Eucharistic Shenaninigans

#141

Glad to help! :slight_smile:

This is precisely my point, actually. Saved by works. As long as you believe in our religion and do what it tells you to do. Thats works. You do something to save yourself. You choose to believe in Christianity and you save yourself, as you say.
That’s not it. That’s the point. That’s what makes Christianity different.
You’ve done something wrong. Nothing you can do can change that. You’ve earned sin. Punishment is death.
Think of it this way. The Bible says to obey God’s commands. I’m a Christian, and I still sin every day. I still disobey! I earn death every day by my actions.
How are you saved? By grace through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. You can’t come up with faith, you have to be given faith from God.
You cant just believe in ‘our’ religion, and you can’t just do what it tells you to do. And neither can I.

Scientists do every day. Brane Theory? M-theory? Right now if you went to the store and looked at the magazines, the science ones are especially touting the brane multiverse theory.

God isn’t an assumption. If it were I would totally agree with you. Rather, God is the conclusion based on observation.

Even if its many occurrences of chance, in the end its still chance.
Microevolution where species adapt and change is totally legit. Evolution happens, but not on such a scale as to explain phenomenon as the Cambrian explosion.

You want an example.
https://www.signatureinthecell.com/
https://www.worldmag.com/articles/16170

I didnt say there’s no evidence or observation. Thats the starting point. The stuff around us. Howd it get there? Evidence of design? You start with observation.

I did watch the entire video. Like I said somethings werent bad. Most of the arguments were off-topic, and didnt reach any conclusions though. He started getting to important points around the 6 minute mark. I summarized the main points, and mostly agreed with him. The cosmological argument is not intended to prove Christianity, but why a God is logical. A deity is a potential cause. He was wrong in saying that the universe could have been going on forever. Firstly there are no infinities in a finite universe, and secondly my bonus fact explains one important reason why scientifically the universe must have started at one point in time.
I didnt mention the well what caused God part, cause I thought it was silly.
Of course nothing caused God. If something did, fine call that thing God instead.

It attempts to prove that certain things couldn’t have evolved. That has nothing to do with evolution? Does anybody claim to know how the eyeball evolved?

Woah man. What do you mean there is no proof? Psalm 19.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.
4 Their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

God has made himself known in His creation such that no man is without excuse. Natural Man rebels and turns from him.

  1. Faith is no substitute for proof. Neither is faith something you turn to when you have no proof. That’s a foolish belief rather than faith.
  2. You can’t teach faith. Then it’s not faith.
  3. Knowledge can be discovered by science, but science can also be wrong. Science can and does point to a creator, namely God.
  4. What makes my religion better? I don’t believe other religions are valid. I dont believe other religions are logical. I also believe that because of sin we reject truth. I believe I didnt choose Christianity, because as a sinful rebellious against God person, I dont choose God. I believe my faith is God given, and Im glad it is because I never would have figured it out.

Im goin through your posts one at a time. Let me get to em before you continue.

#142

tl;dr

#143

Precisely.
I wasnt expecting you to read all that.
I was expecting someone to find my response to their post and read only that.

#144

My point was this: pretty much every religion I can think of has a device to subjugate people to faith.
Whether it is salvation through grace, or the possibility of enlightenment, those devices exist to have faith in the given religion based on nothing but, well, faith.

Those are not scientific theories pur sang. Those are possible models that seem likely. I agree that they are just as valid as the idea of a god, but they are not provable scientific theories.

How exactly do you make that conclusion? I don’t see the link between a complex organism and a god.

Says who? Evolution can happen in many different scales and speeds, depending on conditions.
If the lifespan of an organism is short, and it has many offspring, and there is much adversity, evolution will be quicker.
There are also acceptable theories on how evolution can also happen very quickly. I.e. a giraffe’s neck becomes much larger in only a few generations, as opposed to over thousands of years (just an example to illustrate, don’t know how valid it is). I can’t remember what the theory is called or anything though.

I have yet to see that evidence, and I have yet to observe anything pointing to a god.

