So I went to church tonight....

[dore]

Sweet, devonin didn't wreck me

[devonin]

Mostly you said things like "I respect your beliefs, as long as you don't force them on me, or go around telling everyone angrily that they are idiots for not believing what you do"

What's there to wreck?

[dore]

Oh I just expected you to wreck everyone lol

[MIHC]

That has to be the LONGEST post ever, congrats Devonin ;D

I used to go to church when I was a kid but stopped going when we moved out of the town were in, and then I questioned God and all that right in front of my parents. Of course dad called me a heathen but I believe that it isn't healthy to never question anything.

[Psychotik]

I don't go 'cause I'm atheist. I wish there was an atheist church. Oh ****, that's an oxymoron, hehehehe... I'm so lonely.

[eastsideman09]

So this thread went to Hell and back.

Originally Posted by kid_merkury

Do you know what kind of church it was you went to recently, and what kind of church you went to when you had your bad experience?
-Merky

I can't remember off the top of my head which church I went to last night, but back in the day, it wasn't at a church. It was at school.... my friends kinda turned me off to it.

Originally Posted by Xx{Midnight}xX

Woah wait isn't this supposed to be about experiences sitting through church and not how to explain wheather the bible or evolution is correct?

Correct, what the **** is all this?

I love discussions on what you believe in and all, but holy poop.

[hahaujusdied]

Devonin, you saved me a lot of time because I thought about replying to 7 pages of thread... and that would hurt my brain. I really dont like to broach a subject like this just because I really dont know anyone and one of the biggest things for me is that when I try to explain facets of christianity to someone I would like to know them better.

Mostly though, the whole problem with the argument is that the people who are against christianity in this thread dont really know enough to actually be able to refute it.

I believe in God and I am a christian, but I dont like telling people, you are wrong.. but I will tell someone when they are not really disputing and just spouting out reasons that they dont like christianity while not having very good facts to support their arguments (Sorry Ryan but your arguments werent very good).

I have been studying the bible for years and it is still hard for me to interpret every single thing the bible says. I will say that most of the people who argue against the bible while quoting verses have not interpreted the verses correctly. Many of the verses are just hard to interpret and others are hard just to translate into english, so many people can interpret many different ways and can come off with an opinion that may not be entirely correct. I myself have done this and found out that I am incorrect through further study so I am not trying to talk down to anyone.

The thing is though, it is your decision. If you dont want to believe in God, Christianity, or the Bible, I can respect that. I dont agree with you, but I can respect that you have certain things you believe in. If I try my best to convince you and you still do not agree, then I have done all I can do (the biggest turn off is when christians try to do too much and offend people).

Religion is a tough subject to broach and I could talk longer but I think I have said all that is needed.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by FaulkApsargs

Well, it's universally agreed upon by historians that Jesus existed. The problem people have is in the way the records of his miracles (and the resurrection) are translated or interpreted. So, one could (and should if you want to be completely objective) use the historicity of the Bible for evidence (there is a HUGE 7 volume book that explains all the proof for the Bible that I could point you to, if you're interested). I'm not saying that I do, but one could.

Like I already said, this is a fallacy. You can't take the bible as granted, then prove a few historical facts of it, then take the whole thing as truth.

And, if something does exist that breaks the laws of science, science won't be able to explain it. So, I think it's a perfectly fine topic of debate.

No, it's not. If it is not scientifically explainable (or rather, empirically measured), it is inadmissible in a true debate.

Originally Posted by Izzy

Also i am pretty sure the big bang didn't produce order, it would have produced mass chaos and disorder.

Yeah, the Universe is relatively ordered, but it is still rather chaotic. The Greeks are the ones who applied the word "cosmos" to it, not people with a scientific understanding of things "up there".

Originally Posted by Devonin

the anti-christian rhetoric in north america is so widespread that just about anybody can parrot it whether they understand it or not.

I find this funny, because we still live in a country wherein a person can only be elected president if they are a practicing Christian.

