Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Admiral_Stones on February 06, 2008, 01:17:06 pm
-
Found on the top google bar:
http://www.godlovessoldiers.com
*facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw*
*facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw**facechainsaw*
-
We are Global Media Outreach, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ
Those bastards are active here at my school. They can get really annoying.
-
This all seemed pretty complicated until I saw the diagrams. They're really helpful.
(http://www.godlovessoldiers.com/images/Christ_outside.gif) (http://www.godlovessoldiers.com/images/Christ_inside.gif)
-
We are Global Media Outreach, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ
Those bastards are active here at my school. They can get really annoying.
I understand there are not many religious people here but please stop using vulgar language to describe them just because a goup annoys you. It's contagious to have anti-religious view around here and to ignore/flame my post but it's not fair to people with a religious conviction to be put under one category and hated. I don't agree with mainstream Christianity, but then again who does?
There are many bigots in the world and what your doing is being one like it or not.
Everybody believes in something, (atheist, deist, agnostic) you don't see me calling anyone these views vulgar names. It shows immaturity and unwillingness to show tolerance to other peoples beliefs. Which could also mean insecurity in your own position which I don't believe is very rational for one to hold.
P.S. I'm not defending the article because I don't agree with them, but I do respect what they hold to be true
-
I understand there are not many religious people here but please stop using vulgar language to describe them just because a goup annoys you. It's contagious to have anti-religious view around here and to ignore/flame my post but it's not fair to people with a religious conviction to be put under one category and hated. I don't agree with mainstream Christianity, but then again who does?
There are many bigots in the world and what your doing is being one like it or not.
Everybody believes in something, (atheist, deist, agnostic) you don't see me calling anyone these views vulgar names. It shows immaturity and unwillingness to show tolerance to other peoples beliefs. Which could also mean insecurity in your own position which I don't believe is very rational for one to hold.
Get off your bloody high-horse, you might fall and break your neck.
Let's dissect Swantz' post here:
We are Global Media Outreach, a ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ
Those bastards are active here at my school. They can get really annoying.
He directly refers to the Global Media Outreach (the ministry of Campus Crusade for Christ) as 'bastards'. Nowhere does he imply that all Christians are bastards. Quite a few Christians are bastards, so even if he had it wouldn't have been a big issue. Next, you'll notice that he describes them as 'active at his school', thereby implying that he has some personal experience with this group. Therefore, he has a unique perspective of these people that you do not possess, so for all we know they might very well be born out of wedlock. Every single one of them. Thirdly and finally, **** political correctness. He has an opinion of these people, and he expressed it. Deal with it.
Do us all a favour and drop the holier-than-thou attitude.
-
Nobody is better than anybody else, we all make choices and we all take responsibility for are actions, from what I can tell he has a "holier-than-thou" attitude against these "b******s"
I did not claim to be any better than anybody else or make any right choices in my lifetime and trying to discredit me because of my views is rhetoric.
I apologize for accusing him of connecting the organization with christianity because he doesn't... but the post is offensive
-
As a Christian, I do have to ask... what the heck? This is wrong on so many levels. The overall message, I get. But why is this targeting soldiers specifically? And what's with the diagrams? They don't really do a good job of speaking to people in a language they understand.
I'm gonna find the person who created this and explain to them that they can't look at any particular person as a "project."
Yeah, this doesn't represent me.
-
Nobody is better than anybody else, we all make choices and we all take responsibility for are actions,
Really? I was always under the impression that Gandhi was better than Hitler, but apparently I've been suffering delusions. :p
-
We all start out the same, and whether being influenced (externally or internally) we all make decisions that affect our live and course.
What we reap is what we sow :D
-
We all start out the same, and whether being influenced (externally or internally) we all make decisions that affect our live and course.
What we reap is what we sow :D
That's like saying everything is pretty much the same because it's all made up of the same few types of sub-atomic particles.
-
Yeah, pretty much. When the Andromeda galaxy collides with the Milky Way, or if you want a more near-sighted one, when the sun dies, who will remember the exploits of humankind?
-
Yeah, but also depends on which view you have... naturalistic is probably a more common one here. The question is... is there really free will OR just internal (genetics) or external (peers, experiences, etc.) influencing every bodies lives.
Something like dominoes, dominoes representing the influences plummeting towards a person on the edge of a cliff... did he commit suicide or pushed?
