|
| Thread: a biblical hypothetical |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20 29 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 24, 2011 05:55 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:58, 24 Feb 2011.
|
Quote:
How about drugs, sex, bullying, and alcohol? Most teenagers are highly demoralised WITH attempts to teach them right and with policies in place.
wasn't it one of my points? though they teach you some things because they think it's good for you (you can imagine that's really how your teachers think) but the people who are at the power and decide of what you will learn, want to make sure you will follow the morale they dictate, so that they can maintain things as they are and keep their power, or at least, it seems to make sense.
take history lessons for example, it has been a long time, but I somewhat remember them praising capitalism and democracy. For example they teach you about Stalin, blaming the communism at the same time and implying how capitalism is so much better.
they will say 3 words about how mandela, gandhi or martin luther king achieved great things, but not say anything more about their ideas, because they wouldn't want to influence young minds that way. of course, you could as well read books on the subjects, but how many people will do that? it's not a big threat
you are just supposed to worship them as you would worship Tony Parker for example, knowing well that you will never do what he does.
Quote:
Quote:
are you often in contacts with little kids?
At the present moment a few, but I can very clearly and precisely remember my own experiences with them in kindergarten - primary evidence
ok, but you don't see young children, for example, claiming property over some toys of the kindergarten to ensure no other children will play with them while they are away. unless they saw adults do it and they are just taking example.
also, children fight with each other and 5 min later, they are friends again, don't they?
for elodin :
There's this passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted February 24, 2011 09:50 PM |
|
|
1)Not all atheists are the same.
Never said they were. Just that they all shared the commonality that there is no higher power. How they reach that conclussion is their own road.
2)Set of morals established by religion? WHAT?
Find A moral not held high in stature by A SINGLE religion. (You know, not murdering people, not stealing, not lieing, etc, etc.
3)My beliefs are dictated by no one.
So then you don't listen to your parents when they give you advice in any situation ever?  What an interesting life you must lead... PS, you must show me how well that worked out some time...[/sarcasm]
4)I have been an atheist since I was born, never believed in the religious fairytales (my family's mostly Catholic)
Alright, good for you. Please let me live what you think to be a fairy-tale and I'll let you live what I believe to be yours. 
5)Erm, no. I never engulfed myself into any religious teachings (and don't intend to), apart from Catholic, because it's compulsory at school.
Oh, so you aren't an athiest, you just aren't Catholic. Here's a little secret, I ain't either. 
Quote:
Did you realise you have problems with comprehending short text? Even your definition says "dictated by a GOD, GODS, OR OTHER SUPREME FORCE THAT ONE CANNOT PROVE TO BE REAL."
My beliefs are dictated by NO ONE. AND can be proven to be real (at least most, because some disagree that no afterlife can be proven)
Alright, prove to me beyone a shadow of a doubt that something came from nothing which science says is impossible, BTWs, and that from this little insignificant explosion compaired to the infinate universe that life evolved on a barren and toxic rock, evolving sight, sound, speech, limbs and a body structure beyond that of a gelatinous blob on its own and then I'll join you in your belief that athiesm is only based on proven fact.
Until such a point, I'll believe in my God which is actually more certain statistically then the "Big Bang", and I'll believe that this (genderless) God influenced both macro- and mico-evolution so that what we know as life came into being.[/rant]
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 27, 2011 06:03 PM |
|
|
@small guys
Quote:
Religion is:
Quote:
A set of beliefs and moral codes, usually dictated by a God, Gods or other supreme force that one cannot prove to be real.
But any set of beliefs are a religion then.
No, the way I would seperate are through justified belief.
One of the main problems about the bible, in my opinion, is that it may come with a lot of explanations and predictions. Those are however of no value without some kind of reference to the method of how these were derived.
Then it may be extremely unlikely to guess correct, but if you guess enough time you'll eventually get some stuff right.
@griffin guy
To you, it may seem like you'll be in front forever. Right now, if people around 16 acts like they did when I was 16, you really need to take advantage of not being a part of the troubles you describe. Such as: Quote:
How about drugs, sex, bullying, and alcohol? Most teenagers are highly demoralised WITH attempts to teach them right and with policies in place.
I was in front myself. I wasted it on doing non-important stuff. Suddenly people at my age actually got interested in succeeding in school. And you know what? People who do their fricking best are probably a harder competition than the guy who knows everything (which was me when I was 16 ).
What are you doing to stay in front? Or are you just lucky that everyone else is having a tough time while you could resist?
Quote:
Besides, little kids (3-5 year old for instance) don't know what sharing, compassion, being sorry, and actually doing good to others instead of just receiving all the time are.
