Skepticism

[Trent R]

You know, if you believe God managed to make the whole universe and create Adam, why would he have trouble doing it in 6 days or making Eve from a rib? Not that I'm trying to say that is what happened, but the Christian God is supposed to be omnipotent. He can do anything. So maybe he did make the world in 6 days, or 6 aeons or 6 billion years: how does this affect my day-to-day faith? Not at all.

As for Adam and Eve, completely agree. He is omnipotent. I believe that it wouldn't be written in that way if it wasn't meant to be symbolic. It's also possible that it's both symbolic and literally.

However, even though God is omnipotent, the only power he doesn't have and can't have is to control time. If he could, there'd be no point to life (as we believe, life is to be a test for the next life, but its more complex than that) because we could simply reverse time or such and undo mistakes. This also means that God can't fast forward time, and I believe that he would've have used the laws of nature and let the earth create itself naturally. At the same he is omniscient, so he could've known how to make it exactly.

I also agree with your points in comment previous.

~Trent

Just read through your post Nacho, but I will be taking a short break from the computer. I'll be back soon to reply.
~Trent

[Nacho]

But I don't present my feelings as fact. Just as I would expect people who belong to any of these organizations not to attempt to present what they believe as fact.

It's common courtesy.

Why it's courtesy not saying that bible literalism is stupid?

People would say to someone saying that the smurfs are real is stupid.

Why not saying the same to something which has the same degree of folly?

[Sam.]

What you just posted raised an interesting point in my brain.

Religion was never imposed upon me, at all, at school through to university. I made up my own mind, to be atheist. However I know People who made their minds up to be Christians or Muslim or Buddhist.

BUT football WAS imposed upon me. From the age of 7/8 onwards, I HAD to play football at school, up to the age of 16. This made me hate football.

I don't really know how that relates to your arguments, but I thought it warranted writing down.

[Nacho]

Okay... start fighting football.

That you would like football not to be imposed to people is your argument against my opinion that religion shouldn' t?

It's very weak as an argument... I think it actually reinforces mine.

[Ozzie]

@Nacho: You know, people that believe in god, put their faith in him, don't necessarily state his existence as a fact or are forcing other people see it that way. Yeah, there are those "conservative" idiots that call themselves christians that defend any action they take with their religion and declare every word of the bible as a fact. Personally I'm insulted by those guys out of many reasons, but one is that they call themselves something they clearly aren't. Christianity is about peace and tolerance, but they're the opposite, aggressive and intolerant. They're just a vocal minority though, so whatever.

What I wanted to ask is: Why don't you let people believe what they want?

[voh]

No, voh... What I am NOT being is idiot.

I never said you were being an idiot. I said you were being a hypocrite. Demanding something of another while not being willing to do it yourself (in this case: stop 'throwing punches') is hypocritical. No matter how you view it.

Sharing opinions as fact, but not allowing others to do so without calling them stupid, is another case of hypocrisy.

It's especially harrowing when you're also claiming your opinion is 100% "correct" and all other opinions are 100% "stupid".

[Nacho]

@Ozzie:

Replying to your question: Because religion is still "oficial" in many sides of the world. The day that finishes, I will give a shit about what people does or does not indoors.

On the other hand, man, I do not agree with your first paragraph at all...

@Voh... But believing that facts in bible happened as it says is stupid. It' s not my fault.

What you are doing is: You can't say 2+2 is 4, if you don't accept somebody else' s opinion that 2+2=5.

Allow me to make you a question... What do you think of someone thinking that SPIDERMAN exists as depicted in Marvel Comics?

[Sam.]

My point, somewhat distractedly, was that football as a direct comparison to religion doesn't stand.

I'm not arguing with you, religion, in my opinion, is illogical. To me, the existence of a God does not sit right with my perception of the world and how it works. However, I cannot account for the perception of others, nor the validity of my own. Therefore, I don't judge beliefs. Nor do I feel the need to impose my belief on others by stating "Facts according to Sam". The opposite is true, I find one of the most offensive things about some religious groups is the need they feel to tell me how wrong and bad I am, and how my only way to salvation is to sign their book.

I guess my real problem is not the opinions you hold, Nacho, but the manner in which you express them.

[Ozzie]

@Nacho: Then the separation of church and state might be a more appropiate subject matter to discuss, though.

[Nacho]

I said I am open to change "idiot" to "illogical", Zoot...

But man... believing that a guy opened the red sea is... phew...

@Ozzie: We simply can't  demmand separation of church and state if believers don' t recognise that their beliefs are indistinguisable from any other belief created by man, because if they don' t recognise so, they will allways find that they have "the divine right" to keep church and state together.

[Trent R]

Alright, let's roll.  


1) Even though I said I believe in the Big Bang theory (parts of it), I do not believe in evolution from monkeys. God made man in his own image (from the book of Genesis). As for the evidence of neanderthal bones, I have an interesting point that I'll make later.

2) In somethings you could call me a literalistic, but in others I am not. It depends on the issue. That's a lame excuse, but true.

3) One of the basis of any religion is faith. You believe in things you don't have concrete proof of, which shows your faith. Again, not the most concrete argument, but essential nonetheless.