-
Nobody is better than anybody else, we all make choices and we all take responsibility for are actions,
Really? I was always under the impression that Gandhi was better than Hitler, but apparently I've been suffering delusions. :p
Hitler was better than Gandhi... at getting syphilis. :drevil:
-
jdjtcagle, listen.
You're taking this way too far. I'm not calling them bastards because they're Christian, I'm calling them bastards because they're annoying. When I refer to "them" I mean the organizations as a whole. You may call this generalization, but that's too bad. If an organization uses bad PR people, it's going to reflect on the entire organization.
I have experience with the folks from Campus Crusade for Christ. They can get very "in your face" about pushing their faith sometimes. This annoys me, thus I lose respect for their organization and call them what I would call anything I find annoying, "bastards." Anyone can get this designation from me after going through a very simple process.
Let's take a look:
(http://www.nukelol.com/temphost/bbimgs/hlp/important/bastardizationchart.jpg)
Note for the future:
Don't act like there's some sort of prejudice/discrimination just so you can take the moral high ground. :p
-
The diagrams are "very" helpful. What is with the US Military's overly Christian attitude? Yes, I know that "This is a Christian nation..." but not everyone loves Jesus.
And the ads are getting really ****ty. Have you seen the ThinkSearchBe/ChallengeThisDeal ones? The Pyramid Scam ones? (reversefunnelsystem.com)
-
jdjtcagle, listen.
You're taking this way too far. I'm not calling them bastards because they're Christian, I'm calling them bastards because they're annoying. When I refer to "them" I mean the organizations as a whole. You may call this generalization, but that's too bad. If an organization uses bad PR people, it's going to reflect on the entire organization.
I have experience with the folks from Campus Crusade for Christ. They can get very "in your face" about pushing their faith sometimes. This annoys me, thus I lose respect for their organization and call them what I would call anything I find annoying, "bastards." Anyone can get this designation from me after going through a very simple process.
Let's take a look:
Note for the future:
Don't act like there's some sort of prejudice/discrimination just so you can take the moral high ground. :p
Thanks for the reply, I believe you are correct religion can and is forced, it KILLS me but I used to do the same thing. I believe differently now about "winning souls", I was young then and that's the main reason I left HLP the first time. I do take offense because they are ignorant (IMO) and don't deserve no more than what other ignorant Christian's do, which is direction. :)
also, you try being a Christian here :P
There is alot of prejudice but not everybody... again I respect your post alot.
-
Yeah, but also depends on which view you have... naturalistic is probably a more common one here. The question is... is there really free will OR just internal (genetics) or external (peers, experiences, etc.) influencing every bodies lives.
Something like dominoes, dominoes representing the influences plummeting towards a person on the edge of a cliff... did he commit suicide or pushed?
Except whether we have free will or not doesn't really matter, because for all practical purposes, we do indeed have free will. If I like tacos, I am going to eat them because I like them. If in the same reality, I am actually being forced to eat the tacos, I don't really care because it seems like I am eating it because I want to, as opposed to it being my destiny. Free will is an entirely arbitrary thing.
Even if we don't have free will, the stuff that we are "forced" to do is the stuff that we would be doing anyway.
-
Yeah, but also depends on which view you have... naturalistic is probably a more common one here. The question is... is there really free will OR just internal (genetics) or external (peers, experiences, etc.) influencing every bodies lives.
Something like dominoes, dominoes representing the influences plummeting towards a person on the edge of a cliff... did he commit suicide or pushed?
Except whether we have free will or not doesn't really matter, because for all practical purposes, we do indeed have free will. If I like tacos, I am going to eat them because I like them. If in the same reality, I am actually being forced to eat the tacos, I don't really care because it seems like I am eating it because I want to, as opposed to it being my destiny. Free will is an entirely arbitrary thing.
Even if we don't have free will, the stuff that we are "forced" to do is the stuff that we would be doing anyway.
To quote Mark Twain (sort of) A job is play until you get payed to do it. Then it's a job.
-
It's like watching a pile-up in a pea-soup fog on the M25, just when you think you've seen the worst of it, another car hits the fog bank at 60..... :p
-
:wtf: What?
-
You'd probably have to be English to understand that one ;)
Basically, just as I thought the conversation about comparative religious positions had stopped, it started again.
-
<-- not English...
:P
-
To quote Mark Twain (sort of) A job is play until you get payed to do it. Then it's a job.
IIRC it's something along the lines of "The only difference between play and work is that you are obligated to work."