Sorry for this single quote, but I think you're very wrong on this one.
Not that I don't think you've been wrong in previous statements, but here you're labeling a group of people, based on your limited experience and conclude upon everyone.
Anyway. I think you should read this.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 28, 2011 01:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Besides, little kids (3-5 year old for instance) don't know what sharing, compassion, being sorry, and actually doing good to others instead of just receiving all the time are.
Sorry for this single quote, but I think you're very wrong on this one.
Not that I don't think you've been wrong in previous statements, but here you're labeling a group of people, based on your limited experience and conclude upon everyone.
EHM!
Do you have argument against his statement, or are you just nitpicking against generalisation?
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 11:48 AM |
|
|
@VokialBG There is a .. controversial explanation given for this. Now, it has been awhile since I've picked up a bible, probably too long, but I believe that it is said that the sons went to the land of Nod and picked up wives.
There are two different arguments here, though again..it is not widely accepted...make up your own mind.
One is that these females were cromagnon (spelling?) the race died off, but it is an explanation as to the 'missing link' (etc) for evolution. It also explained why Adam, Eve, and many generations lived extremely long lives..yet life spans eventually got shorter. Ie we are not 'true blooded' humans, but human/evolved monkey mix. Some believe this theory was only made to explain evolutions findings.
The second is that Nod meant 'nodded off' as in slept, and that the females were dreams..given by god, and he let them bring these females out of the dreams..much like Eve, he made them wives..but in a different way. Some believe this is a theory just given so that incest would not be the only answer.
Both also explain why their names were not written. One out of shame for mixing with 'animals', the other because they officially had no names. They came from dreams. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 11:53 AM |
|
|
Nod in old hebrew means to wander.
The old geezers just didn't bother to traslate it right and left it like that.
The translation would be something like:
And he went off to wander the lands or and he went off to the land of banishment.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 11:57 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:58, 01 Mar 2011.
|
*nods* Like I said, neither are that widely accepted. Mostly passed down by word of mouth..since having anything that even hinted that we were not 'all gods children' at one time meant certain death.
The second was not that well liked either, because God would have had to do this for several generations. It just didn't make sense that He/She would do so.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:20 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:33, 01 Mar 2011.
|
Now, for those who 'Do not believe in anything that can not be proven'..
So I take it you do not believe in Emotion? Ie emotion does not exist? Because even though emotion is accepted by all, it is impossible to PROVE. So therefore..by your logic that only proven things exist, nobody has any emotion..nor have they ever.
Everything about emotion, from physical responses, to MRI readings..can be explained by something else logically. Saying "I was angry, I'm in love" etc is NOT proof. The fact that everybody 'feels' emotion is not proof. In fact, I would challenge anybody to prove emotions ever existed. For anybody.
Flush face? (embarrassment, lust, etc) Dilated Pupils? (Fear, anger, etc)..etc can boil down to the bodies 'fight or flight' or mating response. As the body prepares for something INSTINCTUAL (ie not emotionally).
MRI readings. IF you even accept them, there is another explanation why the brain lights up different areas when looking over photos of loved ones then it does strangers or somebody you 'dislike' (social, romantic rival or somebody who has done you do not condone).
Like a computer your brain would store memories (files) in different areas. The MRI would then pick up the brain accessing those areas. Presumably the bigger the files (ie the more data you have on an individual) the bigger the area that would show up.
Anyhow, there is very logical explanations for the responses for 'emotions'..so you don't believe they exist .. right?
Edit : Believe me the last thing I want to do is get into this futile discussion. As it has been going on almost since written history..probably longer..and gotten nowhere. I am NOT religious, I am spiritual. I also am not an Atheist, and harbor nothing against religion. I believe it has done more good then bad, and is still very relevant..even if I believe all of the current religions have it WRONG (that is for another time however).
We have a LOT to understand, a trillion (or more) times more then we currently do before any answers will even be slightly possible. Closing our minds to any possibility is shooting ourselves in the foot. Sure, don't look for 'supernatural explanations', but don't dismiss them outright either. Keep an open mind.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:32 PM |
|
|
Explaining emotions scientifically does not show that they don't exist. It shows that they are manifested in physical phenomena, but no more than that. You can feel angry, and track down a physical phenomenon that is you feeling angry, mentally. That doesn't prove that you're not angry or that you don't have emotion. Certain impulses, certain reactions - and we call the effects "emotion".