Originally Posted by Devonin

The vast majority of the fantastical elements appearing inthe bible occur in the Old testament. Many sects of christianity have suggested that the Old testament is better viewed as a series of stories teaching moral lessons than as a literal factual account. The number of christians who believe in the pure factual accuracy of the Old testament is small and getting smaller every year.

Resurrection. I don't give a damn about 200 year olds building giant boats and collecting two of a bunch of animals. I'm sure most folks, even those of the religion, have already dismissed it as a mythic story and nothing more. Maybe a grain of truth, but it's lost in the torrents of mysticism. But the Resurrection, that's a fundamental thing that MUST be taken as fact for a person to believe Christianity's teachings. Without the resurrection, why is he proven to be worthy of worship? Sure, he was a great guy, I'm sure, but there have been plenty of great people throughout history and most of them aren't worshiped as a god.

Originally Posted by Devonin

faith doesn't stand up to proof, but it's never said it could

But that's the thing. People claim it CAN and DOES. That's what gets to me like no other. Some people even claim the "logic" of it supersedes science. What the ****.

Originally Posted by Devonin

Good thing faith doesn't require logic, and that having faith is one of the things that redeems you in the eyes of God then isn't it.

This is the ideal that I try to emphasize, but people are always attempting to say that it is logical to believe these things. No, it is not logical, that's why it's "faith", you moron. You don't reason these things to be true, you have faith that they are.

odds are, there would be nothing, but there's something.

Odds are irrelevant. Even the smallest likelihood of something occuring, given infinite time and space, that thing will occur. So when you say "look at how complex the universe is, something intelligent must have created life on earth", I can't help but realize that in the vastness of space, we may just be that one in a trillion chance of it happening. Like I said about the lottery example, yes there is a small chance a person would win the lottery, but if a person shows you their money and says "I won the lottery" the first thing you should think isn't "he didn't really win the lottery", because he's standing right there in front of you with the money.

And yeah, Devonin, this should have been locked back on like page 2. And dude, change your av because I keep thinking you're Mal.

the people who are against christianity in this thread dont really know enough to actually be able to refute it.

GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY

Holy ****. YOU CANNOT REFUTE IT. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF RELIGION. THIS IS WHY THE WHOLE **** IS RETARDED. As soon as a person can come to a logical deduction that a religion isn't true, that religion can just counter back with a "God moves in mysterious ways" and the very idea that God exists outside the realm of human understanding. Really, take a look at the ideas of Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel's Teapot. Then try to disprove any of them.

oh ps one thing i think is funny about christianty: ignorance of the "truth" doesn't automatically send one to hell, right? Wouldn't missionaries be just causing otherwise good people to go to Hell by exposing them to the "truth" and giving them the choice?

[FaulkApsargs]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Like I already said, this is a fallacy. You can't take the bible as granted, then prove a few historical facts of it, then take the whole thing as truth.


No, it's not. If it is not scientifically explainable (or rather, empirically measured), it is inadmissible in a true debate.

First, have you read and seen all of the historical evidence backing the Bible? Far, far more than a "few historical facts" have been proven.

And second, so just because something can't be empirically measured, it's unqualified for debate? Then why the hell am I a philosophy major? Almost everything I study is metaphysical!

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Also i am pretty sure the big bang didn't produce order, it would have produced mass chaos and disorder.

The Big Bang did indeed produce something that wasn't ordered, but it wasn't exactly disorder. It produced vast amounts of energy.

Nature produced order from those energy gradients in order to better degrade them into disorder.

As such, without the supply of energy that the Big Bang gave, there would be no order. Of course, there would be nothing...

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by FaulkApsargs

First, have you read and seen all of the historical evidence backing the Bible? Far, far more than a "few historical facts" have been proven.

The historical accuracies of the Bible are not what atheists take exception with and you know it. You can get secular evidence suggesting many historical accuracies of the Bible, but I know with certainty that nothing substantive can be put forth in effort to verify the fantastic elements of the Bible.