EDIT: The real one:
Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.
-
Obligation is not healthy for your brain it creates negative effects... That's why I'm here not doing my work :P
-
What I HATE about this ****ing, inbred, ****born example of a nearly christian-extremistic website, the U.S. Army and U.S. Army related stuff in general is that the Army is displayed as something: Epic, Heroic, Solidary, you are helping your county
on way to world up ****ing to free the world of the terrorist plague, you are only doing the best for the whole Earth the ****ing Mr. Bush needs to help and protect, there's no way something negative involved in slaughtering civilians and terrorists, and well, if your conscience is STILL bothering you, you can ask god, and he will purge you of all sins you ever did and everythings fine again. Hell, this reminds of the 'Holy Crusade' thingys.
Truth is however that you will return as a depressive, thousand-yard-staring vegeteable of nothingness. War does terrible things to humans and the human psych, but the Army keeps saying that it's actually helping, you will return as a hero (heroic vegetable) and such stuff.
-
Your right, it is portrayed as something that is epic and heroic... but some of these people are veterans of war and feel a blind loyalty to a nation they swore to protect. I agree, I get a uneasy feeling every time there is mention of the war and it's heroic soldiers. It's not right but they are fighting for what the believe in and that is commendable.
I will not fight in war, because I'm not fighting for Bush... I feel I understand that, but they are still people that do die for a cause (lost or not)
-
Truth is however that you will return as a depressive, thousand-yard-staring vegeteable of nothingness. War does terrible things to humans and the human psych, but the Army keeps saying that it's actually helping, you will return as a hero (heroic vegetable) and such stuff.
Considering this town is overrun with current and ex-service personnel, I have smack you upside the head repeatedly. I know a lot of people who went to Iraq and it did nothing horrible to them. The most any of them have complained of is being too light a sleeper now, they can't run a fan at night because it wakes them up. Hell, my father is a Vietnam veteran and he's perfectly stable, well-adjusted. He even admits to having some fond memories of the place. I doubt anyone's going to remember Iraq well, simply because it's got that middle-of-****ing-nowhere thing going on (the Brits, I'm told, refer to being sent to Iraq as being 'sent to the sandbox'), but it's not some kind of horrible soul-eating meatgrinder everyone likes to think of it as. Everyone likes to pretend if you kill someone or are involved in the process of doing so it magically ****s up your mind, but it's not true, as anyone who looked at murder statistics could figure out.
While I'll be one of the first to hop on the "the greatest treason is to do the wrong thing for the right reason" bandwagon, you're also letting your hate for the method flow into your opinion of the cause. It is not a necessary cause, certainly, but still a good one. The way it's being done isn't the best, sure, but we live in an imperfect world, and it's really the only option that will have any effect within the next couple of decades.
-
You'd probably have to be English to understand that one ;)
Basically, just as I thought the conversation about comparative religious positions had stopped, it started again.
I understood it (it applies to Nova Scotia, too) I just don't see how it applies.
Mr. Bush
It's Dubya.
I'd like to serve in the military, in the RCAF (if I can find it) or the USAF. I plan on joining the reserves next year.
-
Stones, that was honestly unnecessary. I mean, do you even understand what this whole thing is about?
This isn't the Army Chaplain coming up to soldiers and telling them that if they die in Mosul or Fallujah they get a special spot in heaven. In fact, that's the exact enemy we're fighting. This is more of a comfort/reassurance to the military members who are worried (not just about dying, but finances at home, marriage issues, their children, Dear Johns...). Sorry to say, but a large number of US servicemembers are devout Christians-trust me, I'm serving with them.
-
I plan on joining the reserves next year.
:wtf:
You're 15. Is that allowed?
And the air force is probably one of the least traumatizing branch of most militaries, except for maybe the coast guard.
-
You're 15. Is that allowed?
I plan on joining the reserves next year.
15 + 1 = 16. :D
-
You're 15. Is that allowed?
I plan on joining the reserves next year.
15 + 1 = 16. :D
Congratulations, BloodEagle! You can do simple arithmetic!
Once again:
:wtf:
Is that allowed?
EDIT: USAF reserve eligibility. (http://www.afreserve.com/eligibility.asp)
And I don't feel like looking for the RCAF.
So apparently, next year he will be 17. I guess you were wrong, BE.
-
You'd probably have to be English to understand that one ;)
Basically, just as I thought the conversation about comparative religious positions had stopped, it started again.