4) God's Maker: This actually gets even more interesting once you throw a bit of LDS belief into the mix. A very simplified version is that we 1) lived with God as spirits, 2) got bodies and came to earth, 3) will die and go to one of 3 kingdoms, 4) if in the highest kingdom, you will become a god yourself (with your wife as a goddess) where you can repeat the cycle. Also know that it is taught elsewhere that God and Jesus has been through the trials we go through.
These together pose the abstract (and most-likely incorrect) question/assumption, "If we can become Gods, and God was once a human, then who was God's God? And who was his God?" and so forth.

I dont' tell you that to confuse you. As for the answer, I don't know and probably never will in this life. What I do know is that our perception is based off this life. God is eternal, whereas this life is temporal. Basically, God (and his God's, and our spirits) have existed forever.
Yet again, doesn't make complete sense and doesn't have concrete evidence, but that's were faith comes in.  

Also, I can talk about the Holy Ghost who helps in addition of faith, but that will come later.


~Trent
PS-Obviously this is just a discussion with Nacho and others. For anyone ACTUALLY interested in the beliefs of the LDS Church, check out www.mormon.org which explains basic beliefs and answers questions you may have.
PSS-Lol, 9 replies in the time it took to write this one.

[space boy]

However, even though God is omnipotent, the only power he doesn't have and can't have is to control time.

That's a contradiction. If he's omnipotent he can control everything, including time. If he can't control time he's not omnipotent.

[Stupot]

One day, in 2000 years time, people are going to be having the exact same debate about Lord of the Rings.

[Ozzie]

@Ozzie: We simply can't  demmand separation of church and state if believers don' t recognise that their beliefs are indistinguisable from any other belief created by man, because if they don' t recognise so, they will allways find that they have "the divine right" to keep church and state together.

Oh yeah, those evil believers, they're all the same.  :
France has a seperation between state and church since.....well, a very long time.
How the fuck did that happen? How could it happen?  

[Trent R]

To follow-up:

Let's please not talk about the separation of church and state. That topic just completely annoys me.


On believing in 'fake things', I think that the difference is that Spiderman is a creation of Stan Lee and he's proved and testified so. Same with Lucas and Star Wars, the guy that made up Big Foot, the chicks that made up ghosts (side note--I don't believe in ghosts, but I do believe in spirits), and the apparently high dude that made up Smurfs.
If you can ask the guys that 'made up' religion and they told you it's not true, then that'd be proof. Unfortunately that's not possible. (again, not a great argument, and I recognize that)

~Trent

[voh]

I don't see how that comparison is meant to mean anything other than that you're out to make religion look stupid. A superhero character unarguably created by Stan Lee (as Trent R. already said - damn you, slow typing and research!) doesn't hold the same mystery that God does. And I'm not defending christanity in specific, I'm defending the freedom of religion.

If you'd taken the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Celestial Teapot, I would've understood. These are examples of how it's impossible to claim as fact that there's a 'holy entity' out there, but on the other side it also shows how it's impossible to claim that there isn't (something the creators of all those 'mock gods' realize full well).

Oh, wait, you want to know how I'd respond to a Spiderman believer. Well, if someone were to come up to me and tell me that he earnestly believed that Spiderman was real, I'd probably think about what scientific progress that would imply. Since interspecies breeding between spiders and humans is biologically impossible, it would mean that someone had been succesful at splicing spider DNA and human DNA together, to create the anomalies seen in Spiderman (the sticky hairs, for example, and the incredible out-of-proportion-to-its-body strength). I'd also wonder about the technological advances necessary to create the web throwers. I mean, seriously, the amount of web created by those things is simply not possible with current technology, especially not within the size the throwers seem to be. Well, as far as is publically known, of course.

All in all, by using logic, research and scientific proof that both the biological and technical world isn't far enough to create a spider man, I would be able to disprove the existence thereof.

Now, tell me, what science do you propose we use to disprove there is no god?

[Trent R]

space boy, that's not a contradiction. It falls in with the 'argument' of science vs religion. It's stupid, because they in fact coincide. God used science to create the world, universe, and man. God has to follow the laws of nature (atoms, energy, etc).

This will probably spawn more flames and discussion....

~Trent

[Trent R]

Now, tell me, what science do you propose we use to disprove there is no god?

Where's Dualnames to quote Hitchhiker's Guide for us? lol

~Trent
[Edit]: Dang, shouldn't have double posted this one... Sorry mods!!

[Ozzie]

To follow-up:

Let's please not talk about the separation of church and state. That topic just completely annoys me.

Why? I'm interested to hear how this could annoy you more then a discussion about religion itself...
I mean, I didn't want to involve you into this discussion anyways, just wanted to point out to Nacho that he might be annoyed with religion and religious people for the wrong reasons.

[voh]

space boy, that's not a contradiction. It falls in with the 'argument' of science vs religion. It's stupid, because they in fact coincide. God used science to create the world, universe, and man. God has to follow the laws of nature (atoms, energy, etc).

Not really a flame, just an elaboration on what I believe spaceboy meant. If God is omnipotent, by definition he'd wield unlimited power. If he can't control time, he doesn't have that power, his power is therefore limited and as a result He cannot be omnipotent.

Lingistically speaking: period.