All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

The Inquisitive Stranger · Wed 19/04/2006 17:22:04

Quote from: Helm on Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33
Oh no, why are we playing the quote game?

Why, to piss you off, of course!

Helm · Wed 19/04/2006 17:33:36

Quote from: The Inquisitive Stranger on Wed 19/04/2006 17:22:04
Quote from: Helm on Wed 19/04/2006 09:48:33
Oh no, why are we playing the quote game?

Why, to piss you off, of course!

nah

HillBilly · Wed 19/04/2006 17:48:04

Quote from: lo_res_man on Wed 19/04/2006 17:12:07Hillbilly I don't believe in a God that works on a "basis of reward and punishment"

No that's Einstein. You'll have to take it up with him.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/04/2006 18:16:39

I agree, Intelligent design is inane. It merle forces back the question, within our own universe were all the same laws of physics apply. Why do I believe in an extra universal god (or gods)? Think of this example. Let us say we build an intelligent AI, but instead of putting it in a robot we put it in a virtual 3D world. How would the AI figure out his origin? And that of his world?
No I don't think we are in the matrix or something like that, I just think we are an experiment, by a being (or beings) who have a whacked sense of humor, but with a sense of artistry that is astounding. That is my belief and whether it is right or wrong, we will never know, for we could just be phantoms in the bubble.
(edit) Hillbilly. I was just commenting on what you posted

Grapefruitologist · Wed 19/04/2006 19:53:44

Adamski, what do you think this is about? It's about religion, duh! What do you think "Creationism" is based on? I'll read your links, you read mine. There's real evidence in the links I posted, to support Christianity. You told me to post evidence, I have. And you even said that it wouldn't prove Christianity, but this does give evidence for Christianity-that's what you wanted, isn't it? I would appreciate sites that don't have a bias either, but that wouldn't do much to prove your point, would it?
I don't have time to read the links right now-I have to go... but I will when I get back.
Um... fossils aren't rare... there are many, many fossils in the world, and I've found many in just a day.
I bet there would be more than we thought if we actually ever found any of them.
Anyway, will read it later, but probably won't post, since I don't think the argument is going anywhere anymore, and I don't have the time. Just read the links I posted, especially on the Creation in the 21st Century website-go to the page called "evidence for creation". I'm not sure if the other link gives any free info, you might have to buy their tapes.
On another note-look at this, it's unbelievable: http://www.alimaggs.co.uk/2006/04/trading-paperclip-for-house.html

Adamski · Wed 19/04/2006 20:45:15

QuoteAdamski, what do you think this is about? It's about religion, duh! What do you think "Creationism" is based on?

Really it's just about Silly Christians (which is nowhere near the same as Every Christian, I'd like to make it clear I'm not attacking religion in general, or even Christianity here - just stupidity) trying to shout loudly in the face of overwhelming evidence. I don't see other religions... scratch that, ANYONE outside of the bible belt of America making a fuss about this. The Bible is supposed to be a moral codebook (kill homosexuals, stone your disobediant son, sell your daughter into slavery, long haired men are shameful, stay away from women on their periods, etc), not an orcale of scentific knowledge.

I've read the links and posted my thoughts already - it's fundamentalist doctrine that has no basis in reality no matter how many cod-scientific or mathematic processes they use to frame their inaccurate evidence. Why should I take it any more seriously than a Scientologist trying to prove to me the existance of thetans? The 'evidence for creation' page looks nice but bases it's arguments on shaky foundations or false information - I'm not going to sit here and make a point-by-point rebuttal 'cause that'd be a jolly old waste of time, but feel free to check out every point yourself and figure out why the reasoning presented is logical fallacy.

You can try telling me an elephant is a sock because your favourite book describes it as a sock, but I won't be convinced when there's plenty of more reasonable evidence to tell me it's an elephant

The Inquisitive Stranger · Wed 19/04/2006 21:19:48

Quote from: Adamski on Wed 19/04/2006 20:45:15
The Bible is supposed to be a moral codebook (kill homosexuals, stone your disobediant son, sell your daughter into slavery, long haired men are shameful, stay away from women on their periods, etc)

Actually, I'd go even further and say it's an moral codebook that should be taken allegorically rather than literally.

biothlebop · Wed 19/04/2006 21:32:53

Regarding the usefulness of this thread (grapefruitologist):

As I see it, there are two possibilities. Either this thread has come to it's end or we are asking the wrong questions. Any arguments that have as intention to disprove belief are likely to fail/be ignored, while there are other issues relating creationism that can be hopefully agreed upon, if it takes some grinding of teeth in the process.

An example: Creationism is not a idea/theory/belief supported by a handful of goofs, and America might one day be led by moral values based in creationism to a great extent. I do not see this as an favorable thing, since belief cannot be disputed, and I fear fanaticism (although belief has positive effects). Combine a possibility of wars disguised as new crusades with the fact that America has enough weapons to kill us all.

I would rather have a society based on (mostly) compromisable values. As such, I do not even see the semantic parts of this thread useless, since they help (me) to compromise values and lead into that grey area in the middle.

lo_res_man · Wed 19/04/2006 21:36:48

well that’s the OLD testament, I think the NEW testament calls on us to do good Ã,Â to others regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation.
I think its says somewhere something like, if you do good in ANYONES name you are doing good and that’s good, but if you do evil in Jesus name then you do evil, even though you do it in his name. So lets not get bogged down in rituals and religion, just do things to help the people around you. And the world, in some small way, will be a better place.

Raggit · Thu 20/04/2006 00:08:22

Uh, not to interrupt this conversation, but I should mention that with my newly found beliefs, or I should say, recently ABANDONED beliefs, my content policy for working on projects should be adjusted.