I understood it (it applies to Nova Scotia, too) I just don't see how it applies.
You will one day, probably the day you stop posting in religion threads ;)
Edit: And for clarity, if you imagine the Mods and Admin being the guys with the flags, I mean something like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWXd4zKW-Mk
That's a religion thread from the outside ;)
-
Yeah.
Try asking Security Forces, pararescuemen, combat controllers, EODs, or any aircrew member who's had an incident with his or her aircraft (decompression, hostile fire, or any number of mechanical problems that could kill them).
The Air Force is the safest branch overall, but there are jobs and incidents that can traumatize an airman just as much as an Army or Marine infantryman.
Here's a didjaknow: one of the first combat casualties in Iraq was an AF security forces airman, A1C Jacobson.
-
Everybody believes in something,
i find this statement offensive and insulting.
the Kampus Krusade for Khrist is one of the most bigoted and obnoxious campus groups in existance.. they didn't get the s/c/k spelling change on ISU's campus for nothing.
-
You don't believe that we can be 100% sure there is no God?
That is a belief. :)
-
You don't believe that we can be 100% sure there is no God?
That is a belief. :)
no i don't believe that*, thank for you for demonstrating my point oh presumptuous one
* because it's damn near impossible to prove a negative. Without evidence of any nature supporting the existence of one you still have no basis to believe.
-
I know what your trying to say that atheism is not a belief for you. But you do have the worldview that presupposes the non-existence of God. When your asked which view (theism/atheism) better explains the reality you live it... do you not feel obliged to defend your view opposed to the other worldviews out there?
I believe the belief in God CAN be falsified and the believer willing to change his mind. All that needs to be done is to refute the solid philosophical arguments offered in behalf of God's existence (rather than simply offering some off-the-wall possible alternative explanation as is so often done). If one could show me how it is more reasonable to believe that something can come from nothing out of nowhere caused by nothing fully charged with energy I would take one huge step away from theism. If one could show me a better explanation for our moral experience than theism, I would take another huge step away from theism. Unfortunately, however, atheists have not been able to provide superior explanations to theism.
-
Percent of the world's population that is not atheist: 98%
Percent of those people who could be convinced that there beliefs are full of crap: 10%
Percent of these statistics made up on the spot: 100%
-
You can't not believe in something Kaz.
That's simply impossible.
-
nuclear1, please disprove this statement:
I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
-
I believe the belief in God CAN be falsified and the believer willing to change his mind. All that needs to be done is to refute the solid philosophical arguments offered in behalf of God's existence (rather than simply offering some off-the-wall possible alternative explanation as is so often done). If one could show me how it is more reasonable to believe that something can come from nothing out of nowhere caused by nothing fully charged with energy I would take one huge step away from theism. If one could show me a better explanation for our moral experience than theism, I would take another huge step away from theism. Unfortunately, however, atheists have not been able to provide superior explanations to theism.
The thing is, god cannot be falsified if you refute arguments in favor of it's existance. The same as you cannot say for certain there isn't a pot orbiting the sun between mars and earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
Regarding the "origins" of the universe, I'm tired of people saying the universe came out of nothing. What do you think the big bang was? Hell, I'll just quote the first sentence out of wikipedia (just to prove how easy it is to disprove this).
The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.
Regarding moral experience I can show you game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) and evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).
The problem is not coming up with better explanations, as I've just demonstrated. The problem is with people accepting that those ideas are indeed superior to their religions' explanation and disregard it's dogmatic view of the world.
-
nuclear1, please disprove this statement:
I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
If you say, "I do not believe in flying monsters" you are making a claim, are you not? We can debate over how much evidence/reason you must present to defend your claim, but indeed it is a claim.
Comparing the belief in God to the spaghetti monster is noting that just as you do not need to find evidence against the monsters existence to not accept it, you do not need evidence against God's existence to not accept it either. The issue is not whether there is any evidence that mythical entities exist, but we have strong proof that they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence
-
The problem is not coming up with better explanations, as I've just demonstrated. The problem is with people accepting that those ideas are indeed superior to their religions' explanation and disregard it's dogmatic view of the world.
There are scientist with many views of the universe that keep out the possibility of the supernatural in the equation, because they feel it to be a "magic" answer to everything. But the inadequacy of theory A is not proof of theory B. Theory B has to provide its own support and be shown to have more explanatory scope, explanatory power, and plausibility than theory A.
