What are your beliefs on religion, god?

[magnifier661]

I don't know he's been talking with me all thread.


GOD

He did quote me after your explanation.

 

[Further]

So my name on these blazer forums was toshi, then thylo, then something else, then Nate McVillain, then GOD standing for Greg On Defense. Should I stick with GOD cause its fun, or should I move on now that its more like Greg On Dialysis

 

[magnifier661]

So my name on these blazer forums was toshi, then thylo, then something else, then Nate McVillain, then GOD standing for Greg On Defense. Should I stick with GOD cause its fun, or should I move on now that its more like Greg On Dialysis

I think it's fitting; especially coming from an atheist! Haha

 

[VanillaGorilla]

So my name on these blazer forums was toshi, then thylo, then something else, then Nate McVillain, then GOD standing for Greg On Defense. Should I stick with GOD cause its fun, or should I move on now that its more like Greg On Dialysis

I'd go with Teapot if I were you

 

[Further]

I think it's fitting; especially coming from an atheist! Haha

You ever smoke a little weed and wonder "what if god's an atheist?"

 

[Further]

I'd go with Teapot if I were you

That's pretty good actually
Edit: it's written under my avatar

 

[TripTango]

sorry didn't mean to instigate any potential suckage

By the way trip, I only called you a windbag of an ass because its scientifically provable.

Nah nah -- I appreciated the shoutouts. It's just that it makes it so difficult for me to stay off the merry-go-round...

[video=youtube;UPw-3e_pzqU]

 

[crowTrobot]

I believe in things to which I see reasonable evidence. So, I believe in biology, I believe in math, I believe the sky is sometimes blue.

i think there is reasonable evidence to expect that every single thing you can say that would accurately describe a homo sapien is the result of evolved physical/biological processes. how is that effectively any different than what you are doing when you expect the sky to be blue tomorrow?

throwing the hypothesis of a fundamentally undetectable soul into the equation is no different than throwing in the hypothesis of undetectable flying gremlins altering how electromagnetic waves are filtered through the atmosphere who might change the sky to purple tomorrow.

i don't think it's inaccurate to say that it is because of science that we reasonably expect that there are no undetectable gremlins messing with electromagnetic waves. science provides an evidence-backed gremlin-free explanation of why the sky is blue, just as science has provided an evidence-backed soul-free explanation for everything that constitutes a homo sapien.

Science does rely on probabilities. But where are these probabilities you speak of that god does not exist.

it's not hard to leave the definition of god so vague as to not be accessible to science. it would not be so easy for Catholicism to hide the mythological origins of Yahweh.

Sure, you can say science demonstrates that what many refer to as a near-death experience can be explained by neuroscience. But that does not mean there is no afterlife. It only means that what people often refer to as a near death experience is most likely not correct. One thing is measurable, one thing isn't.

NDE's are trivial. even more neuroscience has tied most aspects of human cognizance to different parts of the brain, altering or turning them on and off. as above, the introduction of undetectable components to human cognizance that continue after death is no different than introducing undetectable sky color gremlins. there is no reason science should have any more respect for the former.

It makes one theoretically testable and not the other. Science speaks to one, philosophy the other.

maybe in the same way voices from god while on drugs or throwing darts at a chart with possible answers does.

my main point here is that unanswerable questions about objective reality are just that - unanswerable. why suggest that anything at all speaks to them? what does that accomplish other than to enable people to feel good about irrational beliefs?

 

[Further]

i think there is reasonable evidence to expect that every single thing you can say that would accurately describe a homo sapien is the result of evolved physical/biological processes. how is that effectively any different than what you are doing when you expect the sky to be blue tomorrow?

there is no difference. However, there is a difference when you think that proof of evolved homo sapien means proof of no god.

throwing the hypothesis of a fundamentally undetectable soul into the equation is no different than throwing in the hypothesis of undetectable flying gremlins altering how electromagnetic waves are filtered through the atmosphere who might change the sky to purple tomorrow.
i have no proof there are no gremlins. However, I can detect electromagnetic waves. So, give me something that can be tested to indirectly prove soul/no soul and you would have a point. Nothing to even hypothetically test, it's not a question that science can answer

i don't think it's inaccurate to say that it is because of science that we reasonably expect that there are no undetectable gremlins messing with electromagnetic waves. science provides an evidence-backed gremlin-free explanation of why the sky is blue, just as science has provided an evidence-backed soul-free explanation for everything that constitutes a homo sapien.
and of god or souls could be agreed upon that they affected electromagnetic waves, then we could make a determination. What is there to test?



it's not hard to leave the definition of god so vague as to not be accessible to science. it would not be so easy for Catholicism to hide the mythological origins of Yahweh.
correct. And if provided with a more strict definition that is testable, then science could be used to disprove god. Example: god answers prayers. Test if praying results in those prayers coming true. If not, then no god under that strict definition. But, you are right that the definition of God is ambitious. With the prayer issue, "god works in mysterious ways". I think it's bull, you think it's bull, but with that moving definition there is nothing to test.


