Religion (inspired by Christian Rock topic)

CatCity · Post by **CatCity** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:57 pm

LickSamba311 wrote:live rasta. no bickering about religion this and that. rasta is not religion. it's life. one god for all people.

i feel ya man

mary · Post by **mary** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:59 pm

Samsupnthismothafuka wrote:you know the time of jeses people wernt very bright, a rumar could get spreaded very fast, there is no key backbone to it just storys that people wrote and claimed to have god speaking through them

the bible is so self center there is no speak of dinasaurs or outer space

you totally miss the point of the bible. it's not the validity of the story, but rather the meaning and the message of the story.

Post by **Station** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:56 pm

"If the Bible is mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust it to tell us where we're going?"
-Justin Brown

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
-Richard Dawkins

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-Benjamin Franklin

"We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
-Bertrand Russell

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
-Stephen F. Roberts

I can understand how these quotes wouldn't move you if you don't value reason and truth as much as these guys.

$ayzak · Post by **$ayzak** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:09 pm

Here's my own quotes:

"We are all agnostic whether we like it or not."

"We weren't designed to comprehend the truth."

"It's hilariousely egotistical to assume that the only thing more intelligent than us actually had the power to create exsistance... and that we are the sole purpose for it."

Drums · Post by **Drums** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:58 pm

I like those quotes.

Alexnova · Post by **Alexnova** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:10 pm

311drums915 wrote: I had to let you know that the theory of evoilution isnt "crushed" by other theories.

Have you studied Entropy (which is the first law of thermodynamics)?

A: The first law is very simple and important but pretty dull: You can't create or destroy energy.

If that's the case then what in the world created us? If God can't creat energy, or the Big Bang didn't start the universe then what did.

Most evolutionists, like Darwin, want to skip over such incidentals as the source of matter, space, time, planets, stars and operational laws such as laws of planetary motion, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc. You know, little things like that.

Evolutionists want to start with a "warm little pond" someplace on Earth. No, I insist on hearing evolutionists say, "I don't know," and I want to hear it a few times before we stand on the bank of the mythical little pond to discuss man's origins.

The first possibility is that the Universe created itself; however, that is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics that says energy is not being created or destroyed. It is called the "Law of Conservation." Energy is being directed, used, etc. but not created or destroyed. It is a law all scientists accept. No argument there, so the Universe could not have created itself.

The second possibility of origins of the Universe is that it has always been here; however, that is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law says everything is running down and dying. Like the First Law, it is a universal law admitted by all scientists. Everything around us is degenerating, decaying and dying. If you don't take care of your house, it will collapse from lack of care. Your car will become a chunk of junk. Everything gets old and becomes useless.

So the Universe could not have been here forever because it would have run down in observance to the Second Law. Evolutionists require the Universe to run up. They tell us man is getting more complex and working toward perfection yet the Bible teaches that man is going down-and has since Eden. No, the Universe has not always existed.

The third possibility is that the Universe, Earth and mankind do not exist! Yes, that is contrary to the Law of Common Sense, something that evolutionists don't understand. This argument came to us from the ancient Greeks who sat around in their baths without anything else to do so they came up with such cockamamie ideas. We can dismiss this third possibility as nonsense since by dismissing it, we disprove it!

The fourth possibility is that an intelligent God designed and created the Universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. And He did it in six twenty-four hour days as the Bible teaches and scientific evidence seems to support.

There are no other possibilities, so evolutionists are "stuck" with the fourth possibility. That is why they don't deal with origins unless forced to by "pushy" creationists. God always comes into the discussion.

Creationists can be confident in the presence of evolutionists because we are right. Too often creationists feel like a plow horse at the Kentucky Derby, but the fact is evolutionists are bags of wind-or hot air. Their thinking is confused, convoluted and contradictory.

In the beginning, God. That says it all.

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/DidGOD.html

Drums · Post by **Drums** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:19 pm

Still, there is nop proof that god started existance. They are all theories for a reason. That also does not disprove evolution, becuase no matter how shit started, evolution still takes place. Like I said, it just the change of populations of species over time.

The whole way things started is the controversl part anyway, but even with what you said, there are still no FACTS that say "organisms did not form from non living organisms in water". Its still comes down to theory. Therefore, evolution is not "crushed".

And i personall do not know what I beleive in how shit got started. So thos theories may change my mind, but again they only go against the beleif of how things started living.

FreeRayLiotta · Post by **FreeRayLiotta** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:25 pm

the whole debate is useless.

check out Pen and Tellers thing about the Bible.. its horribly obvious and i give them no credit for anything, but its a fun little show to watch that goes over the major events of the bible and timelines to see what could have happened, and what couldnt have happened.