God is not being invoked to explain what we don't understand, but rather to explain what we do understand! :)
-
As soon as religion tries to support itself with "scientific" evidence, it opens itself to being disproved - you can't say that you have scientific evidence for your beliefs, and then not expect a scientific analysis of them.
Religion should stay just that - religion, and faith. That is acceptable, because you choose religion based on faith - however, if you try to compete in the realm of scientific explanation, expect to have some hard facts thrown back at you.
-
The problem is not coming up with better explanations, as I've just demonstrated. The problem is with people accepting that those ideas are indeed superior to their religions' explanation and disregard it's dogmatic view of the world.
There are scientist with many views of the universe that keep out the possibility of the supernatural in the equation, because they feel it to be a "magic" answer to everything. But the inadequacy of theory A is not proof of theory B. Theory B has to provide its own support and be shown to have more explanatory scope, explanatory power, and plausibility than theory A.
God is not being invoked to explain what we don't understand, but rather to explain what we do understand! :)
I'm having a bit of dificulty finding your train of thought in your posts but, lets go on.
Scientists don't keep out the possibility of the supernatural because of that. They keep it out because if they didn't they'd be violating the scientific method.
The rest of your argument basically demonstrates my point in a way. There are literally tomes of evidence for the big bang and evolution, hell there is more evidence for evolution than for gravity. What little is there to explain doesn't prove that the theistic arguments are right.
The last sentence I'm not sure what you are implying, but if I got it right, that has no more validity than numerology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology).
-
Ghostavo and UT - I appreciate your opinions about evolution having more ground than the supernatural but that is for another thread... to go into detail would take more pages than I WANT to deal with personaly :P
I'm at work and will reply to this section later:
"Scientists don't keep out the possibility of the supernatural because of that. They keep it out because if they didn't they'd be violating the scientific method."
-
nuclear1, please disprove this statement:
I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
If you say, "I do not believe in flying monsters" you are making a claim, are you not?
you are claiming that you don't believe in FSM - nothing more, nothing less
"lack of belief" is the default logical position - it's a *lack* saying "i don't believing in X" is saying "I lack a belief in X"
so.. nuclear1's assertion is false.
-
I agree :-) but the point was trying to be made that the issue of God's existence is not settled simply because adequate proof for God's existence has not been provided (assuming such was the case). To settle the question of God's existence; to end the agnostic pursuit, one must have positive evidence that God does not exist.
-
eh.. agnostic is more "we cannot know" rather than "we cannot prove"
given the complete and total lack of any shred of evidence of any kind supporting to the existance-of/need-for-existance-of a deity we can say "it is extremely probable that one does not exist" which is going further than simple "i do not believe in one".
-
And I don't feel like looking for the RCAF.
Royal Canadian Air Force, not everyone is an American, sizzler.
And I'll be 16 next January.
-
eh.. agnostic is more "we cannot know" rather than "we cannot prove"
If were going to get technical agnosticism is not a position at all; it is an epistemological method/process for arriving at an ontological position... or you could say that agnosticism is the epistemic route of the individual, whereas theism and atheism being the destinations.
There are two main forms of modern agnostics those who say no one can know if God exists, and those who confess that they personally have not yet determined if God exists. Both are epistemological positions. The former says "I can't have an informed position," while the latter says "I don't have a position yet" and thus remains tentative on the question of God's existence.
Many people have a mixed up view of what agnosticism really is...
-
nuclear1, please disprove this statement:
I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
I can't. That's a statement to your beliefs. I can't change that. If you said there is a flying spaghetti, I would be happy to debate that till Judgment Day, since that is a debatable topic.
Kaz:
be·lief
–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
You're saying you have no convictions or opinions? You can believe that there's nothing to believe in--as weird as it sounds, that's still belief. It's not Belief, in the religious/faith sense, but it's still having a conviction.
Even if you do want to claim not having a belief in X, you still have belief in Y. That's maybe where my post was confusing--I was trying to say that you can't entirely lack belief in anything; you can certainly not believe X but can believe A, B, C, D...
-
And I don't feel like looking for the RCAF.
Royal Canadian Air Force, not everyone is an American, sizzler.
And I'll be 16 next January.
No. Every single person in the world is American. Canada is America's hat, Mexico is America's pants, UK is America's paper towel. You know what? Let's just call it Oceania and get it done with. :rolleyes:
Of course RCAF is the Canadian Air Force. How could I not assume that when your shouting that you're Canadian left and right? Like I said, I don't feel like looking for the site, ie the eligibility, because frankly, they're not trying to actively recruit and throw everyone possible at Iraq, much unlike the US.