And second, so just because something can't be empirically measured, it's unqualified for debate? Then why the hell am I a philosophy major? Almost everything I study is metaphysical!

You can argue in favor of or against something metaphysical, but you cannot put forth something metaphysical as evidence to support a claim. For example, if your claim is "God exists", but you can't support this claim with anything empirical, nor even source cited eyewitness, you've got no leg to stand on. Anonymously written stories from thousands of years ago are not reasonable anything... again, let me point you to the Odyssey, the Iliad, and Beowulf. You citing the Bible as fact in a debate would be no different than me trying to cite the story of Beowulf to prove the existence of monsters.

edit: Guido, why can't it be that the energy had existed in the mass before the Big Bang? Potential energy, that is. Like a spring, depressed into itself still contains all the energy that will be released as kinetic energy.

[GuidoHunter]

What is this "before the Big Bang" you speak of?

The idea is as concrete as the mind of God. No man knows it and no law describes it, so what's there to ponder?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

What is this "before the Big Bang" you speak of?

The idea is as concrete as the mind of God. No man knows it and no law describes it, so what's there to ponder?

I meant in the instant before the matter expanded outward. Rather than saying "there was a single point with all the matter in existence, then energy was produced out of nowhere," I think it makes more sense to say "there was a single point with all the matter in existence, along with all of the energy stored as potential energy that would become the energy which caused all of the matter to expand outward."

I just don't like the idea of "hey all the energy in the universe? yeah, it came from nowhere for no reason at all when the big bang happened". If one can assume that matter existed in this moment before it expanded outward, why then is it not reasonable to guess that all of the energy was stored within the matter like a depressed spring?

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Afrombean

I meant in the instant before the matter expanded outward. Rather than saying "there was a single point with all the matter in existence, then energy was produced out of nowhere," I think it makes more sense to say "there was a single point with all the matter in existence, along with all of the energy stored as potential energy that would become the energy which caused all of the matter to expand outward."

You do realize that you're just going from "nothing -> energy" to "nothing -> matter -> energy", right? And that that's no smaller a logical leap?

I just don't like the idea of "hey all the energy in the universe? yeah, it came from nowhere for no reason at all when the big bang happened". If one can assume that matter existed in this moment before it expanded outward, why then is it not reasonable to guess that all of the energy was stored within the matter like a depressed spring?

Because at that level of density, the line between matter and energy is most likely indistinguishable. Recall that energy and matter are interchangeable, so when I say "the Big Bang produced energy", I make no real distinction between energy as you think of it and matter.

Perhaps you should clarify your original point/comment? I'm a little confused about where we're going here.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[hahaujusdied]

GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY

Holy ****. YOU CANNOT REFUTE IT. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF RELIGION. THIS IS WHY THE WHOLE **** IS RETARDED.

^ is why i dont talk about religion on forums.. I was actually proving your point. People try to refute it but cannot because it cannot be refuted.. but most of the people who try arent interested in religion and dont care anyway. And the ones who do dont put it that way anyway. Calm down.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by hahaujusdied

Calm down.

Please do so yourself.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You do realize that you're just going from "nothing -> energy" to "nothing -> matter -> energy", right? And that that's no smaller a logical leap?

WHO SAID IT HAD TO START WITH NOTHING HUH HUH

Because at that level of density, the line between matter and energy is most likely indistinguishable. Recall that energy and matter are interchangeable, so when I say "the Big Bang produced energy", I make no real distinction between energy as you think of it and matter.

I wouldn't go as far as to state it so simply, but that is a good point.

But then are you saying that the Big Bang CREATED matter/energy (under the argument that they're that malleable a form)? My understanding on it has always been that what there is what there is, and the Big Bang was merely a super expansion of all that there is from a point of singularities of sorts.

Perhaps you should clarify your original point/comment? I'm a little confused about where we're going here.

