the most problem with (since he mentioned freedom-restricting rules several times) so that we could discuss whether or not these rules really deserve all the contempt they seem to get.

I'm not saying that the rules will prove God's existence, as I think Dredric made a good point in saying that nothing posted here will prove or disprove the existence of a God (and personally I think it's actually BETTER that way), but I am advocating for something more than the usual blah discussion about the existence of God. This is because, even if the existence of God could be conclusively proven, I see no reason why this should effect the behavior of the average person. For example, just knowing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer is not enough to change the behavior of millions around the globe. There must be something more to the equation than simple existence.

Getting back to the comment about how people are naturally rebellious; from what I have seen there does seem to be a natural tendency for people in general to be quite stubborn and also quite selfish.

However, from what I have seen of the teachings of the Christian God, there is a very strong push AGAINST stubbornness and selfishness. In fact, from what I've seen, the Christian God asks his followers to do things that go well beyond what would be considered reasonable/normal human behavior by just about anyone, and I would like to be so bold as to include Dredric in that category too! (Dredric has given me no obvious indication to support this claim, but I'd like to make it anyway on the basis of experience. I'm prepared to defend my stance AND I am prepared to apologize if Dredric proves me wrong).

It does not make sense to me that such naturally stubborn and selfish humans would create a God which asks them to stop being stubborn and selfish. I'd like to include this statement from Orwell to support my case here as he sounds like quite an authority on this particular issue... (thanks for the support, Orwell ;) )

Orwell wrote:"c) ...And sure, all love is selfish anyway. What's wrong with that? Everything is selfish; humans can't think about anything else..."


By the way, here are some of those "rules" that I mentioned earlier, for the sake of reference. I'm not saying that these things can't, or shouldn't be done, but I think they are good examples of what is being discussed. Surely these do not define human behavior,but if that is the case, then where did they come from?

(As apparently recorded by the man Jesus)
"You can't work for love and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other."

"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."

"Sell what you have and give it to the poor."

"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."

"Bless those who spitefully use you."

'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice."
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by Dredric1 on Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:16 pm
([msg=21106]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

radicool_systemite wrote:
It does not make sense to me that such naturally stubborn and selfish humans would create a God which asks them to stop being stubborn and selfish. I'd like to include this statement from Orwell to support my case here as he sounds like quite an authority on this particular issue... (thanks for the support, Orwell ;) )

Orwell wrote:"c) ...And sure, all love is selfish anyway. What's wrong with that? Everything is selfish; humans can't think about anything else..."


By the way, here are some of those "rules" that I mentioned earlier, for the sake of reference. I'm not saying that these things can't, or shouldn't be done, but I think they are good examples of what is being discussed. Surely these do not define human behavior,but if that is the case, then where did they come from?

(As apparently recorded by the man Jesus)
"You can't work for love and money at the same time without cheating on one or the other."

"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."

"Sell what you have and give it to the poor."

"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."

"Bless those who spitefully use you."

'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice."



first off with being naturaly stuburn and Selfish

people are of course stuburn and selfish to say ,as Orwell did, that all love is selfish is not true
some love is selfish would be more correct
because i believe and have seen that not all love is selfish
and also people can choose to be not selfish

as for the statement conserning love and money

it is probably better describe this way
you can not serve love and serve money at the same time without following one and forsaking the other

it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time
it is saying that love is not greedy
and that being greedy is not loving
that is why they ar incompatible

as for this one -"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."
if you desire the things that you own more than GOD you will follow your possesions

as for the next one - "Sell what you have and give it to the poor."
Jesus was conversing with a specific person called the rich young ruler
the rich young ruler put his riches as the most important things in his life
Jesus was testing him to see if he was ready to follow him.

in reference to this -"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."
a more correct interpertation would be
"When someone hurts you it is better for them to hurt you again than you to take revenge on them that is greater that they desurve"

it is not saying dont defend yourself (i have guns and knives i defend myself when nessesary)

for those conserned with this one - "Bless those who spitefully use you."
if you help someone who is evil towards you they are more likely to stop than if you hurt them in retaliation

and for the last one - 'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice
it is more correct to say - "It is better to rejoice than to curse them because in the end everyone will be juged accourding to what evil they have done"
so you would rejoice knowing that the person that hurt you would in the end be judged justly

-- Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:03 pm --

radicool_systemite wrote:In fact, from what I've seen, the Christian God asks his followers to do things that go well beyond what would be considered reasonable/normal human behavior by just about anyone


what we consider reasonable and normal is our human nature
everything strives to clasify its self as accepted or superior (evolution classifies human as superior - just an example)

so in the world those things capable and mentally or phisicaly superior(such as humans) tend to have conflic that they percive to be momentous and desisive leading them to commit horrendous crimes to acheave their goal that trumphs all others will lead them to either victory or loss and in loss they despare.

example - adolf hitler commited sucide

in order to pretect us from loss and to give us the victory GOD asks us to be inherently different
the code for the void exception between the ear brackets
Code: Select all
public static }void(exception x = new exception(null)){

ok my brackets dont realy look like ears.
if you didnt get that it means there is nothing(no brains) between your ears.
User avatar
Dredric1
Poster
Poster
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:29 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: The :God logic)

Post by radicool_systemite on Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:57 am
([msg=21144]see Re: The :God logic)[/msg])

people are of course stuburn and selfish to say ,as Orwell did, that all love is selfish is not true
some love is selfish would be more correct
because i believe and have seen that not all love is selfish
and also people can choose to be not selfish


I figured you would take that approach, but my comments were mostly geared towards those taking the "people are naturally stubborn and selfish" approach. If that is true, then where did teachings about love come from?

it is probably better describe this way
you can not serve love and serve money at the same time without following one and forsaking the other


Actually, that is basically how it is worded. I suppose you are questioning the word "serve" as opposed to the word "work" which I used. Here is the whole verse.

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time
it is saying that love is not greedy
and that being greedy is not loving
that is why they ar incompatible


No, it is not saying that you cannot have both at the same time, but then again, the issue isn't about having money, it's about how you get that money. It is saying that you will show who you love by who, or what, you give your time to. He says that you will love one and hate the other. Which do you hate, Dredric?

You see, it works like this. Let's pretend you are a Christian and you are employed at McDonalds. While performing your duties you decide to do a bit of witnessing on the side, like talking to customers about God/Jesus, or whatever. Many Christians call this their "on the job" witness.

However, preaching was not part of the job description when you were hired, and most likely you did not tell your employer that a freedom to preach clause would be required before you accept the job. This means that if you preach on McDonalds time, you are doing a DIFFERENT job to what McDonalds hired you to do, or, in other words, you are showing your contempt for them by expecting them to pay you while you do work that does not benefit them. This is especially true considering that MOST people have to witness "on the job" secretly because they know their employers would ask them not to for fear that it could offend some customers. It's great that you want to witness, but it's still cheating on McDonalds.

On the other hand, if you claim to be a Christian, and yet you go off to do work OTHER than preach the gospel, then in the same way you show your contempt for God by expecting his salvation while you do work OTHER than what he told you to do. I dare say that people who try to serve both masters end up fitting into the category of "luke warm" described in Revelation 3. The author of that particular verse said that these luke warm people, who want the benefits of being a Christian AND the luxuries of serving mammon make God sick. (btw, mammon is a word to describe money and the things money can buy)

as for this one -"Whoever does not forsake all he has cannot be my follower."
if you desire the things that you own more than GOD you will follow your possesions


Is the verse talking about desire? I certainly did nail it when I stated that I knew you would react to these teachings! For example, if the admin of this site said "anyone who does not properly log in cannot post on the forum" would you then go on to tell yourself that what he really means is that as long as you believe in your heart that you've really logged in, then yo don't need to actually log in? You see, it's not friendly piece of advice from a sweety pie savior. It's worded as a command. If you don't do it, then you don't get into the club.

