|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted January 30, 2008 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry, I meant that the bible had no grammer.
The Bible was written in Hebrew. Hebrew has grammar. Therefore, the Bible had grammar.
I think he meant something different. As stated in wikipedia, Hebrew doesn't (didn't?) have punctuation characters. Bible was written in Hebrew, therefore didn't had any punctuations in the original version. When translated into other languages, they had to edit the text and put in all the "missing" punctuation characters (.;:""...etc..). And as his example shows pretty well, punctuations can be pretty subjective.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 07:09 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 19:14, 30 Jan 2008.
|
Quote:
@Celfious
Quote:
Minion Einstien believed in god reguardless of his original convictions. He said the Universe is to well organized to be with no creator..
Quite the opposite..
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
-Albert Einstein
Ok I'll try to find my source on Einstiens latter convictions WHEN I am bored lol.
Whatever the case (if what I heard was a rumor or not) I can guarentee he knows there is a God now.
@ minion, I now find it amusing lol... Though sometimes one must use what others argue for against them.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 30, 2008 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Whatever the case I can guarentee he knows there is a God now.
Or not...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 31, 2008 03:18 PM |
|
|
@Minion:
Quote:
Man I rarely find a guy as skeptical as you. Man you donīt believe in anything. Not in science, not that the sun will rise tomorrow, not that the plummer will do its job without pixies... A true skeptic! Oh no, wait! But no, it canīt be! You stop that skepticism immediately to the question of God. That you take as a sure thing. Rolflol once again, even though it is much hurt by tautology by now.
Well then you must have misunderstood me  I am not that skeptical.
What I did trying to point out was that people that accept science are also "believing" in something, same as those religious people. Though Corribus made a very good point about this (stating how it's different than religion), at the basic level it's still a form of believing (albeit, in 'products' rather than in 'science' itself), and if you wanna do it the correct way you still have to do it all the way from the Stone Age 
Obviously since I do believe in God for my own reasons (not because I've been told to do that, but rather because of my experience), I am not the skeptical I was illustrating in my post, that was only a reference to how someone completely skeptical would look like (i.e someone who is against religion for THAT reason!). In short, it was kinda like meant for those that don't accept religion simply for that reason, they should also not accept science so easily.
But then again I realized it was kinda off topic for this so perhaps I shouldn't continue with it
@mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have to check everything.
hmm, yes you do, if you only trust evidence.
If I looked for evidence, I would find it.
How is this statement any different than the previous one? I mean, how do you know that if you looked for evidence, you would find it? Isn't this an assumption, i.e "belief". For example you could rephrase that (same meaning): "If I looked for evidence, I believe I would find it."
For that matter I can also say "If I understood the religion at it's level, not simply as a text from the Bible, I would perhaps be able to also understand why God exists". But this isn't any more conclusive than your statement
Quote:
It's called extrapolation from what I know. What I observe in daily life is described by the laws of physics.
Note however that extrapolation or interpolation are assuming what comes next based on previous data. In fact, you are well aware that under-sampling a signal and then up-sampling it will lose information because interpolation, by itself, is only assuming (which is a form of "belief"). Extrapolation works the same but predicts values outside the sources (interpolation predicts between the sources).
This means that you believe the laws of physics (as written on some book), designed by man (much as religion, albeit they "fit" man's observations, could be illusions too!), can extrapolate an answer to predict the "next move" so to speak. However, as I have shown, extrapolation almost always loses data, so it's an assumption that 'tries' to fit something based on a "belief".
In signal processing for example, the "belief" could be the algorithm used for predicting the next sample: 1st order polynomial, 3rd order, or other more complicated models. All of these perform different, yet the original data is never actually reached by all, since all are just beliefs or assumptions.
Quote:
But isn't faith accepting something without evidence? And aren't religions based on the concept of faith? So all the people that are trying to "prove" religion are contradicting themselves.
Perhaps but I wasn't actually even talking about proving religion though
and evidence, like I said, depends if you take it as it is or not, because then perhaps evidence is the same illusion as dreams are: simple logic to explain this: both 'outputs' come processed from the brain, therefore both are objected towards illusion  (if you believe in illusions)
Quote:
There is no evidence for what is in those texts to be true.
You can't know that unless you become a priest and study those texts yourself (or for that matter, if some priest told you this, how do you know he's not lying?)
but then a lousy priest is much the same as a lousy mathematician: you can prove (as the latter) that 1+1 = 1 (i.e if you're not good at math)
@Einstein's debate:
Yes Einstein believed in a God, but not in a personal one. There is a difference, though, and I have to say, I somewhat agree with that (since God doesn't have any hands or other biological limbs in my book, they are only metaphors).
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted January 31, 2008 04:12 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 20:43, 31 Jan 2008.
|
To me, this is proof of God
This puts the obserdity of a godless organized reality into plain view. Read slowly if you care to believe.