NDE's are trivial. even more neuroscience has tied most aspects of human congnizance to different parts of the brain, altering or turning them on and off. as above, the introduction of undetectable components to human congizance that continue after death is no different than introducing undetectable sky color gremlins. there is no reason science should have any more respect for the former.

I never said science should respect it. Just that science can't disprove it.

maybe in the same way voices from god while on drugs or throwing darts at a chart with possible answers does.

my main point here is that unanswerable questions about objective reality are just that - unanswerable. why suggest that anything at all speaks to them? what does that accomplish other than to enable people to feel good about irrational beliefs?
yes! We agree, they are unanswerable by science. I think using religion to answer them is silly, but it is not the job of science to point out the silly, especially when we have no answer. If we stick to trying to convince the religious of things what are factual, I believe we stand a better chance at improving the world that if we bicker on issues that aren't relevant. If I could convince all religious people that the universe that evolution is legitimate, then we could greatly improve our educational system. They can all still believe in angels and devils.

...

 

[VanillaGorilla]

If I could convince all religious people that the universe that evolution is legitimate, then we could greatly improve our educational system. They can all still believe in angels and devils.

That's ridiculous to me. Obviously you want evolution to be accepted by everyone, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't want people to stop believing in things like angels. Our educational system would be even better if both were accomplished. Saying it's fine and acting like it's not a preposterous belief is exactly what crowTrobot said, pandering.

 

[Further]

That's ridiculous to me. Obviously you want evolution to be accepted by everyone, but I don't see why that means we shouldn't want people to stop believing in things like angels. Our educational system would be even better if both were accomplished. Saying it's fine and acting like it's not a preposterous belief is exactly what crowTrobot said, pandering.

Perhaps you and crow have a point here. It would be best if they didn't believe in angles and devils. I mainly meant that its the big time lesser of two evils.

I'm going to take the conversation away for a moment. I would love for there to be zero guns in the public of the US. However, I know that with 300,000,000 guns out there, there is no chance that will ever happen. However, we could see reform regarding the magazines or closing the gun show loopholes. So, lets focus on what can be done. We can convert many religious people to understanding and accepting much of what science can demonstrate. But if we insist they also give up their mythical fanciful creatures then we won't get anything accomplished. So I guess it's a priority issue.

 

[crowTrobot]

However, there is a difference when you think that proof of evolved homo sapien means proof of no god.

didn't say that.

i have no proof there are no gremlins. However, I can detect electromagnetic waves. So, give me something that can be tested to indirectly prove soul/no soul and you would have a point. Nothing to even hypothetically test, it's not a question that science can answer

there is effectively no difference between measuring light waves and neuroscience measuring the reaction of cognizance to changes in the brain (assuming your definition of a soul includes cognizance transcending the brain).

I never said science should respect it.

in my view that is what you end up implying when you selectively apply different standards to what you think science can and can't test. In the post that sparked this exchange you said you had 'no problem' with the views of catholicism as long as they did not run contrary to testable science, but a 'big problem' if they did. if testable and untestable beliefs are equally silly what's the effective difference? why is one ok and the other is not?

I believe we stand a better chance at improving the world that if we bicker on issues that aren't relevant. If I could convince all religious people that the universe that evolution is legitimate, then we could greatly improve our educational system. They can all still believe in angels and devils.

i'm not suggesting we should contest every single silly thing people believe. again, i'm simply advocating language that doesn't encourage irrational belief.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I'm going to take the conversation away for a moment. I would love for there to be zero guns in the public of the US. However, I know that with 300,000,000 guns out there, there is no chance that will ever happen. However, we could see reform regarding the magazines or closing the gun show loopholes. So, lets focus on what can be done. We can convert many religious people to understanding and accepting much of what science can demonstrate. But if we insist they also give up their mythical fanciful creatures then we won't get anything accomplished. So I guess it's a priority issue.

I can dig it. I guess I just don't agree that trying to get them not to believe in mythical creatures would make it so nothing is accomplished. But I can see how your way might be more efficient.

 

[Further]

I wish I knew more about manipulating time, I want to go back and just post clips of dancing cats.

Honestly crow, we are close in our beliefs. I just give religious people more room for their wacky ideas then you and I think I view what is scientifically relevant a little different.

I'm going to take a small break from this thread, if its still going in a couple days I may jump back in. Peace, and may Jesus be with you.

 

[crowTrobot]

Honestly crow, we are close in our beliefs. I just give religious people more room for their wacky ideas then you and I think I view what is scientifically relevant a little different.

I'm going to take a small break from this thread, if its still going in a couple days I may jump back in. Peace, and may Jesus be with you.

cool, nice chatting. you too mags

cheers and my the gremlins paint your sky a pleasant color

 

[Denny Crane]

You ever smoke a little weed and wonder "what if god's an atheist?"

Thus sayeth the lord.

 

[magnifier661]

cool, nice chatting. you too mags

cheers and my the gremlins paint your sky a pleasant color

You too crow! It was fun!

 

[MickZagger]

37 pages of this shit? Just agree to disagree. Shit!

 

[Haakzilla]

...I believe this:

God Worried He Fucked Up His Children

THE HEAVENS—Saying that maybe He wasn’t around enough and could have expressed His divine love a little better throughout the history of mankind, Our Lord God and Almighty Father expressed concern Thursday that He might have fucked up His children.

In a frank conversation with reporters, God said it’s not hard to see that all 7 billion of His children are “pretty screwed up” and that many of them are hopelessly maladjusted and unfit to live healthy, normal lives.

“I love my sons and daughters equally, but was I present as much as I could have been? Probably not,” said the Divine Creator, pointing to the human race’s emotional volatility, existential angst, and lack of any real direction as evidence of His failure. “Ever since I molded them in my image, I’ve tried to do right by them. I really have. But they’re just so dysfunctional that I’m starting to wonder if I’m to blame.”

God claimed that though He always made sure to provide His children with food, water, air to breathe, and an earth to live on, He was starting to realize that material things weren’t nearly enough. In addition, while God repeatedly said He loved his children, the Lord our Maker admitted He could have said it more often.

Moreover, God told reporters He was also beginning to regret His hands-off approach, saying that giving His children complete free will was probably a mistake.

“I always thought that if I let them stray from the path of righteousness and goodwill, they’d learn how to get back on their own,” the Eternal One said. “But maybe that was just laziness on my part. The truth is, I was so busy ruling the universe and controlling Heaven and Earth that there were times when I was basically invisible to my children. I know that now.”

“No wonder they are running around breaking every single commandment I gave them,” He continued. “They needed an Almighty Ruler who was really there for them, not some deadbeat Heavenly Father who would just appear in a divine vision from time to time and split.”

The Author of Our Eternal Salvation added that He had passed down a number of bad habits He was starting to see in His children, particularly a shared inclination for senseless destruction and unpredictable, violent outbursts.

“I haven’t been the best example at times,” said God, admitting that His propensity for flooding, disease, and famine have “screwed with [His children’s] heads” for centuries. “I’ve put my sons and daughters through some pretty traumatic events, especially recently, and that’s exactly the kind of thing that makes them act out in the first place. I mean, they see me destroy Indonesia with a tsunami or kill 6 million of my own children in Europe, and what do you think that does to them?”

“Probably fucks them up pretty good is what,” He added.

While God admitted He had made many mistakes in their upbringing that would no doubt leave them permanently scarred, the Supreme Being told reporters He wasn’t yet ready to give up on His flock.

“The fact is, my children only have one God, and it’s my responsibility to make sure they shape up and reach their full potential,” The Eternal One said. “Then again, a lot of them are so beyond screwed up at this point that there’s probably nothing I can do for them.”

--> SOURCE

 

[Haakzilla]

[video=youtube;Ge45R9qoW_Y]

 

[ABM]

video

Awesome concept.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Standing four feet, ten inches tall, weighing in at a lean 106 pounds,
please welcome,
JESUS OF NAZARETH

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[ABM]

God is so awesome! I've really been drawing closer to Him over these past few weeks. Church was incredible this morning!

I wonder how many believers we have in this forum? I know that Mags, BLAZER PROPHET, and PtldPlatypus all claim to be followers of Christ.

Anyone else out there claim the same?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

God is so awesome! I've really been drawing closer to Him over these past few weeks. Church was incredible this morning!

I wonder how many believers we have in this forum? I know that Mags, BLAZER PROPHET, and PtldPlatypus all claim to be followers of Christ.

Anyone else out there claim the same?

We could make a poll (although I think there's been some before), it doesn't need to be another intense discussion thread though. I'd be interested in the ratio of believers to non-believers on the board.

 

[ABM]

I'd be interested in the ratio of believers to non-believers on the board.

Most like would be the same ratio as Blazers believers vs non-believers.

 

[santeesioux]

We could make a poll (although I think there's been some before), it doesn't need to be another intense discussion thread though. I'd be interested in the ratio of believers to non-believers on the board.

Someone should do that, but make the no intense discussion thing a stipulation. Those threads always get bogged down by that.