Also, emotions are what you feel. As long as you feel something, and emotions are "that which you feel" (using the appropriate meaning of "feel"), you have emotions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:35 PM |
|
|
True, but saying you have them does not prove they exist either, which is my whole point. I KNOW emotions exist, the point is .. prove it. Some people claim "I don't believe in god because it can not be proven he exists." Which is why the challenge.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:36 PM |
|
|
Actually, saying you have them does prove that they exist, as that is what it means for them to exist - that you have them.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:38 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:44, 01 Mar 2011.
|
Only proves it to the individual, and lot of people believe they have proof god exists as they have had experiences that lead them to believe that. Does not prove it to anybody else. Prove to somebody else that you experienced an emotion. Saying so does not prove it to anybody else besides yourself.
(Edit: To wit - I can claim I just had the emotion of fear. You know what fear is, you see me respond in a way that would be fear..but I never experienced the emotion. You BELIEVE I did, because that is what you saw, but that is not proof. People can fake emotions, so how can one prove they had a genuine emotion?)
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
lot of people believe they have proof god exists as they have had experiences that lead them to believe that
But God is not the same thing as "what is experienced when it is said that one is experiencing God". God has some defined traits - a supernatural entity, creator of the universe, etc. God isn't a feeling, God is a being. There's a difference between saying, "I feel like God exists" and "God exists". If someone says the former, I will not argue that they don't feel that way - they probably do indeed feel like God exists. That by itself doesn't mean that God exists.
Emotions are different - they don't have any external existence as concepts. (Aside from their physical bases.) If you feel emotion, that proves to you that emotion exists, because that's all there is to emotion - that you feel it.
As for whether other people have emotions, no, there's no way to prove that. However, when we observe people who are probably familiar with the concept of fear behaving in a way that can be identified as being caused by fear, they are probably experiencing fear, unless we have information that would point in a different direction. So we can't prove that other people have emotions (or, rather, that they experience them the same way we do), but we can prove that they act as if they did, which is ultimately the same thing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:49 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:54, 01 Mar 2011.
|
If emotions can be faked (ask any actor)..then how can we know beyond a doubt they exist at all? For all we know, every emotion besides the ones we ourselves experience is faked. Which is my point entirely. Emotions can not be proved, therefore by that logic, they do not exist.
I disagree. The statement made is "I can not not believe in God, because it can not be proven He/She exists." Which to me = "I can not believe in anything that can not be proven to exist." Therefore, if you can not believe in anything that can not be proven exist, you can not believe in Emotion.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Emotions can not be proved, therefore by that logic, they do not exist.
I don't follow. Other people are acting as if they had emotion, so we can safely assume that they do indeed have emotions or something sufficiently similar to them that we can't distinguish between what they have and the kind of emotions that we experience. Assuming other people have emotions accurately (compared to the alternative) predicts and explains their actions, and is the simplest explanation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 12:58 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:02, 01 Mar 2011.
|
This does not prove Emotions existence however, as you can see in my edited post, why I have made my statements. If one can not believe in anything that can not be proven, then one can not believe in Emotions.
"Simply because they are widely accepted" is not valid proof.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 01:04 PM |
|
|
But we do observe that people act in certain ways and exhibit certain behavior that we can easily associate with emotions within ourselves that would cause us to act that way. (And it is at least proven that we ourselves have emotions, so they exist.) That is evidence pointing to them having emotions - and them having emotions explains and predicts their behavior better than any other known explanation.
Difference:
"People act as if they were angry" -> "People can experience anger". (There's evidence.)
??? -> "God exists". (Where's the evidence?)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 01:09 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:10, 01 Mar 2011.
|
That is assuming we have emotion. So let me try a different tact..prove to a sociopath that emotion exists. If I remember right, they are the ones that do not actually experience emotion but can fake it really well.
Also, again cause and effect. A sociopath can kill, and not feel any emotion. So attacking somebody =/= necessarily mean anger.
As for 'widely accepted' being an argument, then god would have to exist in one form or another. Several billion (there are 1 billion of just ONE religion if I remember correctly) can't be wrong..right?
Also..sex =/= love
Running =/= fear
and so on.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 01:14 PM |
|
|
I never used "widely accepted" as an argument.
Quote:
So let me try a different tact..prove to a sociopath that emotion exists.
"It is what people feel that often causes them to act how they do. Angry people have something in common - that is, anger, and its associated effects that affect behavior. That which causes the effects is anger, an emotion." (Though I shouldn't have to explain this to a sociopath, as their concept formation is usually unimpaired, and they can figure out what an emotion is, roughly, without ever having experienced one themselves - also sociopaths usually do experience emotions, just not the same way normal people do.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 01, 2011 01:16 PM |
|
|
That is not proof, that is an explanation. However, I am just going to concede the point, for I have no skill in argument.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