How do you come by faith if not by teachings? The very nature of faith is the result of teachings.
Your parents have faith and pass it on to you by their actions and their words.
If not that, your peers, friends, colleagues influence your views to ‘guide’ you to faith as it were, effectively teaching you to have faith.
Alternatively, you read books or articles, do research on the internet, whatever, and come by your faith in that way.

Faith has to come from somewhere, therefore it is taught.

You would not have a christian faith if you were born in Afghanistan. Generally, you would have a muslim faith. Why? Not because god gave you your faith, but because you gained your faith through environmental influences.

Yes, science can be wrong, but the current state of science is always based on the best conclusions that have been made from the current available evidence. Faith is based on indoctrination and millennium-old books.
How does science point to a creator?
If anything, a god by its very nature is opposite to what science is supposed to be.
Science tries to explain things; it tries to find the origin and reason of things.
God is inexplicable, and has no reason or origin. It’s just another way of man trying to stop the old infinite question of “if x creates y, what created x?” which has been shown to be unnecessary in the first place from what I understand is the current accepted theory of the universe.

Guess what, so does anyone with another religion.

brb sleep

#145

same here ill read it in the morn and edit this post.

#146

Actually, yes. Many people. Just because YOU may not know doesn’t mean that NO ONE knows how it happened.

Here are just a couple of links from the FIRST PAGE ON GOOGLE:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Then they go on to misquote Darwin (as if proving Darwin wrong does a thing to proving evolution wrong) when they say he said, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Had they continued the quote, they would’ve blown their case right out of the water:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”

#147

Using big words doesn’t make it scientific. Using the scientific method makes something scientific.

observable. empirical. measurable. evidence.

and in order for something to be considered a theory, one thing you have to do is have it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Those peers will check your paper, perform their own tests, and smash you to pieces if you’re wrong. Get your little christian science published in something the AAAS gives a shit about.

#148

I think that’s the main thrust in the Ben Stein’s “documentary”: Expelled. In that “documentary”, “scientists” complain that hypotheses that run counter to evolution are not given the time of day and that those that have those counter hypotheses are ridiculed by “Big Science”.

The thing is: EVERY hypothesis goes through this. If you can’t stand the heat, et cetera, et cetera.

If you have a counter hypothesis, please show how IT is more powerful and more substantive than what is currently out there. If you can’t do that, then your hypothesis doesn’t deserve the time of day.

#149

Urgh, why did I click on this thread?

Everyone is fighting a losing battle with one another. You’re looking for answers that are impossible to find, as well as trying to get the other person to admit defeat by asking him questions he can’t answer in any way that would satisfy you. The religious debate is so enfuriating because it’s like you’re speaking different languages - no person can answer the other’s questions in a way that would satisfy the other. Every point you make can be countered in an equally unconstructive way so that you end up back where you starting having achieved nothing. That’s the whole point of it.

Logic and belief, science and religion - you have to admit, it’s a battle that looks almost bespoke in its construction, every single aspect of every single argument negating the other. And yet they always seem so intrinsically twined. Where it gets muddled is when people try to argue by talking about something that they have virtually no understanding of and jumping to silly conclusions.

I’m not attacking you personally, but your post contradicts itself. You say that this is my opinion, but you state your argument as cold fact. I agree with you in parts though. There is no reason that one belief system should be greater than another belief system. The reason is that what you believe in cannot be confirmed as fact, and therefore there is no right or wrong in the matter. Religions teach moral laws, but there is no, as far as I know, teaching of direct competition with another religion.
What they do teach is to preach to the people who have no faith, but here is where I get muddled. What right do you have to preach to others? Is it moral to try and convert others, some who may not have a certain intellectual defence to be able to counter your teachings? That is something I’ve always questioned about religion.

Science and religion are compatible. That’s the whole point of the religious debate that has been going on for thousands of years. The problem lies in the fact that religious texts are debateable, science is not. Therefore, people try and fit science around religion and they clash. Taking the Creation story for example - since God’s ways are not ours and therefore his notion of time is also not ours, seven days to him could be 3 billion years to us. When he made something in a day, that could appear as evolution to us that took place over several million years.