So for the record now, I won't object to working on projects that contain language and violence, although I still don't wanna get involved with quasi-porno projects however.

As far as games that deal with supernatural themes and stuff, I'd probably still want to talk to the creators about that. Anyway, this is all just apart of adjusting my life.

The Inquisitive Stranger · Thu 20/04/2006 03:19:55

Quote from: Raggit on Thu 20/04/2006 00:08:22
I won't object to working on projects that contain language...

Well, I think this has been discussed before somewhere, but a game without any use of language at all would be really interesting to make.

Grapefruitologist · Thu 20/04/2006 07:54:46

Duane Gish! I know him! They mention him in one of the links you posted. I watch him on TV sometimes. Actually, he's on the show that I gave you the link to.
About half done with one of them...

Andail · Fri 21/04/2006 13:50:13

I suggest a competition! Let's invent the most ridiculous piece of "evidence" to advocate Intelligent Design.

An example:

Quote
Imagine that you walk along a beach, and stumble across a watch, lying in the sand. Now, you don't believe that the watch came from nowhere, or was assembled sporadically by pure chance, do you? You believe that it was made by a watchmaker, don't you? Well, it's the same with the world and life on Earth.

- From a webpage about Intelligent Design.

I know, it's hard to beat this prime example of absurd reasoning, but let's try! Fun for the whole family!

Nacho · Fri 21/04/2006 15:45:01

I agree Petter. They say "a watch... there must be a watchmaker!"

The you must ask them... "And who made the watchmaker?" They reply. "His father"

Then you ask: "So... God has a father?"

And they shut up... swet... and run.

HillBilly · Fri 21/04/2006 16:00:03

QuoteImagine that you walk along a beach, and stumble across a watch, lying in the sand. Now, you don't believe that the watch came from nowhere, or was assembled sporadically by pure chance, do you? You believe that it was made by a watchmaker, don't you? Well, it's the same with the world and life on Earth.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design

I love sites that just cough up the answers for me so I don't have to think for myself.

Quote from: Andail on Fri 21/04/2006 13:50:13
I know, it's hard to beat this prime example of absurd reasoning, but let's try! Fun for the whole family!

Sin cursed world.

SSH · Fri 21/04/2006 16:16:03

I think Creationism is more consistent than Intelligent Design, etc. I mean, don't these people believe in an all-powerful God?

So, if God is all-powerful surely he COULD have made the universe in seven days and made it look to scientists like it wasn't. Now why he'd want to do that I have no idea, but surely anyone can see that given these folks beleive in an omnipotent creator, by definition anything is possible.

Babar · Fri 21/04/2006 16:30:06

I don't see the point in limitting science to "God made it". For me that is obvious. But if we just said to every single thing that we saw "God made it!" where would we be now? Believing in a flat planet with angels hanging around at night as stars from a big sheet that encapsulates the earth as the "Sky".

If something WAS figured out directly to be made by God, where would that leave us? Having figured God out, it would no longer be possible for God to be all-powerful (omnipotent?). Any how, I don't think the world works like that. It's more likely that for every "problem" we solve, when we delve deeper we find it has more "problems", all the way to infinity. Like the composition of matter- fire, water, air, earth- molecules- atoms- electrons, neutrons, protons- to whatever is currently the "smallest possible division". When we completely figure them out, we'll be happy for a while, before we find out "Hey! This is made up of (and can be divided into) these little particle things".

lo_res_man · Fri 21/04/2006 17:09:12

I don't think the belief that "god did it" HAS to limit science. There is still the questions "How?" and "why?" I also don't think if we do know, it won't make God not all powerful, If you see a programmer making a game and see how he does it it still makes the finale program pretty darn great.(of course that depends on the programmer

) admittedly it can block progress, but so can any paradigm. As well there is plenty of science that doesn’t concern with origins, there still is an infinite of work to be done there.

EldKatt · Sat 22/04/2006 11:54:32

Quote from: Grapefruitologist on Wed 19/04/2006 19:53:44
There's real evidence in the links I posted, to support Christianity. You told me to post evidence, I have.

Just a few comments regarding the links you posted. I saw two (this and this). The first one seems to be a television show, on a channel that the majority of the people here can't see. They also sell tapes, apparently, but I don't think you can expect people participating in a discussion on a forum to literally buy your arguments, when those of the other side, presented for example by Fuzzpilz, were easily and freely available on the Internet. This won't do.

The second one might be adequate. Reading two random articles, though, I found this admirably nonsensical chain of reasoning that concludes that because the formation of coal is a quicker process than previously thought, the Earth might for all we know be a few thousand years old. Well, at least if all the other clues that point to a higher age are ignored. Proof by contradiction doesn't work this way. Sorry. Also, the fact that it doesn't reference any primary sources regarding this awesome fast-forming coal and why it means anything at all lowers the article's credibility for me. The other one, which is about the decay of the Earth's magnetic field, contains no references at all and reads like a grade school essay.

By contrast, Fuzzpilz's link about thermodynamics and evolution thoroughly and methodically answers pro-creationism arguments, explaining elementary concepts and backing them up with sources where necessary. In all fairness, scientific method and methodical documentation and reasoning appears to be giving science something of an advantage against religion when it comes to argumentation.

Anyway, the main point that I'm trying to make (to Grapefruitologist and anyone else who is interested) is that I for one would appreciate links to more specific evidence. I'd rather spend my time reading some carefully selected material arguing in favour of your point, rather than haphazardly trying to find it in a pile of less convincing stuff. I'm sure this material exists somewhere, so help me out here.

MrColossal · Wed 26/04/2006 06:41:44

Sorry to bring this thread up again but..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12467604/?GT1=7938