[/maketoobigofadeal]
-
Orwell aside Oceania is Oz, NZ, & Pacific bowl islands incl Indonesia. Or at least it's an attempt at creating a region anyway.
On the God/Military thing:
If God exists then God loves us all (yeah?), therefore: God does not love US soldiers in particular.
If God does not exist then the question is moot and these people are simply loud and slightly annoying. But unless they cross the violence threshold we can do nor should we do anything about them.
-
no i don't believe that*, thank for you for demonstrating my point oh presumptuous one
* because it's damn near impossible to prove a negative. Without evidence of any nature supporting the existence of one you still have no basis to believe.
So you believe that it's damn near impossible to prove a negative. Whoops.
-
What I find interesting is that science can't explain the Big Bang...it can't tell you what was there before the bing bang. It can't explain the creation of the universe..only the events and laws AFTER it's creation.
-
facepalm.jpg
-
What I find interesting is that science can't explain the Big Bang...it can't tell you what was there before the bing bang. It can't explain the creation of the universe..only the events and laws AFTER it's creation.
They speculate that it was a particle of infinite mass/temperature.
The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation. In the most common models, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially. After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles. Temperatures were so high that the random motions of particles were at relativistic speeds, and particle-antiparticle pairs of all kinds were being continuously created and destroyed in collisions. At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptons—of the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.
EDIT: That's only the early stages, but still.
JESUS DID NOT MAKE THE BIG BANG!
-
What I find interesting is that science can't explain the Big Bang...it can't tell you what was there before the bing bang. It can't explain the creation of the universe..only the events and laws AFTER it's creation.
It certainly does a better job than religion :rolleyes:.
Scientific conjecture: see cole's post
How?: explained in cole's post
Religious "fact": God did it.
How?: God snapped his fingers.
I don't know about you, but science offers a bit more of a reasonable, understandable explination.
-
What I find interesting is that science can't explain the Big Bang...it can't tell you what was there before the bing bang. It can't explain the creation of the universe..only the events and laws AFTER it's creation.
That's because physics only applies when universe exists (duh)...
The dilemma of the original reason is not really a valid critique to the Big Ban theory, since it doesn't seem to be valid for questioning the God's existence before universe. Whether or not you move the burden of being the original something that made things happen from chance, or coincidence, or whatever it was that made the big bang occur, to a conscious powerful entity, you will always have the dilemma of something emerging from nothingness at some point - be it God or the universe directly.
Thinking that Big Bang required someone to will it to happen leads us no where and just adds a lot of assumed complexion to the already befuddling hypotheses about how the big bang (a pretty much established cosmohistorical reality, unlike God) may or may not have happened and why.
What I'm trying to say is that while it is true that the Big Bang theory and cosmology and physics only can model things with varying accuracy down to the T=0 and not before, assuming God won't really explain the universe either, since it doesn't say where God came from, and why, and when and how... :rolleyes:
By the way, explaining the Big Bang itself is not terribly difficult, it involves a massive quantum fluctuation that ends up with inbalanced amount of matter and anti-matter. More challenging thing is to explain why this seemingly started time and space as well - and where the quantum fluctuation of vacuum could occur before there vas a space to have vacuum in. :shaking:
-
I'm going to drop in to agree with jdjtcagle's initial post. There are a number of atheists on this board yes but there are still a number of people with various religious beliefs, and it is somewhat offensive and definitely annoying to keep using vulgarities and flaming whenever religion is brought up. If you don't want to be Christian fine, its arguably better than being one of the people who just shows up to church out of habit and complains that the sermon is taking too long. However all this nonsense serves no purpose other than to make you seem like a jerk to the majority of people reading the post. If you have a rational reason for your position, keep it, but don't be so arrogant to assume you know more than everyone and are completely sure you're justified in attacking someone else's position. I for instance could have phrased that last part *if you think you have a rational reason...* but I'm not going to make the same mistake. I completely acknowledge the possibility I might be wrong, and generally try to avoid religious discussions since I'm at a phase where I'm not always sure of what I believe.
But for right now, I've experienced some things that make me at open to the possibility of God, and some very good people I know seem to be pretty sure. So I'll stay Christian for now. Anyways, if true Christianity is followed it's not going to hurt anyone, quite the opposite in a lot of cases (Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor, treat your neighbor as you would yourself). As such, I'll support laughing at some of the stupid groups (especially the WBC, I frigging hate those guys), but general shots against religion are annoying and pointless. If they're not doing anything wrong leave them alone, what are you going to do, poke fun at them in the afterlife when you can prove them wrong? Oh wait, you probably don't believe in one. So what's the problem?
-
**** me, what is it with all the thin-skinned people these days? Swantz refers to a group of people as bastards, and suddenly he's on trial for committing a hate-crime. :rolleyes:
It's barely even a swear word, people! If he'd used 'c*nt', that could be considered vulgar. But 'bastards'? How do you people even survive on the internet?!
-
Think about this: if an atheist is in an environment where he is surrounded by theists, trying to convert the atheist with threats of hellfire and whatnot,
The atheist isn't going to be very comfortable, even if they don't do anything physical to him. CCfC (Campus Crusade for Christ), for example, has a habit of badgering people on campus, putting speakers in public places to detail why everyone must embrace jesus or face eternal damnation and detailing how the bible is literal truth, etc.
It's like if you were a black person and you walked through a crowd of white people discussing skinning all blacks and covering them with white paint.
-
(...)If you have a rational reason for your position, keep it, but don't be so arrogant to assume you know more than everyone and are completely sure you're justified in attacking someone else's position. I for instance could have phrased that last part *if you think you have a rational reason...* but I'm not going to make the same mistake.
(...)
So what's the problem?
You know he actually asked for those, so we are not pulling these things out of our arses, right?
If one could show me how it is more reasonable to believe that something can come from nothing out of nowhere caused by nothing fully charged with energy I would take one huge step away from theism. If one could show me a better explanation for our moral experience than theism, I would take another huge step away from theism. Unfortunately, however, atheists have not been able to provide superior explanations to theism.
Of course science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but when religion starts to want to explain things in the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural one) things start to get ugly.
I'd swear, if mathematics wasn't absolutely true with no possible way to doubt it, we'd be having a go at the value of pi.
-
Of course science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but when religion starts to want to explain things in the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural one) things start to get ugly.
I'd swear, if mathematics wasn't absolutely true with no possible way to doubt it, we'd be having a go at the value of pi.
There is a huge tenancy to see a huge gulf between science and religion in the realm of "knowledge". Scientific knowledge is viewed as true knowledge, while religious knowledge is viewed as tentative knowledge at best, if not just plain 'ol fantasy. They are categorically separate. Yes, some Christians oppose the scientific endeavor as somehow anti-Christian at its core, or dismiss out-of-hand specific scientific assertions in light of religious presuppositions.
Science is not the enemy of religion anymore than religion is the enemy of science (from the perspective of outsiders)... If I took the bible and the book of nature (from a "christian" perspective) then they should not contradict on another if God wrote them both. If they appear to contradict it is only the problem of the interpreter of the one, the other, or the both. While it is clear that not every scientific position floating around out there is in line with Christianity, the process of doing science itself is not opposed to Christianity.
-
What I find interesting is that science can't explain the Big Bang...it can't tell you what was there before the bing bang. It can't explain the creation of the universe..only the events and laws AFTER it's creation.
That's because physics only applies when universe exists (duh)...
The dilemma of the original reason is not really a valid critique to the Big Ban theory, since it doesn't seem to be valid for questioning the God's existence before universe. Whether or not you move the burden of being the original something that made things happen from chance, or coincidence, or whatever it was that made the big bang occur, to a conscious powerful entity, you will always have the dilemma of something emerging from nothingness at some point - be it God or the universe directly.
You're getting me wrong, I'm not speaking against the Big Bang theory. If fact, I wholly agree with what you said. And that was exactly my point. That we cna't get all the answers...and that eventually, we'll get to the "but what happened before?" question...that we cannot answer.
And the fact that something came out of nothing...is mind bogling.
What I'm trying to say is that while it is true that the Big Bang theory and cosmology and physics only can model things with varying accuracy down to the T=0 and not before, assuming God won't really explain the universe either, since it doesn't say where God came from, and why, and when and how... :rolleyes:
Well, not really. The universe itself is tied by it's own laws.. since it's material and all. You can't call the universe eternal because of it.
God (Allah, Jehovah), being beyond any laws is also beyond time. Ergo, Him being eternal and always present makes more sense than just "*puf*, the universe was created...erm..just so"
-
Think about this: if an atheist is in an environment where he is surrounded by theists, trying to convert the atheist with threats of hellfire and whatnot,
The atheist isn't going to be very comfortable, even if they don't do anything physical to him. CCfC (Campus Crusade for Christ), for example, has a habit of badgering people on campus, putting speakers in public places to detail why everyone must embrace jesus or face eternal damnation and detailing how the bible is literal truth, etc.
It's like if you were a black person and you walked through a crowd of white people discussing skinning all blacks and covering them with white paint.
CCC are idiots. Sadly, there's no way to get rid of them. You will find them in every ideology, race, faith (or lack thereof), group.
-
I'd swear, if mathematics wasn't absolutely true with no possible way to doubt it, we'd be having a go at the value of pi.
the fundies DID have a go at the value of pi when it first became possible to calculate it with more accuracy than "3"
because the bible says "pi = 3"
-
Think about this: if an atheist is in an environment where he is surrounded by theists, trying to convert the atheist with threats of hellfire and whatnot,
The atheist isn't going to be very comfortable, even if they don't do anything physical to him. CCfC (Campus Crusade for Christ), for example, has a habit of badgering people on campus, putting speakers in public places to detail why everyone must embrace jesus or face eternal damnation and detailing how the bible is literal truth, etc.
It's like if you were a black person and you walked through a crowd of white people discussing skinning all blacks and covering them with white paint.
CCC are idiots. Sadly, there's no way to get rid of them. You will find them in every ideology, race, faith (or lack thereof), group.
yes they are.. i got one of their campus-loudmouth-corner-preachers they import to claim in front of an audience that he is without sin.
doesn't the bible say something about making such a claim :lol:
-
Hey, we got all kinds of whackos on this planet..We got people marrying bikes and TV sets. We got people believing moon is made of cheese, immortal alien named Xenu, Elvis in space and XZY more things.
There's over 6 000 000 000 of us...we're talking a lot of morons among that number here. :doubt:
-
immortal alien named Xenu
because that's any less plausable than the abrahamic beliefs
-
because the bible says "pi = 3"
Got a passage to quote? That's stretching it.
-
The bible refers to the radius of a circle and then it's area making an indirect reference to the value of pi. The values were 4 and 12 IIRC, hence making pi = 12/4 = 3. I don't remember the passage where all this is refered, but it's the reason why I posted the pi thing. Even the most hardened bible fan will not dare to make the statement that pi = 3.
-
Even the most hardened bible fan will not dare to make the statement that pi = 3.
Let's not go nuts, here. I think you're slightly moderately vastly overestimating the intelligence of fundamentalist Christians.
-
immortal alien named Xenu
because that's any less plausable than the abrahamic beliefs
Oh, by far. :nod:
-
The Bible Pi passage is in 1 Kings either 7:23 or 17:23.
Since the measurements are in cubits, which are measured by forearm length, the writer would have had to round on the number. Not that I'm defending any one side here, I'm just saying the writer probably wanted to not turn verses 23 through 78 into the exact number of cubits that made up the molten sea he was describing.
-
because the bible says "pi = 3"
Got a passage to quote? That's stretching it.
some fundies took this to mean "pi = 3"
yes.. it's an unreasonable stretch in assuming they were being accurate to three sigfigs when only one is being given.. but they're fundies not scientists
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
-
Where does it say in there that it's a circle? All it says is that it's round.
-
Exactly. To imply that the verse is measuring pi you'd have to assume round=circular.
-
Round all about is clearly saying it's circular.
-
An oval is round all about...
-
Fine, read these (http://kingjbible.com/1_kings/7.htm) other translations. Hell I'll give you this translation (http://se.bibliaparalela.com/1_kings/7.htm) which is older than the King James one. Now try to tell me it's not a circle.
-
Good God, people, it is called rounding! Get over yourselves.
-
That's the key point of this whole mess, if it's not to be taken literally, how do you know anything in the bloody bible is? And by extension why it should never meddle in the affairs of science and mathematics and other branches of human knowledge.
-
I purposely avoided reading this. Now i know why lolz.
-
i didn't say I considered it a reasonable interpretation of the passage (i don't consider ANY interpretation of a bible passage reasonable)
however some people took it that way, you an take it up with history if you don't believe me
-
Never said that K, :) i just think religous military threads are a spectator sport . . Pardon my intrusion.