On the other hand, whenever religion seems to contradict science in the form of miracles, an explanation is always available. For example, when Jesus calmed the storm, you could say that storms on the Sea of Gallillee have been known to stop almost instantaneously, here is the reasoning etc. etc. It was merely coincidence, here is our proof. However, you could also counter-argue that by saying that God is the master of time and therefore, it’s not so much controlling weather as it is knowing when the storm will cease. Virtually all miracles have a scientific explanation, but that doesn’t make the miracle any less miraculous. Science and religion are compatible, but it’s like hammering a square peg into a round hole - you can do it, but only with force and a lot of swearing.

Buddhism doesn’t have the same concept of sin as, say, Islam does, but it still has a basic concept of right and wrong or good and evil. In the end it’s all the same, just a different word.

The whole point was that he was born as a human, therefore entwining God and man. I think the reasoning behind this was that he could be proved as human and above all killed as a human.

Also, I’d like to point out something that I’ve concluded about belief, or faith. You can never believe in something 100%, because it’s extremely difficult to quantify something so ambiguous as faith. You can say that this chair is made of wood or that this is metal, but you’re basing your belief on something that you’ve been taught. You make an educated guess as to its nature, but in the end you can never be 100% sure. It’s exactly the same with religion. I’ve struggled with religion all my life. I’ve never (perhaps due to lack of courage) split with it entirely, but then again I’ve never fervently believed in it, again perhaps due to lack of courage. However, I think of it as a journey. Believing in something 100% is impossible, but I’ll damn well try, if only to have a better understanding of human nature and how I can better myself as a person. If I get to the end of the journey dispirited with humanity and with no faith whatsoever, then so be it, I’ll have learnt something. However, if I don’t try at all then I’ll look back on my life and see myself as a coward, someone who took someones teaching and took it at face value without exploring it and followed other people blindly.

I’ve always questioned religion and its effects - sometimes I agree with it, at other times I don’t, but I think of myself as someone who, having come from a religious background, can step back and look at it without bias. I’ve come to the conclusion, as many others have, that it is man’s interpretation of religion and the power that comes with so much belief that corrupts it. At its very heart, religion is a philosophy, something that will better humanity as a whole if people live by its teachings.

Where the whole situation gets muddled is the belief in an all-powerful God and the afterlife. People who question religion are forever looking for proof and challenging those who believe in a god to deliver something, when everyone knows that this is impossible and therefore futile.
I think the real question is why is everyond so aggressive about it? What will you gain or lose by trying in vain to prove that you are right and the other person is wrong? You’re both speaking different languages.

Waits for tl;dr

#150

Well yes, because I think it is a fact, but I realize I could be wrong, so I qualify it as my personal view. I could have put “I think that” before every paragraph, but that’s just tiresome to read and to write.

I guess that ‘disclaimer’ was just my way of saying that it was not cold fact, but my opinion.

It’s the approach that’s vastly different, though. But I’ll not get further into that as it’s not really relevant to the debate.

I agree with you on this to an extent. It is impossible to prove the existence of a god, so I’ll never ask for proof (unless someone claims there is evidence or proof, as has been the case in this thread).
Despite that, if you look at where religion comes from, historically as well as ‘socially,’ if you will (i.e. how people get their religion), I believe it makes religion seem completely arbitrary and baseless, which defeats, in my view, every reason to have faith.

All that doesn’t mean that debating it can’t be interesting, though, for both sides.

Well, I think I have managed not to get aggressive, and so has The_Assassin47. This has been a pleasant discussion so far as far as I’m concerned, unlike the stemcell thread.

#151

i dont wish to be rude or anything but i just want to state the fact that almost everything you said above is actually complete nonsense and actually i am pretty sure your knowlege of religion is very shrouded or unlearned…dont critisise religion when you have no idea what you are on about because actually re-reading all that the only thing you might be right about is homosexuality bit but you know there is a reason for that, the main reason why we are on this earth is to have kids and bring more into this life but if with homosexuality you cant do that and so defiles the whole point of life which is why is was not to be allowed by alot of churches.

as for

what???..your kidding right you know you can be forgiving for all your sins apart from taking the life of another?

And lastly yes many religious parties have causes problems in the past but they were ‘CORRUPT’ any true christian can never really cause any problem if all hes trying to do is be a good person and follow the ‘saviors’ example. Which by the way had followers all over the place the 12 which folowed him were called diciples, yes, BUT thats another term for those who were basically helping him out but they werent his only folowers he has thousands all over the place.