- but not a single person on this earth has ever had any idea about what this is. go out side, look around, fuck, look right in front of you. WHAT IS THIS? WHAT THE FUCK IS THE WORLD? No amount of religion or story can put it in perspective. No person has any idea what the fuck this is and what the fuck we are doing. God never sent a son, and will never send a son. There are no messiahs, no prophets, no gods, no faithful, no chosen people, no holy land.. its all bullshit. There may be a god, there must be something to it... but as far as anything our feeble little minds have drawn up.. it will never come close to cracking this code.

Its funny how the majority of people on this planet think we are the reason for the world and it was all created for us. People are fucking stupid half apes. Vulgar,

ing, stupid fucking apes. We have been here for how long?? and we still cant get our shit together..

still fighting over jesus and all this shit that is all based on nothing and doesnt even really mean anything in the first place.. its ridiculous. at least rastafari makes sense

i understand that religion is supposed to teach certain values and promotes good families and things like that, which are vital things for the development of human life. kids need 2 parents who love them, people need to not fuck with one another and one anothers shit. people who are very religious by and large are also very compassionate good people who spend their lives trying to help the world, and not impose their way of life, but promote their way of life by showing what good that it can do.

and while i think christianity and all the other religions are really more of an insult to the miracle of life than a tribute to it.. i still think that anything is possible. what the fuck are we doing here? your guess is a s good as mine.. jesus the lord, sounds good to me.. the lord has yet to come.. shit why not. anything is possible.

so pnut can shove a warwick up his ass - does he have a better understanding of the world than george w bush - is he more open to the true experience of life because he's not saddled with christianity?? no he isn't. and he doesnt have any fucking clue. pnut should take his ass to college.

veal parm sandwich.... fuck you!

Post by **Station** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:05 pm

There is so much wrong with this. My responses are to the guy who wrote the article I guess, so ignore that I say "you".

Sir Alex wrote:
Have you studied Entropy (which is the first law of thermodynamics)?

A: The first law is very simple and important but pretty dull: You can't create or destroy energy.

If that's the case then what in the world created us? If God can't creat energy, or the Big Bang didn't start the universe then what did.

Most evolutionists, like Darwin, want to skip over such incidentals as the source of matter, space, time, planets, stars and operational laws such as laws of planetary motion, First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, gravity, inertia, etc. You know, little things like that.

Evolutionists want to start with a "warm little pond" someplace on Earth. No, I insist on hearing evolutionists say, "I don't know," and I want to hear it a few times before we stand on the bank of the mythical little pond to discuss man's origins.

do you really not believe that it's possible for a pool of something to exist on early earth?

Sir Alex wrote:
The first possibility is that the Universe created itself; however, that is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics that says energy is not being created or destroyed. It is called the "Law of Conservation." Energy is being directed, used, etc. but not created or destroyed. It is a law all scientists accept. No argument there, so the Universe could not have created itself.

The second possibility of origins of the Universe is that it has always been here; however, that is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law says everything is running down and dying. Like the First Law, it is a universal law admitted by all scientists. Everything around us is degenerating, decaying and dying. If you don't take care of your house, it will collapse from lack of care. Your car will become a chunk of junk. Everything gets old and becomes useless.

So the Universe could not have been here forever because it would have run down in observance to the Second Law. Evolutionists require the Universe to run up. They tell us man is getting more complex and working toward perfection yet the Bible teaches that man is going down-and has since Eden. No, the Universe has not always existed.

This is just completely wrong. You're trying to apply entropy in ridiculous ways. Thermodynamics is not necessariliy proof that the universe hasn't always existed. This is from the wikipedia entry for Entropy.

"The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult."

You cannot conclude that the universe has not always existed.

Sir Alex wrote:
The third possibility is that the Universe, Earth and mankind do not exist! Yes, that is contrary to the Law of Common Sense, something that evolutionists don't understand. This argument came to us from the ancient Greeks who sat around in their baths without anything else to do so they came up with such cockamamie ideas. We can dismiss this third possibility as nonsense since by dismissing it, we disprove it!

The fourth possibility is that an intelligent God designed and created the Universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. And He did it in six twenty-four hour days as the Bible teaches and scientific evidence seems to support.

There are no other possibilities, so evolutionists are "stuck" with the fourth possibility. That is why they don't deal with origins unless forced to by "pushy" creationists. God always comes into the discussion.

There certainly are other possibilities. First of all, if we are to follow the laws of entropy like you said, then God can't create the universe out of nothing. If he is allowed to violate the laws, then they are not laws, and your first scenario is possible where the universe creates itself.

Second, you're making a false dichotomy between the first three options and the christian god. The "fourth option" is that some god or something created the universe. Not that YOUR god "did it in six twenty-four hour days as the Bible teaches".

Sir Alex wrote: Creationists can be confident in the presence of evolutionists because we are right. Too often creationists feel like a plow horse at the Kentucky Derby, but the fact is evolutionists are bags of wind-or hot air. Their thinking is confused, convoluted and contradictory.

In the beginning, God. That says it all.

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/DidGOD.html

chuckmo · Post by **chuckmo** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:39 pm

LickSamba311 wrote:rasta is not religion. it's life. one god for all people.

Thats the point i've been trying to make about christianity! everyone here is hating on the old testament and stuff when that is NOT christianity. that's the old covenant with god, while christianity is the new. its included in the bible for a history of what christianity COMES from.

chrisitianity is a lifestyle. its not about believing god created the earth or that a snake spoke to adam and eve... i mean i have a hard time with the earth being created in 7 days, but that doesnt make me any less of a christian! christianity is all about love and forgiveness. everything else should come naturally from there (such as good works.) it seems some many people just focus on the "good works" (i.e. telling sinners they're going to hell) that they forget about the love, which leads to their misinterpretation of sharing god's love.

i'll throw some quote in there that apply to this thread... it seems that many people here have made up there minds and no amount of evidence or testimony will sway them

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Faith is knowing there is an ocean because you have seen a brook.
-William Arthur Ward

The moral and religious system which Jesus Christ transmitted to us is the best the world has ever seen, or can see. --Benjamin Franklin:

FreeRayLiotta · Post by **FreeRayLiotta** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:24 pm

any way you slice it. no one knows.. so it will always come back to God.

i've read things that say the conditions to sustain life are so rare, and so many factors have to fall in place for it to happen, and that statistically speaking, it would be impossible that it is a random occurrence.

mary · Post by **mary** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:31 pm

FreeRayLiotta wrote:any way you slice it. no one knows.. so it will always come back to God.

i've read things that say the conditions to sustain life are so rare, and so many factors have to fall in place for it to happen, and that statistically speaking, it would be impossible that it is a random occurrence.

if the universe is infintily large there are more chances for a random occurence.

Alexnova · Post by **Alexnova** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:47 pm

Station-

Those laws of Thermodynamics are accepted by all scientists.

And you also have to understand that if God did create everything out of nothing, that those laws would be non-existent. Science tries to prove the way things are without the presence of God.

But if God did create everything, then all Science would be completley pointless and useless.

Post by **Station** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:55 pm

Sir Alex wrote:Station-

Those laws of Thermodynamics are accepted by all scientists.

And you also have to understand that if God did create everything out of nothing, that those laws would be non-existent. Science tries to prove the way things are without the presence of God.

But if God did create everything, then all Science would be completley pointless and useless.

The laws of thermodynamics are true, of course. The laws are simple, but you are using them to infer things that just don't follow from the laws.

Sounds like you just disproved the existence of god to yourself... "if God did create everything out of nothing, that those laws would be non-existent." Well you said the laws exist, so then God could not have created everything out of nothing.

So if you believe that God did create everything, you think that all science is worthless?

Post by **Station** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:21 pm

chuckmo wrote: chrisitianity is a lifestyle. its not about believing god created the earth or that a snake spoke to adam and eve... i mean i have a hard time with the earth being created in 7 days, but that doesnt make me any less of a christian! christianity is all about love and forgiveness. everything else should come naturally from there (such as good works.) it seems some many people just focus on the "good works" (i.e. telling sinners they're going to hell) that they forget about the love, which leads to their misinterpretation of sharing god's love.

I think you're trying to redefine christianity. Certainly, if a person follows the teachings of Jesus they are bound to be a kind and loving person, but to be part of most Christian Churches means that you believe the Bible. You believe Jesus rose from the dead. There are a lot of denominations, so I can't speak for them all, but certainly Catholic and the big Protestant denominations require those beliefs. You can CALL youself a christian if you want, but I don't think that makes you one. I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or just about anything from the Bible. Yet I still live by basically the same set of values of love and forgiveness that Jesus preached. Am I a Christian? I don't call myself one.

mary · Post by **mary** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:18 am

it's not so much the bible as it is the word of the lord and the teachings of christ...it just so happens the bible contains these things. where the confusion comes in is people are more concerned about the story than the point.

station your right about many people calling themselves a christian and them actually being one is a totally different story. it has become less about the values and principles of the institution and more about associating with a group that is supposedly well adjusted and morally correct. I think this is also how people justify looking down on others that don't believe the way they do because they are christian.

christianity and many other religions are great concepts...it's when you add the human element.