How could a perfectly organized reality be godless? One must see how I mean perfectly to understand the obserdity. (sry cant spell) Open any dicitionary to any page and look at the words. How could a meaningless, aimless existance with no direction other than CHANCE produce all of these things? Humor, love, war, all of the elements, the universe, concepts, purity, morals, the list goes on by nearly millions or billions. How can all of this be produced by chance, a big bang, or a cloud of dust, or any godless variation.
God allows imperfection, within his/her creations limitations. Reality is well to orchastrated and organized to be a part of a Godless, aimless direction.
There is a god, who I refer to as the most high, or mystery creator. Mystery because there is much beyond the eye and mind.
P.S. the death, whats the difference between an impersonal god and a personal one?
P.S x2...
I mean, how can a reality with NO direction, based on chance, happen to turn into the life we see today? Impossible. There are trillions of variations of a godless reality and the chance of one actualy "working out" by chance alone is nearly unstatisticle, at best.
THERE IS A DIRECTOR, A CREATOR, A GOD PERIOD
____________
What are you up to
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2008 09:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How is this statement any different than the previous one? I mean, how do you know that if you looked for evidence, you would find it? Isn't this an assumption, i.e "belief". For example you could rephrase that (same meaning): "If I looked for evidence, I believe I would find it."
I know because what logically explains observations may apply elsewhere. And, with testing, it might (or might not).
Quote:
This means that you believe the laws of physics (as written on some book), designed by man (much as religion, albeit they "fit" man's observations, could be illusions too!), can extrapolate an answer to predict the "next move" so to speak.
The laws of physics aren't designed by man. They're described by man. And, while one man's observations might be illusory, that observed and tested by many men is extremely unlikely to be wrong.
Quote:
You can't know that unless you become a priest and study those texts yourself
Religion is what man made up. Science is man's observations described.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
taplo
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted January 31, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Religion is what man made up. Science is man's observations described.
I bet there are people who think it is the other way around (like science is to test you fate bla bla) and they credit religious text to be the "product" of God aswell, its just merely your point of view aganist some1 else's. How does that justify you? (sorry for nitpicking, but makeing such statements simply annoy me)
____________
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 31, 2008 10:58 PM |
|
|
Why does religion heavily disagree on Darvin's theroy of evolution?
I mean science is analytical and always crosses the religion,but why especially at the evolution theory?I have my ideas but what do you think?
____________
"Science is not fun without cyanide"
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 12:39 AM |
|
|
well becouse drawin says we came from the moneky,meaning we evloved from a infiearior creature.
Religon specifis creation by gods hand,from earth.
there is a contrediction...thats why..
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 12:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I bet there are people who think it is the other way around (like science is to test you fate bla bla) and they credit religious text to be the "product" of God aswell, its just merely your point of view aganist some1 else's. How does that justify you? (sorry for nitpicking, but makeing such statements simply annoy me)
Who has ever seen God? Who has evidence of his existence? The Bible, the Koran, and all other religious texts were written by man, describing their idea of God. Science is the description of the way the world functions as based on the scientific method and observations. Who has tested God? Who has observed him?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 02:52 AM |
|
|
My teacher in class actually said a very interesting thing to me today.
People die with their eyes open and not closed because in their final moments they usually either have a small glimpse of god or the angel of death . And some people have actually very narrowly ( according to them) escaped death .Everyone seems to have a relative who narrowly escaped death at some point .
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My teacher in class actually said a very interesting thing to me today.
People die with their eyes open and not closed because in their final moments they usually either have a small glimpse of god or the angel of death.
Oh. My. Dog.
They allow teachers to teach stuff like that? 
Or was it a private conversation between you and him?
|
|
roy-algriffin
Supreme Hero
Chocolate ice cream zealot
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 03:31 AM |
|
|
Im jewish remember? Bit of a diffferent belief y'know?
____________
"Am i a demon? No im a priest of the light! THE BLOODY RED LIGHT"
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 04:20 AM |
|
|
@The Death
You are right, everything is somewhat based on belief. There are differences though, what kind of belief one has, do you agree? There are logical and illogical beliefs. Out of the logical ones I say a)the sun will rise tomorrow b) earthīs surface is mostly covered by water c) I will get drunk if I drink enough rum. Illogical beliefs would be a) A pink pony, that builds the rainbows b) a flying spaghetti monster created us c) all heads of state are aliens in disguise. I do hope you see the difference.
Your parallels donīt hold water. Comparing belief in science and god is really far fetched. I thought Corribus already presented this with quite a clear manner.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 08:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@Celfious
Quote:
Minion Einstien believed in god reguardless of his original convictions. He said the Universe is to well organized to be with no creator..
Quite the opposite..
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
-Albert Einstein
Ok I'll try to find my source on Einstiens latter convictions WHEN I am bored lol.
Whatever the case (if what I heard was a rumor or not) I can guarentee he knows there is a God now.