There have been mentions that there is no purpose in god, and what created that god?

  1. God is eternal, so is the universe and every other universe which may too have their own seperate gods, however we are only human and find it hard to comprehend the fact there was no start and there is no end.
    2)The purpose of this life (which we chose to come down to, because we chose heveanly fathers plan) is to get a body so that we can become like him. Basically so we can become perfect and become gods but to do that we need to have a body and learn the difference between right and wrong like he does.3
  2. Science is actually a major part (note when something is called a ‘name Theory’, it is jsut a theory and so isnt fact). For all we know our heavenly father is actually the greatest science ever as he understands how to universe works and created it.

All religion does, is help us to become our perfect form and so if followed correctly has no negative effects, so why not have faith in something that can only bring good?

i could say more but ive said too much all ready, please dont slander religion or beliefs just because of what you think you know unless your sure plz.

#152

This thread is full of people who have a psychosexual preponderant obsession with a hypocritical, cannibalistic, misogynist, slave-driving, monster of a mud-flinging, finger-pointing magic rapist space zombie that speaks cryptically, creates disease and famine for kicks, mutilates those who appose him, performs mind-control and demands blood rituals, all the while micromanaging the thoughts and actions of his followers. He blacks out intelligence and free thoughts, demands the minds and bodies of all of humanity, reduces the human psyche and on the whole human society into little more than a retching, writhing mass of primordial mind-soup, teeth, and finger nails.

In this way, Christianity and all of it’s splinter cells are death cults.

If you look at human society from the time we invented capitalism and suffering 10,000 years ago, until now, we’ve done little more than dance around mysterious obelisks and shake bone clubs at each other the whole time. Any hope we ever have of climbing out of this Precambrian muck is practically null.

The best part about it is that it is 100% a construction in our minds. God is about as real as you make him.

So, tl;dr, let’s just nuke ourselves and get it over with. WHO’S WITH ME?! YEAHHHH!

#153

There’s an entire page of walls of text that I don’t want to read. I give up on these arguments, religious people, you’re wrong and stubborn and have no true logic to base your beliefs on.

#154

https://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/12/30/why-is-crime-in-japan-lower-than-in-christian-countries/
Sometimes, I wonder this myself.

#155

The_Assassin47 I don’t think I have EVER been so impressed with Christian representation as what I see here. Thank you for taking up the challenge.

That’s all I wanted to say. Back to your regularly scheduled topic.

#156

don’t say we’re wrong, yes many of us are stubborn, we all are at times. but before you accuse usof lacking logic consider this: (and this is going for a lot of atheists out there!) that faith isn’t about basing your beliefs on logic, reasoning and evidence, it’s about having your own personal hope and motivation which does not need to explain itself or justify the existance of God. keep that in mind next time you ask a religious person to explain/proove/give evidence for etc. God’s existence.

#157

Garthbartin doesn’t need “evidence” or “logic” to prove all Religion is wrong. All he needs is his unshakable faith in Atheism. How dare you question his faith?

#158

In other words stubbornly denying that you are wrong because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy? Hope and motivation are nice but they do not in any way shape or form legitimize your argument.

have you even bothered to read half my posts? How is
A) Primate skulls slowly looking more and more human
B) Viruses and bacteria that change from year to year because of natural selection
C) The scientific method supporting evolution and not religion
D) Common sense
E) Various traits of animals observed by Darwin
F) Religion continually being proved wrong (earth isn’t flat, we aren’t the center of the universe, heart isn’t the center of all emotion) and science continually being right (medical advances and all modern technology in general)
not evidence logic and reason?

I know I said i quit this thread but I can’t let ignorance go unflamed.

#159

Your argument for science and religion being mutually exclusive, despite the evidence to the contrary (the abundance of religious scientists), is “because they are, and you’re wrong.” But who needs evidence, when you have faith?

#160

I in no way see any faith. religious scientist’s opinions on religion are irrelavent because those scientists did not use science to justify their belief in God. Please, explain to me EXACTLY where my faith lies.

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.