Alexnova · Post by **Alexnova** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:29 am

Station wrote: The laws of thermodynamics are true, of course. The laws are simple, but you are using them to infer things that just don't follow from the laws.

Take example the big bang theory. An huge explosion out of literally nothing created the universe. But the thermodynamic law says energy cannot be created. So it disproves that theory.

It's hard to disprove evolution, becuase for one yes human beings have defiently evolved over how many years human beings have lived on the planet. That is definetly a fact, and to prove that just look at the Renassaince.(Man I suck at spelling)

But I think evolving from primates is a bit ridiculous. So your telling me that evolution has basically stopped? Then why aren't there records of seeing primates evolving current day or past. It doesn't make sense for that kind of large evolution to automatically stop. I guess your gonna have to explain that to me.

Sounds like you just disproved the existence of god to yourself... "if God did create everything out of nothing, that those laws would be non-existent." Well you said the laws exist, so then God could not have created everything out of nothing.

I'm only saying the laws exist in a scientific world based with no existance of God. But if there is existence of God, then what use must those laws be? Becuase God broke them all.

So if you believe that God did create everything, you think that all science is worthless?

Let me rephrase what I said. If we prove that God is existent...then what kind of proof do we have to suport or scientific theories and explorations? That's the whole point of science, to prove things without the existance of God. But if God is there, then what point do we have to keep science?

Probably only for the benefit of the human race of course. But the science of discovering creationsim and the theory of atoms and stuff would basically be crushed.

Oh and btw awesome Zelda icon.

Post by **Station** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:31 am

Sir Alex wrote:Take example the big bang theory. An huge explosion out of literally nothing created the universe. But the thermodynamic law says energy cannot be created. So it disproves that theory.

The big bang theory is not disproved by thermodynamics. The big bang was not an explosion out of nothing. I don't think you know enough about cosmology to be making these type of arguments. The fact is, no one knows enough about it to make these arguments. Did you read that part from the wikipedia entry about Entropy?

I'm only saying the laws exist in a scientific world based with no existance of God. But if there is existence of God, then what use must those laws be? Becuase God broke them all.

Or, the universe broke them all when it created itself. It's completely arbitrary that you're saying God can break the laws but nothing else can. You say God can do that becuase he's special. So I say the universe is special and can break its own laws. Or the laws are never broken because the universe is infinite or something.

Let me rephrase what I said. If we prove that God is existent...then what kind of proof do we have to suport or scientific theories and explorations? That's the whole point of science, to prove things without the existance of God. But if God is there, then what point do we have to keep science?

I think most people would say that the point of science is to figure things out, with no relation to religion. Whether god exists or not, science helps us understand the stuff around us. I don't see why it would be obsolete if it still describes reality, whether it's a reality created by god or not.

Oh and btw awesome Zelda icon.

thanks

Alexnova · Post by **Alexnova** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:53 pm

Station wrote: The big bang theory is not disproved by thermodynamics. The big bang was not an explosion out of nothing. I don't think you know enough about cosmology to be making these type of arguments. The fact is, no one knows enough about it to make these arguments. Did you read that part from the wikipedia entry about Entropy?

these observations show that the Universe has expanded from a primeval state, in which all the matter and energy in the Universe was at an immense temperature and density

The First Law of Thermodynamics - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

It's like beating a dead horse. If no one knows enough about it, then why are we arguing about it? And if we don't know much about it why should we base things on assumptions?

Or, the universe broke them all when it created itself. It's completely arbitrary that you're saying God can break the laws but nothing else can. You say God can do that becuase he's special. So I say the universe is special and can break its own laws. Or the laws are never broken because the universe is infinite or something.

How can the universe create itself? It can create itself out of nothing?

Just think about that, and when you do think about it...it shows how ridiculous that kind of logic is.

The universe created itself. Oh yeah the universe just decided "Yeah I wanna be born now". Boom.

Sorry but that logic makes me laugh out loud.

I think most people would say that the point of science is to figure things out, with no relation to religion. Whether god exists or not, science helps us understand the stuff around us. I don't see why it would be obsolete if it still describes reality, whether it's a reality created by god or not.

It would only be obsolete if God was proven to be existed. What would be the point of searching how the universe was created, searching evolution. All that sceince would be obsolete.

I said in my rephrasing on the select few would be obsolete.

Anyway I'm done debating.

pnutwannabe · Post by **pnutwannabe** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:13 pm

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" Karl Marx