@ minion, I now find it amusing lol... Though sometimes one must use what others argue for against them.
Einsteins views on "God" are not what you would apply to any sort of religion or even to a "God" in any modern sense of the world.
Einstein worshipped a deity more like nature, not a supernatural deity.
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. THis is a somewhat new kind of religion.
I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend not only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. THis is a geniunely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
-Albert Einstein.
His views are often misconstrued as a support to a supernatural god but in fact is quite the opposite. He often uses the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.
@The Death:
Quote:
@Einstein's debate:
Yes Einstein believed in a God, but not in a personal one. There is a difference, though, and I have to say, I somewhat agree with that (since God doesn't have any hands or other biological limbs in my book, they are only metaphors).
A personal God doesn't mean a God that looks like a person: It has nothing to do with hands or limbs or beards or faces. It's to do with whether a God can read our thoughts, is concerned with and actively affects our actions and lives, punishes sin etc.
Einstein didn't believe in any kind of supernatural god/deity, hands or no hands.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 12:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How could a perfectly organized reality be godless? One must see how I mean perfectly to understand the obserdity. (sry cant spell) Open any dicitionary to any page and look at the words. How could a meaningless, aimless existance with no direction other than CHANCE produce all of these things? Humor, love, war, all of the elements, the universe, concepts, purity, morals, the list goes on by nearly millions or billions. How can all of this be produced by chance, a big bang, or a cloud of dust, or any godless variation.
I agree.
Although no one understood, thats what I was actually trying to say here.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How could a perfectly organized reality be godless? One must see how I mean perfectly to understand the obserdity. (sry cant spell) Open any dicitionary to any page and look at the words. How could a meaningless, aimless existance with no direction other than CHANCE produce all of these things? Humor, love, war, all of the elements, the universe, concepts, purity, morals, the list goes on by nearly millions or billions. How can all of this be produced by chance, a big bang, or a cloud of dust, or any godless variation.
I mean, how can a reality with NO direction, based on chance, happen to turn into the life we see today? Impossible. There are trillions of variations of a godless reality and the chance of one actualy "working out" by chance alone is nearly unstatisticle, at best.
THERE IS A DIRECTOR, A CREATOR, A GOD PERIOD
Retarded non-argument.
Just because you believe something is impossible without a creator that doesn't mean there HAS to be a creator. The chance is small, but it CAN happen.
You obviousnly don't even comprehend the basics of logic, so why bother mingling in this "discussion"?
here's something interesting for those who don't believe in evolution:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7213571.stm
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
What I'm saying Moonlith, is an existance with no director, (no nudge in this direction) would never turn into what we see today.
When peoples feel threatened on the net they curse and call eachother retards and say they dont know logic yadda yadda..
I'm not gonna argue my point. I prommise, but do me a favor and quit bothering me with insults.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted February 01, 2008 11:11 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 23:11, 01 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
Retarded non-argument.
Just because you believe something is impossible without a creator that doesn't mean there HAS to be a creator. The chance is small, but it CAN happen.
You obviousnly don't even comprehend the basics of logic, so why bother mingling in this "discussion"?
Last warning to moonlith. Next direct or indirect insult will end up in a penalty!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Daystar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Back from the Dead
|
|
posted February 02, 2008 04:43 AM |
|
Edited by Daystar at 04:43, 02 Feb 2008.
|
Quote:
THERE IS A DIRECTOR, A CREATOR, A GOD PERIOD
Why only one? I mean, there's so much in the world (Life, Age, Love, Pain, The Elements)
If there is a higher intelligence, why only one? Why not multiple dieties that don't always get along? That explains why we have problems like war and poverty and Hip Hop yet "God" does nothing about them. (Seriously, things have been going on long enough for at least a few lightning bolts or pennies from heaven or something)
However, if there are Multiple Dieties (We'll call them Tom, Dick, and Harry) each of whom preside over something different (War, Storms, Knowledge) who have different views. Tom says that War will eliminate all but the best of people and thus get rid of baddness. Dick says storms can wipe out all the people too stupid to get out of the way. Harry says that knowledge will eventually lead to a perfect civilization without destruction, but it will take time.
Now, Tom is impatient, so he tries to speed things up. (Iraq war) Dick deduces there would be a lot of people drafted from New Orleans, so he sends Katrina to get rid of that. Harry decides that they are both insane, and sets up the SATs to try to show who is more intelligent in schools.
None of these are real solutions to problems, but its all the gods know how to do. Nothing is achieved, but things still happen.
Now say this pantheon was expanded to include seven total dieties.
Tom, Dick, Harry, Phil, Ginger, Mary, Anne.
Phil is the God of Medicine.
Ginger is the Goddess of Love.
Anne is the Goddess of Plants.
Mary was the creator goddess. She started the whole thing, and it was working but other dieties had differing views, so everything got messed up.
I was going somewhere with all of this but I forget where now.
____________
How exactly is luck a skill?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