Meh. The difference of opinion I think is that I think you're saying the Big Bang created something and I'm thinking that all that was already existed and the Big Bang just exploded it all out.

Not that this has anything to do with religion, of course.

ps Izzy, he just copied what I had written above about how it is impossible to "refute" religion and how stupid it is to even try to attempt a real debate on it.

[Tokzic]

hi guys i heard were talking about rElIgIoN

Originally Posted by FaulkApsargs

And, if something does exist that breaks the laws of science, science won't be able to explain it. So, I think it's a perfectly fine topic of debate.

So wait.

You think that everything beyond human comprehension is a fine topic for debate.

That's not a "debate", that's just taking turns with mindless speculation.

Anyway, I believe there is some unnatural force behind the creation of the universe, and I believe that same force is underneath everything in the fabric of reality. Unfortunately, it will forever be beyond our comprehension.

And I've never understood people who actually bother devoting themselves to organised religion. I keep hearing cute words like "self-improvement" and "enlightenment" but these things never actually happen in organised religion. If you're finding yourself improved by following other people's guides on how to live your life, you were never thinking about how to live your life in the first place.

Devoting any amount of time to assuming that someone's theory about how the unknown works is a waste of time. What cannot be understood will not be understood on this plane of existence, and pretending that it can be is intellectual suicide.

[Necros140606]

Originally Posted by hahaujusdied

GO AWAY GO AWAY GO AWAY

Holy ****. YOU CANNOT REFUTE IT. THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF RELIGION. THIS IS WHY THE WHOLE **** IS RETARDED.

^ is why i dont talk about religion on forums.. I was actually proving your point. People try to refute it but cannot because it cannot be refuted.. but most of the people who try arent interested in religion and dont care anyway. And the ones who do dont put it that way anyway. Calm down.

sorry but afrobean is perfectly right

this third-class mental trick is just one of the absurdities religion claims to stand on. something that is not fakeable yet not provable is mere speculation. i hope we all agree on this. now, we could say that, religion, since it falls in this category, is not real. i wouldn't ever waste my time to worship something "that it is assumed to exist". church has a solution for this of course. faith has no need to be proven, yet the "miracles" are silly attemps of proving something that in its essence it's not supposed to be proven. just looking at all the contradictions of the church, without going as far as the contradiction of god itself (which was brought by church anyways), we could easily tell how everything is based on thin air.

now let me tell you another thing. missionaries today conformed to the modern world, so they appear as smiling saviors sent to teach the ignorant duders. heh. what about this. this is the biggest sign of arrogance of a secolar establishment towards a group of people. missionaries are just like those guys who stop you in the mid of the street and convince you to sign a life insurance contract. gimme a break. they're just trying to expand the religion everywhere not because it is right or it is useful to those populations (nay, it sometimes brings more evil than good, destroying their social organization and beliefs, therefore only causing chaos), but because they're in a constant fight with other religions and against miscredents in general. religion feeds on the mind of its prey. it will fall once people will start thinking with their own head, and this is partially happening right now.

faith is just a dog biting his own tail and never leads to anything, but again this is primarly a matter of going to the church or not, which is even worse since all churches and all religions stained themself with the worst of the worst. what we know about the killing of witches, the inquisition and the cruelty and repression of missionaries in america and all over the world is merely the top of th iceberg.

open your eyes. no reasonable person will ever accept a god and more importantly no good person would ever want to side with the organizations that recklessly killed millions of people more than any war ever.

[hahaujusdied]

I disagree... I mission to people because I want them to see what I see, to experience what I do in my faith, because I have been blessed, and I want them to be too... but it is their choice and im not signing them to a contract..

There are many reasonable people that are christians/religious, but there are also unreasonable people that are religious. To say that all reasonable people are not religious is just naive.

Truthfully, your opinion is just fine to me, I understand where your coming from, I have many friends that detest religion... its not like im not seeing anyone else's viewpoint, dont take me the wrong way.