Regarding your correction to Jesus; it sounds to me like you are adding an interpretation to what the verse is actually saying that takes the edge off. I find this interesting because it gives me the impression that you've probably never read the chapter from which it comes. You can find it in Luke 14. The reason I say it is interesting is because just about the whole chapter is dedicated to teaching about "counting the cost". In other words, Jesus elaborates, in great detail, about the need to be sure that, if you are going to follow him, that you are prepared to go the whole distance. Just after the "whosoever does not forsake all he has" command, Jesus goes on to say this...

Luk 14:34 Salt [is] good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


If you take the sting out of his teachings (i.e. it's only something you think about in your heart, as opposed to something you actually DO) then Jesus is saying here that the teachings are no longer fit for shit.

as for the next one - "Sell what you have and give it to the poor."
Jesus was conversing with a specific person called the rich young ruler
the rich young ruler put his riches as the most important things in his life
Jesus was testing him to see if he was ready to follow him.


This is one of the oldest tricks in the book for Christians who can't imagine what it's like to actually obey Jesus. How the hell can you say that you are prepared, as a Christian, to lay your life down, Dredric, when you spew crap like this? I don't mind getting a bit strong with you here because this message is taught all throughout the new testament; it's one of the single most important values in the Kingdom of heaven and it's like a slap in the face to hear you dismiss it so carelessly.

To the pharisees he said...
Luk 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.


To his disciples he said...
Luk 12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.


To the guests at a dinner party...
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.


To the rich he said...
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.


Oh, and don't forget about his followers after he was gone...

Act 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.


Act 4:34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
Act 4:35 And laid [them] down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


Only for that one specific guy, you say? You sure do know how to put your foot in your mouth, Dredric.

in reference to this -"When someone hits you on one cheek, turn to him the other."
a more correct interpertation would be
"When someone hurts you it is better for them to hurt you again than you to take revenge on them that is greater that they desurve"


I agree with the first part of your sentence, up until the part "that is greater than they deserve". I think we've already seen a fair bit of evidence that you have a tendency to insert an interpretation into the teachings of Jesus that appears to favor a personal bias you have, so that a teaching that says "If people try to fight with you, don't get involved in the whole vicious cycle of fighting back, but rather, be prepared to make some personal sacrifices in order to stop the vicious cycle", gets changed to, "feel free to use knives and guns if you feel the need to defend yourself; just don't stab or shoot the guy more than he deserves". No wonder the world laughs at Christianity.

Over on the ethics thread I am chatting with Trace about religion and trying to get him to see that religion itself is not the problem, but rather the people who make up the religion. I feel you are a perfect example of what it is about religion that annoys him so. You come here challenging the whole forum by wanting to "help people" to understand that there really is a God, but when it comes to showing a really powerful example of his existence (i.e. a willingness for you to make some personal sacrifices) you suddenly lose your back bone and rely on guns and knives, as though that is the real truth that Jesus came to bring to the world.

and for the last one - 'When people tell lies about you and say all manner of evil against you for my names sake, rejoice
it is more correct to say - "It is better to rejoice than to curse them because in the end everyone will be juged accourding to what evil they have done"
so you would rejoice knowing that the person that hurt you would in the end be judged justly


You are a real piece of work, Dre. I quoted Jesus word for word, but it seems you feel you know better than him. The gospel according to Dredric: "don't be upset when people are nasty to you; instead rejoice in knowing that in the end they'll get exactly what they deserve!"

You've totally missed the point of "for my names sake". Jesus asked people to love one another. That means that IF people are acting "for his names sake" then they are acting in love. If others come around saying nasty things about those actions, then the Christians have a reason to be happy in knowing that the accusations are false; there is no real case against love. It could also acts as evidence that the Christians are probably doing something right, because the accusers will probably be reacting in that "normal human selfishness" that Orwell described so eloquently earlier, and feel convicted by the kind of love that Jesus came to teach.

It is definitely NOT a teaching about feeling justified that people who hurt us at some time in the past will "get what they deserve" for it.
User avatar
radicool_systemite
Experienced User
Experienced User
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:58 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests