Do You Believe In God? (4425 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.98 on 188 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <murphydog5.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-03-21 06:41:15 EST
I decided to ask a few people this question. Here were the results:
"Well... yeah."
Why, I asked.
"Well, I haven't really thought about it and that's the way I was raised," was the most popular answer, by far.
OK, I said, do you believe in the *Christian god. This is where I confuse people. If you ask them if they believe in God, people (in the West at least) automatically assume the question might as well be 'do you believe in Christianity.' For the record this is not what I mean. To me, it's more like do you believe in a CREATOR? Still, to many people, this implies Christianity. Fine! They were raised that way and that's the connection they make. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN!
Consider this: some people (who have given this any thought), in their thinking and reasoning, boil this question down to the *beginning of the universe. It is equally difficult to grasp the idea of matter from nothing as it is to grasp the idea of a creator who created matter. The next question being, where did the creator come from? Nothing? Matter from nothing? Or was it/he/she just there? Right now we're just talking about a creator, not some pie-in-the-sky Christian God who created a man to be tortured to save us and give us a Pass to Heaven if only we abandoned our capacity to reason and think objectively in favor of white-glowing beings with wings and so forth.
For the sake of fun and thinking, let's assume that we really are a product of a creator and that this creator is the exact OPPOSITE of what is traditionally thought of as a "loving God" and on and on. A loving God, the argument goes, allows evil and suffering as a matter of "free will." Fine! He's narcissist and wants human beings to CHOOSE to love him in lieu of giving him/her, the very CREATION he/she/it made, solid evidence - having known that her/his/it's creation, human beings, would be skeptical and need something like solid evidence in order to believe this crock of bullshit. But what if this god is pure EVIL and wants human beings to know love on earth so they can better contrast and therefore understand PURE EVIL in some twisted demented afterlife? Doesn't the same argument apply?
My point is we can not pigeon-hole a supposed creator in to one certain mold based on a book written two thousand years ago. For the simple-minded, that's fine. That's all they need. They need no further investigation. They're just trying to walk in footsteps already printed in the sand and snow by their parents and nod their heads and placate their family and friends in order to attain approval and avoid confrontation. And have comfort in having The Truth and some cozy place to prattle on after they bite the dust.
I ask you: do you believe in God? Not your instinctual reaction that's been beaten in to you since you've been born. Give this some thought! Do you believe in God?
Why or why not!?
Why is this question not important to people, I wonder. It's important to some, sure... and they're the people I enjoy having a conversation with. I like to hear why and I like to hear why not.
What I don't like to hear is, "well... I guess."
People...
Murphy
User Reviews
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-06-03 14:35:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
FreZno, god is an illogical being by definition. http://ubersite.com/m/28178#441053
your second point is perfect, though.
Submitted by FreZno (user info) at 2004-07-14 17:20:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1. You can still prove "There is no X" if the definition of X is logically inconsistent. There are no married bachelors. This is not to say the all definitions of "god" are logically inconsistent, but it seems that most of the popular ones are, for one reason or another (all-loving yet perfectly just, a perfect being that creates, an omnipotent/omniscient being that constantly gets pissed off at his creations, etc.).
2. Regarding "alternate explanations of god": If god is love, or god is an alien, or god is the force, or god is the Tao, or god is Brahman, or god is the universe, or god is nature, or god is something you "totally find within yourself, man," THEN WHY THE FUCKITY FUCK WOULD YOU CALL IT GOD? I could easily prove the existance of Santa Claus, if you simply permit me to give Santa Claus all the characteristics of my statistics textbook, and none of Jolly Ol' St. Nick.
3. To actually answer the post: I don't believe in god. I'm an agnostic-atheist through and through, balls to bones.
Submitted by Slapshot99 (user info) at 2004-07-01 19:22:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whats going to happen to all the religious freaks when we do finally discover life on another planet..thus destroying the whole "Bible" theory to hell and back?
Submitted by Quetzallan (user info) at 2004-07-01 19:13:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting...and where was the reference to homosexuality?
Submitted by The_Enforcer (user info) at 2004-04-22 15:04:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Homosexuality is a SIN. Standing up and speaking against this vile evil does not make you homophobic as the homosexuals would have you believe. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. As children of the one and only eternal and loving true God, we have nothing to fear from these sinners. In fact, it is they who are afraid of us. They are afraid of us because we stand up against them and proclaim homosexuality for what it is, a VILE AND EVIL SIN.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2004-03-31 00:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2004-03-29 16:16:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Contradict? Because disproving the existence of something is the same as proving something does not exist, right? If not, I must be missing something in the translation, as I understand what you explained."
It's almost an issue of semantics more than of pure, hard science. You can never prove with absolute certainty(in pragmatic terms, of course; nothing is ever proven with TRUE "absolute certainty," after all) that something does not exist. Proving something is an active process; you do or show something to reinforce your hypothesis. But the claim "x does not exist" is a negative process, which you accomplish by removing the essence of "reality" from object x -in a philosophical sense, of course. The act of "disproving"(which is really just a different way of saying "proving the opposite") is accomplishable because, for example, you can easily prove that planet Earth is a spheroid. Go around it in several different directions, and you'll have verifiable, substantiable evidence -which allows you to prove such. In doing so, you have effectively "disproved" the existence of a disc-shaped planet Earth on which we live. You cannot, however, prove that a disc-shaped planet Earth does not exist, as you would have to explore literally infinite possibilities before reaching that conclusion(for example, mass hallucinations or parallel universes).
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-28 15:29:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry Nator, I had my head stuck up my ass. I meant only to say that pointing out the logical flaws in an argument does not prove the opposite of its thesis. It only means the argument itself is invalid.
If I were to say: "UU Bush is a moron because he invaded iraq" You could logically claim that the two statements are unrelated, viz. the fact of invading Iraq does nothing to either prove or disprove the assertion that bush is a moron. My error of equivocation does not mean that automagically bush is NOT a moron, nor is it a reason to induct him into mensa. It is simply a logical error. Bush might be( and is, AFAIK) a moron for reasons not directly connected to the Iraqui adventure, but my bold assertion would nevertheless be wrong.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-28 14:57:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
How exactly do you go about proving that something doesn't exist? It's difficult enough with physical phenomena which is why in quantum mechanics we are talking about the probability of an event, let alone in metaphysics which provide little enough foothold for such proofs.
if there is no data we can judge by, we can assume that:
1) we weren't able to collect data that were there
2) we have collected data, but it is so minute that allowing for the margin of error we have no data since we are unable to distinguish it from random noise
3) there is no data to collect.
Of these three, two are statements about US, our measuring methods, and only one about the data.
A straightforward logical proof of non-existance is also not valid, based on the assertion of our miniscule knowledge of the subject. We CAN "disprove" some of the statements about the universe made by the religious, but as to the first cause, that is unpenetrable. In fact, we can with some authority assume that from our vantage point in time, anything pre-inflation (prefious to the hyperinflationary stage of the growth of our universe) is unavaliable to us as data. Theories exist which assert that previous to the event which gave birth to our cosmos, any, literaly any amount of time might have passed, assuming that there was time, and that it was the "same" time we understand today. To us this means nothing, because our ability to "reach back" is effectively limited by the physical size of our cosmos & the fact that Big Bang & hyperinflation which folowed it effectively erased any evidence, assuming there was any to be had. For us, time starts with the singularity event.
So much for that; Now from a purely logical point of view, how does one "proove" non-existance of a thing? To prove the existance of something is to point to it - there it is. How do you do the opposite? You can at most show that a particulr thing is not in a particular place @ a particular time, and that only by ignoring the facts of physics.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-27 10:06:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Aaaah, thanks Yidele, I understood as much as you explained but it was insightful nonetheless.
What I actually meant though is that I thought these two statements:
"You can disprove the existence of something. But you can not prove that something does not exist."
Contradict? Because disproving the existence of something is the same as proving something does not exist, right? If not, I must be missing something in the translation, as I understand what you explained.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-27 05:07:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is really simple, nator, if you can provide proof for the existance of a thing, you prove it exists
If you cannot provide proof for the existance of a thing, it means only that you can't provide _the proof_, and has no bearing on the existance of the thing as such.
as an example, let's take bart's ubersite. Aside form the causal relationship it has with its creator revealed to us in his writings, we can at least assume that ubersite exists.
It is populated by various "people" who can all atest to this. Were it not for bart's verifiable penchant of fucking with his creation, there would be no proof of the existance of bart. The universe does not have a FAQ, a userguide or a mailto:God.at.universe.org mail link. If it did, if God's existance was incontrovertible as is Bart's, no one woyuld doubt it. Ubersite is peppered with proof of bart's existance and periodic "miracles" which are visible to everyone. Some have even met Bart in person, and in groups large enough to make this not only a verifiable experience but also a photo documented one.
Based on preponderance of the available evidence, we can with some authority state that the Ubersite exists, that Bart exists, and if we trust Bart's personal assurances, that he is the creator of Ubersite.
Now imagine a situation where ubersite is just a website devoid of webmaster input beyond the original setup, that there is no interaction btw. the users & the webmaster and that user requests are unheeded. We could GUESS that bart, or someone bartlike, exists & that he created the ubersite, but we could never have the certainty ( meaning proof) unless bart chose to reveal himself. Eventually it is possible that some user or other would provide us with text which asserts the existance of Bart based on personal, unverifiable revelation, but we could never be sure of anything except our beliefs.
Based on preponderance of the evidence available, we could with some authority state that the ubersite exist, but we could only speculate as to bart's existance.
When you say that you believe in the existance of God, or even when you say that you know, are certain, of the existance of God - in the context of a universe devoid of direct proof - you are making a statement ABOUT YOURSELF, not God. The same goes for those who do not believe in God or claim to know that He doesn't exist, though logicaly they( atheists) have a slightly more cohesive argument since they can rightly claim that of the evidence available to them, none points to the existance of a God. This does not, however, exhaust all available lines of inquiry & so cannot be a definitive statement
lastly, The existance of the universe does not in itself imply the existance of a creator. The cause->effect relationship is a function of time, time itself exists only in reference to the universe. No universe, no time, no cause->effect relationship. Nothing "caused" the universe to spring into being, in the sense that bart made the ubersite, since at the time of the ubersite's making, causality was operative ( or so he tell us ;) but causality itself came into being in reference to the universe.
This is all too wordy & boring, it is unfortuantely how I write, but nowhere as elegant, concise as Istaros replies or Murph's post.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 23:29:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh man, that's just good flaming.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2004-03-26 23:27:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, Audjgirl/Shrek, how I've missed your voluminous cranium.
Henceforth, Audjgirl's moniker shall be "Devourer of Planets"
Listen, you bloated sack of lipid, why don't you pick those villagers out of your teeth, spoon the fat out of your eyes, and stretch out your face a bit with a pair of vice grips? I'm sure it would do wonders for your self esteem. You are absolutely useless, and your "blog" posts contribute absolutely nothing to this site. You disgust me, and I would sleep well at night knowing that you were in a train wreck and you were the only casualty, your fat sizzling carcass smelling reminiscently of bacon and pork rinds.
You, my dear, are a monster amongst men.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-26 18:02:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"You can disprove the existence of something. But you can not prove that something does not exist."
lol? Isn't 'disproving' proving the negative, in other words, proving something does not (exist, in this case) ?
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2004-03-26 15:58:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"*Death_Metal_Dude, a question. Having Zero doubt would mean that you have proof of God's non-existence.*
-Well, your second sentence is completely untrue. You said that there is no question in your mind that there is a god. I said there is no question in my mind that there is no god. What's wrong with what I'm saying as compared to what you're saying? Having zero doubt doesn't mean I have proof. Just like you having zero doubt doesn't mean you have proof."
A contradiction between how he views a statement uttered from him, and uttered from you, does not make his assertion on the nature of that statement untrue. Hypocritical, yes, but false, no. You're ignoring that he willingly admits faith, whereas you do not. Yet if you have absolutely no doubt that there is no existence of god, if you are entirely certain he does not exist, you either have proof, or have faith. If you do not have that proof, your own 100% attitude is not scientifically substantiated, so it necessarily relies on belief. He claims to have faith, so this does not pose a contradiction for him; but for someone who does not claim to have faith -such as yourself- this does pose a contradiction. It is possible to eliminate doubt without proof if you allow ourself to believe -faith- but it is not possible to eliminate doubt without proof if you only believe in what can be proven.
"*HOw did you come by such information, especially since, logically, there is no way to prove a negative? I could prove God exists by showing you, if I could, but you could not prove he does not by not showing me (get it?). Unless of course you found a God-shaped hole somewhere and a sign that said "I quit.""*
-As for your third sentence, you should probably brush up on the ol' logic there.
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html"
The link handily plays semantics with the term "can't prove a negative," but it does not really adress what the term refers to. You can prove that something exists. You can disprove the existence of something. But you can not prove that something does not exist.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2004-03-26 15:29:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To ask "who created the creator" is to miss the entire point, buddy. A god -which we can define as a supernatural and metaphysical being, who for the purposes of this topic, created the universe- does not need to follow the laws of physics within this universe. That's why it's called "supernatural," "metaphysical" -outside of nature and science. A god would not necessarily be subject to the laws of the universe to which you and I are eternally chained(well, for as long as our lives last at the very least). It MIGHT follow the laws of the universe, in which case it would have required a source as well -unless it only began to follow the laws of the universe once the universe came into being, willingly subjecting itself to those laws. The possibilities are endless, and that's what makes it a god. The Prime Mover theory goes waaay back, but the inherent lack of understanding in asking "Oh yeah? Well if God made everything, WHO MADE GOD!?" has never been an effective refutal, because it essentially avoids the entire issue. That's not to say that there are nor refutals to the Prime Mover theory -there are several, all of them very valid- but that is not one of them.
Submitted by dumbass1256 (user info) at 2004-03-26 15:13:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, I beleive in God
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-26 13:46:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
God gave us free will. So what bad things come is because of our free will(Humans free will). If bad things didnt happen while on Earth then we would not have free will, we would be mindless drones. Personally, i prefer the bad things and free will more then midless drones.
God wishes for evil to be ridden from this world. BUT the only way to do that is to bring the Rapture(or first part of armagedon). Since armagedon is so horrable in that many will die, God wants to give US, the human race, a chance to repent so we wont be doomed to hell when we die.
God doesnt want anyone to go to Hell. It hurts him to have to do that, since he hates sin and not the sinner.
God loves you, me, everyone. We just need to accept his love and repent of our sins, believe that Jesus, Gods sun, came to save us from our sins and believe in Him as our savior.
So when the day comes and you die, God will welcome you with open arms into Heaven.
Submitted by MadScientist (user info) at 2004-03-26 12:10:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I dont believe. If we are God's "children", then why does he put us through so much bullshit?
I hate how "Holy-rollers" explain all good things in life as the work of God, while bad things that happen are "free-will", and or "a part of God's plan".
Fuck God.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:57:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
please. go ahead. i would love to hang onto your every word and start a fanclub in your honor...
what?
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:55:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I would try and explain something to you, but I can see that your large, bulbous head would prevent it from ever reaching your brain.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:54:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i'm an uncreative moron?
clearly you haven't read your own responses...all you could come up with was, "Oh shit, you're one of those. I might have guessed. GOD LOV3S M3 AND NOT U!!!11!1 LOLZ. Fuck you."
good job. i guess you really pay a lot of attention to what you're doing.
don't tell me you're masturbating to my webpage too. well, lemme know when you're done, and i guess we'll get back to it.
it's probably too much for you to concentrate on more than one thing.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:52:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The rating was below a one when this started.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:51:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you must be retarded.
look at my ratings. i forgot to give murphy +2's in the midst of our fight.
but clearly, you are bit unarmed in this battle of wits, so i think you should apologize and let it go.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:50:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
he won't. God loves me.
i know this.
i'm sorry he doesn't love you anymore
__________________________________________________
As for ignorance... if you believe in a God that's all caring and you make a statement like that then you are either too uncreative to come up with a better insult, or just a plain moron.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:49:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ruining a rating with +2's. That's weird... I'd never heard that one before. I must not know how the rating system works.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:47:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
shit, i spelled misspelled wrong. ha.
+2 for murph so that he doesn't have to worry about an ignorant asshole like polyamorousaj ruining his score.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:45:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
um ok. did you see something mispelled? i didn't think so.
try again, smartie pants.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:42:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh shit, you're one of those. I might have guessed. GOD LOV3S M3 AND NOT U!!!11!1 LOLZ.
Fuck you.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:39:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
he won't. God loves me.
i know this.
i'm sorry he doesn't love you anymore, but you don't have to take it out on me.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:27:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Then may God deaden your fallopian tubes.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:23:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
bah. procreation is my favorite thing to do.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-26 11:11:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
audjgirl, please don't procreate. We've got enough pumpkin-headed morons around.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 10:57:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
also, method, were you just saving my webpage for a rainy day?
with my luck, you probably masturbate to them.
sorry but you will never meet me and i am practically married. boo hoo. cry like the little bitch i know you are.
and besides, everyone knows it's fat bottomed girls who make the rocking world go round.
i really do hope God smites you.
Submitted by audjgirl (user info) at 2004-03-26 10:54:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
method, god will smite you for being such a begrudging little bitch. how about you kiss my fat ass, mmmkay?
murph, good argument. i agree a lot of people have lost their way--not just in christianity but in other religions or lack thereof.
i believe in God because i mostly can't wrap my brain around the fact that we are here by accident.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-25 22:08:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So when you say "Xtianity" you're saying Chitianity?
Submitted by OutLaw (user info) at 2004-03-25 22:06:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"There are two kinds of people in this world; those who understand the second law of thermodynamics and those who dont."
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-25 16:52:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The 2nd law of thermodynamics does NOT apply to life and it's evolution.
And, we're hardly perfect. About 90% of our DNA is worthless, 'faulty' data. It does nothing.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-25 01:59:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
X is the greek letter Chi, not Christ.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-25 01:04:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for Mr. Fat-Jew's French quotes.
One thing though: Jesus Xrist? I thought the X stands for Christ. In that case, you're saying Jesus Christrist.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-25 00:07:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
duh, _below_, the history of the church is one long attempt at making faith inconsequential. In a way, this puts the worshippers of relics on the same side of the argument as augustine, except augstine was just a tad more honest with himself. If faith was unquestionably the key, why the need to prop it up with pious fraud?
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-24 23:59:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
there are many alternatives to religion. buddhism is one such ( not really a religion), but what makes religions such as Xtianity or Islam such huge successes is the invention of the afterlife.
Most people throughout the world in all its history have lead short, poor & brutish lives. The apeal lies in telling these people that poverty, suffering & ignorance are virtues guaranteeing them salvation & making possible all the happy abominations of the next world. I can't express how downright manipulative, nasty,lying & primitive that tactic is, it is second only to the notion that human sacrifice is necessary to cleanse one of "sin". Fathom this: you are made clean by parttaking of & gloryfying in the deliberate murder of an innocent ( by definition the vicitim must be innocent) human being. IMO the notion of cleansing by bathing in victims blood is much like the idea of one hour martinizing in a cesspool.
If we examine the muslim tradition, we'll see that in the afterlife promised to the faithfull, there feature 72 black eyed, ever virginal houri ( wives/nymphs according to translation) as well as eighty thousand servants ready to do their bidding. For a flea bit camel driver, this is probably 70 women more than he's seen in his lifetime, not to mention the fact that eighty thousand servants is pretty fantastic. This, according to the prophet, is the smallest reward for those in heaven & it is based on this bit of scripture ---->
"...collected by Imam at-Tirmidhi in "Sunan" (Volume IV, Chapters on "The Features of Heaven as described by the Messenger of Allah", Chapter 21: "About the Smallest Reward for the People of Heaven", hadith 2687) and also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Koranic Commentary) of Surah Rhman (55), ayah (verse) 72:
It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy two wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a..."
Xtians onthe other hand have the beatitudes, a collection of sycopanthic lies written to appeal to unmotivated loosers & bums. Let's examine them one by one:
1)Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
riight...the poor in spirit, another way of saying stingy in spirit, mean hearted, abject failure in the relatively inexpensive process of spiritual enrichment. For their failure they'll be rewarded
2)Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
As Reg, the supreme leader of the PLFJ ( People's Liberation Front of Judea) once said, it's the meek who are the problem. Meeknes is not a good quality in anything but a lifelong victim. Oh, They'll be given the "land", alright
3)Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Nothing wrong with this. mourners should be comforted, but why in the afterlife? Comfort them while it can do them some good.
4)Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
All unfair legal decisions are vindicated in the afterlife. Your neighbor raped your goat, milked your wife & ate your porridge? Jesus will make this right after you die & have no use for goats, wives & porridge. this makes a lot of sense.
5)Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
They alredy have mercy. That's why they're called "the mercifull". It means full of mercy. Jesus promises to give the mercifull more of what they're alredy full of. after they're dead.
6)Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
I suppose the dirty of heart shan't see Him. what if the dirty of heart are also meek & mercifull? Jesus doesn't say
7)Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
I'm guessing Ghandi will like this one. Oh, sure, he was a pagan who did not believe in the Xtian God, but now at least one more deity will claim him as his son. Will Jesus be jelous?
8)Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
I have rarely met anyone who admitted honestly to themselves that their problems were of their own making. this is the keeper, folks. Even convicted multiple murderers on death row are capable of seeing themselves as unjustly persecuted. Ted bundy & Albert fish will be there to greet 'ya
In short, both the hadith & the beatitudes read like a shyster lawyer tv spot sounds - out of work? rent due? money troubles got you down? Jesus Xrist, Muhammed & sons will work hard to get you the afterlife you deserve. No claim too small.
Submitted by Death_From_Below (user info) at 2004-03-24 23:28:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
also, evidence would make faith inconsequential. and revelation is key, otherwise you are just going around in Escher paradoxes. pfft.
Submitted by Death_From_Below (user info) at 2004-03-24 23:26:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think a good question here is whether there is any need to justify (through reason/logic) a belief in God, when faith doesn't necessarily come through reason/logic (though for some of the important philosophers it did). As far as taking a cheap shot at the Bible, it seems like the popular thing to do these days (non-scholastically) is to act like the whole history of the Bible and Judeo-Christian belief is simply weak people being lulled into a submissive torpor by a thick work of fiction. In that case, there are a lot of great thinkers out there who were only pretending to see the complexity of the Scripture. Also, concerning the whole Question of Evil, the Manichean "bad God, good God" thing is pretty quickly wiped up by Augustine. or maybe, like, God is an ALIEN, man! and like, we're just freaky experiments to amuse the extra-terrestrial overlord! or something.
Submitted by Melany (user info) at 2004-03-24 22:45:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Good Lord!
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-24 21:21:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wasn't being literal, but the growth of religions would be significantly impeded if there were any kind of competition or opposition.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-24 19:49:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ide disagree with that. Most "christians" in most countries die or get sent to jail for life because of what they beleive. Religion wont die.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-24 15:26:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't say it was biased, I said it was logically flawed.
Like I've been saying for a while, any atheist who would convert back to religion probably isn't the brightest sandwich in the drawer. Hence, the quote.
If there were such a thing as atheist missionaries, religion would be dead overnight.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-24 13:05:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You can argue with the quote all you want, but dont smack me around because you dont think its true.
Submitted by ChipSlice (user info) at 2004-03-24 02:52:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2, just because it has 1666 hits at the moment.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-03-24 02:30:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by SiFI at 2004-03-23 20:50:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Some one once said "It takes more faith to not believe in God then to believe in God."
Well, that someone's an idiot. Belief in god is BY DEFINITION 100% faith. How can it take more than 100% faith to not believe in a god?
Acarnis, don't go down the path of fallacious incredulity.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-24 00:12:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What the quote says is that he once didnt believe in God, but since you dont get what im saying, it means that he not only accepts there is a God but is a rear Christian. if any of you dont know what that words deffinition is here it is.
A person who strives to be as much like Christ as humanly possible.
Of course no one can become anywhere close to what Christ is, but we can try.
That may seem far fetched, but it is what we BELEAVE or know to be true and have put our trust in.
That quote came from an athius who became a Christian. so it isnt a byast quote.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-23 21:34:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The first one.... Atoms and particles have always tended to disorder. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand... "Some supreme being did it, that we don't understand..." is far more simple.
___________________
It's not more simple, it's a gross simplification of an infinitely complex concept. Saying you don't understand how they could've built the pyramids does not make their method of construction any simpler.
___________________
Submitted by SiFI at 2004-03-23 20:50:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Some one once said "It takes more faith to not believe in God then to believe in God."
Just a little side note.
___________________
When a person says they believe in a god, they are making an assertion that god exists.
I deny that assertion. I ask for proof. I wait.
This does not take any faith at all, as it is plain to see.
The person who said otherwise was clearly indoctrinated at a young age.
"How could anyone live without heroin?! That must take will power," says the addict.
Submitted by AlbertFish (user info) at 2004-03-23 20:54:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
yeah i hate jews and christians too. I AM CHRIST! oh did i forget to say that i hate christians? well i do. stop wearing crosses and maybe i'll forgive. but until then
Submitted by SiFI at 2004-03-23 20:50:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Some one once said "It takes more faith to not believe in God then to believe in God."
Just a little side note.
Submitted by hinkle (user info) at 2004-03-23 17:58:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No. I've no belief in god, the christian one or otherwise. Thoroughly agnostic. And currently, there is more of what I consider proof that points to the lack of a god.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2004-03-23 17:55:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and I'm just saying which seems simpler... I know all the 2nd Law stuff and am not trying to debate anyone with it.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2004-03-23 17:45:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Think of a crowded subway. How do these people not run into each other? Surely they must have had some kind of complex plan of movement, surely someone told them where to go and when with extreme godlike precision.
Or maybe they just know to go from point A to point B without colliding with anyone else.
Which seems simpler to you? "
The first one.... Atoms and particles have always tended to disorder. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. On the other hand... "Some supreme being did it, that we don't understand..." is far more simple.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-23 17:35:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-23 17:25:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
by all means culo;), do as you please. I don't think Clemens' quotes are harmfull, the truth hardly ever is. If Your frenchness thinks that telling the truth is harmfull, i suggest that it is he who has the problem...
I am considering changing my nick to Mr. Fat-Jew, as it about describes me. I am a Jew. I am overweight ( or fat ) but - as a sage once said - I may be fat, but you're french(canadian) and I can diet.
A dead Frenchman has many good qualities, many things to recommend him; many attractions--even innocencies. Why cannot we have more of these?
- Notebook #20, Jan. 1882 - Feb. 1883
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-23 16:05:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by alchemist (user info) at 2004-03-23 10:21:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, for me it was my trip through college that convinced me. As a Bio major I was constantly exposed to layers and layers of order and beauty that make up life. Such a fragile construct requiring such a specific set of conditions to thrive and evolve. From there, physics and its equally beautiful rules and contrustions, also requiring the preicse arrangement of constants to yield a universe fit for life. All this beauty, all this chance;are we lucky or are created? In my heart I have to say created.
__________________
To me, those same layers of order prove the exact opposite.
After all, if the complexities necessary to sustain life weren't present to begin with, there would be no one around to ask the question "Why?"
Think of a crowded subway. How do these people not run into each other? Surely they must have had some kind of complex plan of movement, surely someone told them where to go and when with extreme godlike precision.
Or maybe they just know to go from point A to point B without colliding with anyone else.
Which seems simpler to you?
The Universe works the same way. It's kind of an oversimplification but it serves its purpose.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-03-23 15:46:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Oh yidele, you've just shaken the very foundations of my existence ! *sob*"
Look Mr.Fat-Jew (I know you're fat, I saw your fat hand holding your hippie bag), I don't know why you think these quotes are supposed to be harmful but you certainly sound like you have a lot of issues and stereotypes. You're the one who lashed out at me for a silly little comment "God is french"...remember ? How ironic, coming from someone who pretends to be pursuing knowledge and lectures others about their maturity.
I'll leave it at that before you turn this into another of your ever-lasting argument.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-23 15:28:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
kikes, not kykes. And I don't mind - I am a kike, a yid, a hebe, a hooknose, a red sea pedestrian & proud of it.
Enclosed please find a number of quotes by america's favourite writer, Samul Clemens:
The objects of which Paris folks are fond--literature, art, medicine and adultery.
- The Corpse speech, 1879
France has neither winter nor summer nor morals--apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.
- Mark Twain's Notebook
There is nothing lower than the human race except the French.
- quoted by Carl Dolmetsch, Our Famous Guest
It has always been a marvel to me--that French language; it has always been a puzzle to me. How beautiful that language is! How expressive it seems to be! How full of grace it is! And when it comes from lips like those [of Sarah Bernhardt], how eloquent and how limpid it is! And, oh, I am always deceived--I always think I am going to understand it.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
M. de Lamester's new French dictionary just issued in Paris defines virtue as: "A woman who has only one lover and don't steal."
- quoted in A Bibliography of Mark Twain, Merle Johnson
I like to look at a Russian or a German or an Italian--I even like to look at a Frenchman if I ever have the luck to catch him engaged in anything that ain't delicate.
- Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven
It is human to like to be praised; one can even notice it in the French.
- "What Paul Bourget Thinks of Us"
In certain public indecencies the difference between a dog & a Frenchman is not perceptible.
- Notebook #17, October 1878 - February 1879
It appears that at last census that every man in France over 16 years of age & under 116, has at least 1 wife to whom he has never been married. French novels, talk, drama & newspaper bring daily & overwhelming proofs that the most of the married ladies have paramours. This makes a good deal of what we call crime, and the French call sociability.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
France has usually been governed by prostitutes.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
French are the connecting link between man & the monkey.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
Trivial Americans go to Paris when they die.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
It is the language for lying compliment, for illicit love & for the conveying of exquisitely nice shades of meaning in bright graceful & trivial conversations--the conveying, especially of double-meanings, a decent & indecent one so blended as--nudity thinly veiled, but gauzily & lovelily.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
A Frenchman's home is where another man's wife is.
- Notebook #18, Feb.- Sept. 1879
An isolated & helpless young girl is perfectly safe from insult by a Frenchman, if he is dead.
- Notebook #20, Jan. 1882 - Feb. 1883
A dead Frenchman has many good qualities, many things to recommend him; many attractions--even innocencies. Why cannot we have more of these?
- Notebook #20, Jan. 1882 - Feb. 1883
Submitted by WillZone (user info) at 2004-03-23 14:43:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
"Well, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. " -- Crash Davis
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-23 13:11:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well loki i would log in but apparently there is some one with SiFi as there log in name. so i cant go by sifi unless i dont log in.
And i dont think "sinners" are missirible. i know many are happy. i would try to explain more but i cant. and i can understand what your saying and i knew what you ment by "path". i just cant explain.
Altho i have to say this has been an interesting conversation.
Submitted by I_Have_a_Kristen_Fetish (user info) at 2004-03-23 11:10:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-03-23 11:05:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey yidele, I know that you kykes are chosen and shit but no need to argue over a little joke.
(sorry for the racist remark. I think it was well-deserved since you made one. Now call me anti-semite and cry)
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-23 10:57:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, the French - the duckbilled platypus of nations. God's little joke.
Submitted by alchemist (user info) at 2004-03-23 10:21:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Actually, for me it was my trip through college that convinced me. As a Bio major I was constantly exposed to layers and layers of order and beauty that make up life. Such a fragile construct requiring such a specific set of conditions to thrive and evolve. From there, physics and its equally beautiful rules and contrustions, also requiring the preicse arrangement of constants to yield a universe fit for life. All this beauty, all this chance;are we lucky or are created? In my heart I have to say created.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-03-23 10:11:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
God is french.
Submitted by anonymous at 2004-03-23 10:09:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Its a dyslexic agnostic INSOMNIAC, you jackass.
Submitted by Ymeister19 (user info) at 2004-03-23 09:47:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"No, you are weak. I have faith enough in myself to not believe in a god. Pussy. "
Shrugs, if it makes me a pussy it makes me a pussy. Like i said its something i need when nothing else can explain a fucked up instance in life. Im not pushing that shit on you. Want me to pat you on your fucking back because your so overflowing with pride that you dont beleive in god? I dont give a fuck what you or anyone else on this site beleives. Thats what I beleive and it makes sense. You think your a better person than me because you dont beleive in anyone but yourself.
I take advantage of every possible thing i can to make my life more enjoyable and a beleif in god helps me out with that. I know its a crutch, i know its weakly based, but it doesent matter because it makes my life easier and more enjoyable to live.
You might be able to explain everything bad that happens to you in your head. Well me i cant. When shit gos bad for me it gos horribly bad. Everything goes wrong and seems to just keep going wrong, and having some explanation, although maybe not scientifically explained, helps me walk through it. Along with scientific reasoning and understanding that i am partially to blame god makes shit make sense.
Every person i dont care who they are has some sort of a crutch. For some its alchohal, for some its weed, for some its heroin. For me well its god. I rather take stock in a figment of my imagintaion to help solve my problems than turn to chemical dependancy.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-03-23 09:11:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't know. I've debated this back & forth with myself an haven't arrived at any conclusive answer. There are arguments for and against God's existance, always set within framework which defines their conclusion. none are intuitive enough to feel "right" & none are convincing enough
for me to accept the necessary premise which makes them ( the arguments ) possible. IMO the existance or nonexistance of God isn't at all that important to how we live our lives, provided we are happy. Stupid people are happy. Be stupid.
p.s. Q: What is a dyslexic agnostic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wandering if there is a Dog
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-23 08:51:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sifi - First of all, log in or some ass clown will post something under your screen name.
Secondly, you're not making any sense, at least none that I can decipher. By "path" I meant way, do, philosophy, the life you choose to live. Specifically, in your case you have chosen the path of Christianity. I thought that perhaps you did not understand that because your reply made precious little sense. My original question was, why do you think that people who do not choose to follow the same path that you do are unhappy? You derive happiness from your religion, great, lovely, really I wish you all the best, but don't be so arrogant as to think that because it was the right path for you that it is the right path for everybody or that anyone choosing something different is automatically unhappy or in any way unsatisfied with their life.
I know you hear it all the time at church, that "sinner" are miserable because they do not know God's love. It's a lie. Well, perhaps lie is to strong of a word so let's go with, it's a vast oversimplification of the complexities of what it means to be alive.
Submitted by Bob at 2004-03-23 08:27:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Some people believe in God. Some People don't.
Whether you do or don't believe in God, he believes in you.
Submitted by drstrangedhruv (user info) at 2004-03-23 04:26:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'd + you if you'd only stop writing random words in all caps, and question-mark-exclamation-mark-ing, and saying "people" and FGAHGAHGFADLFHSDILFHSDLIFADSFLIAfLASJFSAIJFASFJASKFASFASL:KDFJADSL:KFJADKFJAKDFAKDSL:F:ASDFJKADL:FJALD:FKAL:DFJDA:FJAD:Fj;AFa That shit gets on my NERVES!?!
Submitted by SPE (user info) at 2004-03-23 02:24:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
slothcock
"gods. In Norse mythology, there was a prophecy of the coming of a single savior character of, metaphorically speaking, Olympian nobility. Jung refers to the idea of a collective unconscious, a knowledge of everything that cannot be taught but is known by everybody and is shared by everybody without their knowing (I apologize for this shoddy definition, it doesn't do the concept justice). "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the word that Carl Jung used was archetypes. Heard about this in my mythology class, pretty much what you said.
Still a hard question.
Submitted by slothcock (user info) at 2004-03-23 02:15:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As I questioned my faith, at the age of fifteen, I wondered what the point of religion was. Evidence has amply shown that a clay bled into the Nile in Ancient Egypt every so often, expelling frogs, lice, and mosquitoes into Egyptian cities, and rendering the river red and undrinkable. I accepted that many of these stories were false, especially the one that said how God stopped the sun from revolving around the earth once so the Israelites could finish battling infidels. A thought struck me though: as I renounce this set of beliefs and mores (as all morals are baseless in nature, framed by those who didn't have to follow them), is this a path toward progressive unfettering, or regressive arrogance. George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Disobedience, the rarest and most courageous of all virtues, is seldom distinguished from neglect, the commonest and laziest of all vices." Here, it can be seen that many dependent people do turn to tradition and fusty ethics as they do not wish to think for themselves. Also, I have read how many people are simply stubborn, arrogant, proud, and just as horribly thoughtless, to the point where they can become worse than those submissive to a body of evangelists.
The arrogance in most atheists lies in their believing they know everything that they must, and are thus enlightened to an extent above those still dependent and observant of traditions. In ancient Egypt, the Hebrews washed their hands before meals, and refused to eat the most often infectious of all meats, pork. Germ theory later proved that the Hebrews were right in doing this. In an ostensibly fatuous and pagan Bhuddist idea that all creatures stem from the same universal energy, there would be little respect or awe were it not for atomic theory, and the now contested string theory.
I read a post saying, "if there was only one god, why doesn't every civilization follow him and his traditions?" Caesar noted that, as he conquered Gaul, that Celtic gods could translate to Hellenistic ones. Alexander the Great noted that, as he conquered Egypt, Egyptian gods translated to Greek gods. In Norse mythology, there was a prophecy of the coming of a single savior character of, metaphorically speaking, Olympian nobility. Jung refers to the idea of a collective unconscious, a knowledge of everything that cannot be taught but is known by everybody and is shared by everybody without their knowing (I apologize for this shoddy definition, it doesn't do the concept justice). A result is a blooming of common ideas in completely isolated communities at similar times, and this is known as synchronicity.
A common thread of atheistic ideals is that there can never be proof of God, so why must one then believe? A while ago, I similarly dismissed that love was impossible. It's either an obligatory feeling of guilt or debt toward another's act of "goodness," or some simplistic and animal expression of biochemistry. It seems to me, that there are things that are beyond comparison and opposites, which are beautiful to the point where they cannot be explained through language by definition, as language guages everything into being this, that, good, or evil, or some pair of opposites. When something becomes explicable, it no longer has any beauty. I believe that beauty exists in the world. If it doesn't, I'd fucking kill myself, with many of your blessings I'm sure.
I still manage to find despair, though, in that people always have the potential to be more, but never fucking are. The majority of people will always be morons, though they don't have to be. See, not all Christians are docile "retards" who will be happy if you tell them to.
Generally, I believe that there are things to be learned from religion and judeo-christian ethics, and you idiots who don't agree are wrong. This isn't because I am a condescending Catholic, but because I am a condescending person. It is impossible to know everything, and thinking that one does know everything is ignorant and disgracefully evil. This does sound too Orwellian for any non-dipshit to hold true, but it is true. I believe there should be fatuous tenets in life, and a moral structure. At the very least, it lends constitution and moral strength to the believer.
Submitted by captain (user info) at 2004-03-23 01:57:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
God like Religion is just a crutch for the weak minded to rest on, your born and then you die.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-23 01:04:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only problem i have Slovin is that people think science and God have no relation. Why should God not use science to make things happem. Like happyness. One of my ideals is that once science advances far more then it is now, science will prove(or come close to) God is real. So that "chemical tests" stuff has no weight with me. And like i said earlyer, I dont expect anyone to understand me, but I try.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-03-23 00:33:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Pimpin_Inc (user info) at 2004-03-22 21:54:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Intresting. Genesis and The big bang theory (neither of which have been proven) are not the only choices of an explaination for the origins of our universe. Ultimatly, when poeple discuss creation they arrive the problem of getting something from nothing. It is impossible in most logic systems.
Submitted by IndianOcean (user info) at 2004-03-22 20:21:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i believe that you are one of the coolest mother bucker on this site..
=)
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-22 18:49:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Your happiness is in no way "special" because of the subject matter of what you believe in. You experience happiness and that should be enough.
Saying one belief makes you happier than another one is like picking between flavors of ice cream. Don't try to take a moral high ground, happiness is happiness (and chemical tests on the brain back this up).
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-22 18:20:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 13:11:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
I have one question for all those people saying God doesnt exsist.
Does your life really suck that much? Or did you just give up on being really and truly happy?"
Oh Jesus Christ, fuck off and die already.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 18:13:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well Slovin, i know what you are saying. But its not the same, i cant explain the happyness i have. And my beliefs dont restrict me. They protect me from what can cause me harm. I am greatfull for my "restrictions". They have kept me in good shape so far.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2004-03-22 17:40:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't know if God does or does not exist and I don't really care either. I see no compelling argument for or against the existence of a omnipotent and ominprescent deity. I care very little for the notion of a Heaven, Hell or Purgatory. I much prefer the idea of oblivion because I believe that all things must end. I do not subscribe to the idea of eternity.
I believe that morality and conscience are inventions of organised religion. I do not believe that any one person is born "evil", but by the same definition, I do not believe a person can be born "good" either. Each newborn child carries with it the potential to be a saviour, as well as a destroyer of worlds.
I would write more but I'm tired and need some rest. Good post though, Murphy.
Submitted by Slovin (user info) at 2004-03-22 17:30:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Fleet_Marshall_Badass (user info) at 2004-03-22 04:56:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
We are God. But not forever. Here's why:
There was a God, but the God can't do anything now - all God did was set up the whole scenario and died during the Big Bang, because all his energy became the universe, so there's a little bit of god in everything. The things that utilise this God-like qualities are the ones that evolve to control everything. So we are the most God-like beings on Earth, and as such, we decide the fate of the world. As such, we fuck it up... badly, because we're not good enough to control the whole world. We've bitten off more than we can chew.
This is how you explain aliens. They exist, and they've evolved to the extent that they can fly billions of light years to arrive at Earth... and then crash. They're the God that will take over and decide the fate of the galaxy - and they'll screw up because they'll bite off more than they can chew; then better aliens will take over more galaxies and fuck them up and so forth, until there's another perfect being that will evolve from the being that fucks up the whole universe, and then he'll create a new universe.
And if any chicks bitch because I called God "he": Shut the fuck up, you owe me a rib.
Badass.
________________
This is the plot of the book "God's Debris" by Scott Adams.
http://tbd.yi.org/docs/Gd/
________________
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 15:04:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Paths have nothing to do with it. and i dont think im better then anyone. (if your talking to me)
if anyone is a God beleaving person then they would know that they are happy. if you dont then you musent "really" believe in God. Just beleave in a "god".
________________
This is precisely the reason that society considers religion useful.
Statistically, you are correct - people who have religion in their life are more likely to be happy at any given time, simply due to the nature of religion. This does not mean it is impossible to be happy without religion, and in fact there is a significant number of happy atheists out there. Perhaps happier than you, because they don't have the restrictions of dogma holding them back.
It comes down to a choice - do you want to be happy believing what may or may not be a lie, or do you want to seek an absolute truth, with happiness as a possibility instead of a certainty?
This is why, for the same reason religious people are statistically happier, nonreligious people are also statistically more intelligent. This also does not mean there aren't dumbasses out there who reject god simply out of spite.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 15:04:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Paths have nothing to do with it. and i dont think im better then anyone. (if your talking to me)
if anyone is a God beleaving person then they would know that they are happy. if you dont then you musent "really" believe in God. Just beleave in a "god".
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-03-22 14:57:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're a biased piece of shit. And you think you're so much better than the "simple minded" Christians.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-22 14:31:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yet you assume that someone else cannot be happy without a belief in God? Just because you found your path does not mean that it is the right path for everyone.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 14:17:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well let me put it this way. I dont need to have artificial stimulents to make me happy, i dont have to do things to feel accepted, i dont have regrets about my actions. im just happy and know that i did what was for the best.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 14:05:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well i think that because im happy and know people who believe the same thing that i do, and we always have something to be happy about. We are always joyful. and its not from drugs or anything els.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 13:17:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, except for the doomed to hell part.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-22 13:16:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry Poly.
** have one question for all those people saying God doesnt exsist.
Does your life really suck that much? Or did you just give up on being really and truly happy?**
I have one question for you, why do you feel that happiness is connected with a belief in God?
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 13:16:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
On another note,loki, alot of what you said i beleave, but 4,000 years is a little small i think. I lean more for about 12,000 to 20,000 years. Alot of the Old Testiment scroles have been dated back for about 5 to 6 thousand years. also since people lived longer back then, I believe that creation was longer then just 4,000 years ago.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 13:11:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have one question for all those people saying God doesnt exsist.
Does your life really suck that much? Or did you just give up on being really and truly happy?
Submitted by Asshat <adsd.at.hotmail.com> at 2004-03-22 13:06:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ymeister19- "People need to have something to beleive in because people are weak."
No, you are weak. I have faith enough in myself to not believe in a god. Pussy.
Submitted by triliad (user info) at 2004-03-22 11:43:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"I don't believe in fate. I believe in odds."
-Seth Davis, Boiler Room
My answer is no. I cannot in good conscience accept the idea that evolution, a scientifically proven process, is a myth. Plus, the guy who came to my university last year and tried to use science to prove God's existence pissed me off.
Dogma was hilarious.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-22 11:02:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Damn, +2 for loki. I had to leave the library after that comment.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-03-22 08:39:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe that the earth was created in seven 24 hour days approximately 4,000 years ago by a deity commonly known as God. I believe that homosexuals, social drinkers, smokers, drug users, Democrats, and people who don't realize that they can't sing and do so anyway, will burn forever in the fiery pits of hell. I believe that everything that Dante and Milton wrote was true. I believe that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and anyone not born in one of the Confederate States is also doomed to spend eternity in hell. I believe that man was made in God's own image and that women are a inferior model necessary for the propagation of the species and as Freud said, only good for sex and knitting. I believe that Jews killed Jesus and for that they are also condemned to hell, but I support Israel in all cases because even though they are condemned to hell they are still God's Chosen People.
One more thing, If the King James Bible was good enough for Saint Peter then it's good enough for me.
AND the phrase, "submitting graciously" gives me an odd tingling sensation that I can't quite explain, but I find it rather intriguing.
Submitted by intellismartness (user info) at 2004-03-22 07:35:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
For one, I completely agree with DarthAwesome's reply
Secondly, I'm still pushing the time-travel theory.
Submitted by Poo (user info) at 2004-03-22 06:43:40 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
hes a uncaring kinda guy , God
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2004-03-22 06:21:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As a creator, a god itself is irrelevant.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2004-03-22 06:05:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"you've either got faith or you got unbelief, and there ain't noooooooooo neutral ground"
Submitted by Supremebeing (user info) at 2004-03-22 05:14:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHA Badass!
That had to be the BEST alternative explanation of God that I have ever read! THAT WAS GREAT!!
Awesome Work Man!
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-22 05:01:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"And if any chicks bitch because I called God "he": Shut the fuck up, you owe me a rib.
Badass."
Heh, yes, very much so.
Submitted by Fleet_Marshall_Badass (user info) at 2004-03-22 04:56:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
We are God. But not forever. Here's why:
There was a God, but the God can't do anything now - all God did was set up the whole scenario and died during the Big Bang, because all his energy became the universe, so there's a little bit of god in everything. The things that utilise this God-like qualities are the ones that evolve to control everything. So we are the most God-like beings on Earth, and as such, we decide the fate of the world. As such, we fuck it up... badly, because we're not good enough to control the whole world. We've bitten off more than we can chew.
This is how you explain aliens. They exist, and they've evolved to the extent that they can fly billions of light years to arrive at Earth... and then crash. They're the God that will take over and decide the fate of the galaxy - and they'll screw up because they'll bite off more than they can chew; then better aliens will take over more galaxies and fuck them up and so forth, until there's another perfect being that will evolve from the being that fucks up the whole universe, and then he'll create a new universe.
And if any chicks bitch because I called God "he": Shut the fuck up, you owe me a rib.
Badass.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-22 04:30:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html"
Heh, that owned. Ofcourse, domenad knows for SURE because he has <insert infallible emotional argument here> and <insert argument that does not extend beyond his own perception>.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-03-22 03:59:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Death_Metal_Dude, a question. Having Zero doubt would mean that you have proof of God's non-existence. HOw did you come by such information, especially since, logically, there is no way to prove a negative? I could prove God exists by showing you, if I could, but you could not prove he does not by not showing me (get it?). Unless of course you found a God-shaped hole somewhere and a sign that said "I quit.""
Well, your second sentence is completely untrue. You said that there is no question in your mind that there is a god. I said there is no question in my mind that there is no god. What's wrong with what I'm saying as compared to what you're saying? Having zero doubt doesn't mean I have proof. Just like you having zero doubt doesn't mean you have proof.
As for your third sentence, you should probably brush up on the ol' logic there.
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html
The rest of your reply is no longer relevant as it was based on the aforementioned rebutted sentences.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2004-03-22 02:41:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck you, DraconianKing.
Submitted by SiFi at 2004-03-22 02:20:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Submitted by DraconianKing (user info) at 2004-03-21 23:21:38 (#)
Ranking: -2
Minus 2 bitch! I hope God casts you into the pits of Hell. I'm saved and I'm going to heaven because I follow the Bible and Jesus' teachings as best I can. Go lick a dog's anus, you monkey fucking ass-slut.
That is the worst lie ive ever heard. Really funny.
Submitted by Ymeister19 (user info) at 2004-03-22 00:21:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The "not you" was an accident, ignore that part of that sentence please
Submitted by Ymeister19 (user info) at 2004-03-22 00:17:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I beleive in god. But my reason is completely personal and faith based in no way. I beleive in god for the same reason as millions of others. I beleive because i NEED something to beleive in. When theres no one else to turn to or no other explanation for why shit sucks I can turn to my "beleif" in a supreme being and have an explanation. Its a crutch. I know its a crutch. I understand it can be viewed as a weakness, but thats how it is. People need to have something to beleive in because people are weak. For me it keeps me going, and gives me something to lean on through hard times. I think that this is essentially what everyone truly knows in their heart. God is something that you fabricate to make life easier when it seems impossible. Despite the fact that there is no evidence for or against it the beleif is the essence of GOD. Its not about if he/she/it is really there or not, but about people needing a way to understand that which they cannot understand.
Its gotten to the point that people pass "religion" down to their children. I know for a fact I will pass "GOD" down to my children but never "religion".I wont do it because i think "God" will teach them right or wrong, in fact I dont even beleive in the bible and the supposed rules and guidelines it lays down. I will do it because my children, like me, will need something to use as a crutch and well "God" is the best crutch availiable.
As far as where to learn morals and ethics from. These things are basic in ones own mind. Its not "god" or "religions"place to teach people what is right or what is wrong. It is our job as people to teach one another basic human decency.
The beleif in god makes it real. Nothing else. Not the bible, not you, not a preacher or a rabi. God is made specificaly by you and for you,to cater to you and therefore will allways be there to help you. As for the after life and judgment when your dead I have no idea. But as long as I breathe I know God will be there to help me out.
Submitted by SoHipItHurts (user info) at 2004-03-21 23:22:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No I don't. God died a virgin. His son died a viring. He also doesn't beleive in premarital sex. My suggestion? www.normalbobsmith.com
Play Jesus Dress Up. By far one of the best games ever made.
Submitted by DraconianKing (user info) at 2004-03-21 23:21:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Minus 2 bitch! I hope God casts you into the pits of Hell. I'm saved and I'm going to heaven because I follow the Bible and Jesus' teachings as best I can. Go lick a dog's anus, you monkey fucking ass-slut.
Submitted by AnnabelLee (user info) at 2004-03-21 22:11:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-03-21 22:07:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, a question. Having Zero doubt would mean that you have proof of God's non-existence. HOw did you come by such information, especially since, logically, there is no way to prove a negative? I could prove God exists by showing you, if I could, but you could not prove he does not by not showing me (get it?). Unless of course you found a God-shaped hole somewhere and a sign that said "I quit." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- this reminds me of that Kids in the Hall episode where god dies and he has a little jacket.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-03-21 22:07:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Death_Metal_Dude, a question. Having Zero doubt would mean that you have proof of God's non-existence. HOw did you come by such information, especially since, logically, there is no way to prove a negative? I could prove God exists by showing you, if I could, but you could not prove he does not by not showing me (get it?). Unless of course you found a God-shaped hole somewhere and a sign that said "I quit."
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2004-03-21 21:35:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"we are(humans) way, way too complicated to have just happened."
Argument from incredulity. Fallacious.
There is absolutely 0 (zero) doubt in my mind that there is no god, no creator. I'm as sure as you are domenad.
Submitted by AnnabelLee (user info) at 2004-03-21 21:28:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Interesting. Whenever discussing religion, my first comment is ALWAYS, "well, I don't believe in a *christian* god, but..."
Submitted by Spacecowboy468 (user info) at 2004-03-21 19:59:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No I don't believe in god. I feel all we have in life is the time from birth to death. You can either have a successful life or a failed life. The goal I have in life is to make my mark in time. A big mark a little mark I don't really care I just hope after my death people will remeber my name. My name will be my, ever lasting spirit.
Submitted by Captain Foamy at 2004-03-21 18:57:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Jesus was pissy all the time because he couldn't make the varsity baseball team at his high school. What was the couch supposed to do though the kid couldn't catch! He had minimal base running ability and he couldn't hit the curve! I don't care who you are this team plays to win! http://www.geocities.com/captain_foamy
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-21 17:24:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"have said this before, many times.
we are(humans) way, way too complicated to have just happened."
That complicatedness is actually the consequence of very simple and logical laws of nature. And time. It doesn't necessitate (spelling?) the existence of a God.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2004-03-21 17:06:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pacifist248 (user info) at 2004-03-21 15:48:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
"i have said this before, many times.
we are(humans) way, way too complicated to have just happened."
This logic just doesn't work. If someone created us they were 'complicated', too. So something made them...but something 'complicated' had to have made them...and on and on...something complicated somewhere just had to have happened.
we are seeing through a glass darkly.
Submitted by God <God.at.heaven.com> at 2004-03-21 16:55:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is God. And no, I don't exist.
Submitted by Pacifist248 (user info) at 2004-03-21 15:48:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"i have said this before, many times.
we are(humans) way, way too complicated to have just happened."
This logic just doesn't work. If someone created us they were 'complicated', too. So something made them...but something 'complicated' had to have made them...and on and on...something complicated somewhere just had to have happened.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2004-03-21 15:30:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I have seen a demon with my own eyes.
I have also seen my guardian angel.
Evil and Good are in constant struggle for
power.
This makes me believe that God exists
as not a solitary being but as a collective
of Good and Evil. Didn't explain this well,
but a wasp stung me in the finger so I'm not
in the mood to type very much.
Submitted by Supremebeing (user info) at 2004-03-21 15:02:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I am Catholic and I do believe in God. I don't go to church every Sunday like some but I feel that you can believe and practice your religion anywhere that you want to.
However being Catholic means that I don't recognize any other religion as being legitimate. I have people from time to time come to the door that are Jehovah Witnesses or Mormon and I have to tell them that I don't think that their religion is appropriate so I can not talk about God with them.
Now the strange thing with me is that I was raised Baptist by my parents. My mother was raised Baptist and my Father was raised Mormon. So I have had a bit of exposer to different religions. My father's side of the family however has a few that have been Catholic most of their lives so that is how I was exposed to that.
After experiencing all 3 I found that being Catholic made the most sense to me and that is where I feel the most comfortable and I feel that I am worshiping God in the most appropriate way.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2004-03-21 14:49:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i have said this before, many times.
we are(humans) way, way too complicated to have just happened.
there is a god. he or she created us(and very well may have fucked up).
we are accountable for our actions.
fundamentalist christians are judgemental, ignorant lemmings.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-03-21 14:27:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I believe in a creator. Things don't just happen without having had someone or something create them. If everything since the Big Bang is just molecules working themselves down the path of least resistance, there was still something that had to cause the Big Bang.
Do I think that there is a God who controls or even cares about my day to day life? No. Do I think that there are rules I do not understand that govern my day to day life? Yes. Do I think those rules are understood by any being - god, human, or plant ? No.
In other words, if you do believe in God, I think you have to accept the fact that it is not perfect and probably does not care in the least bit about you or your stupid causes. In the Bible, man creates God in his own vision. Human beings are so arrogant that they have to believe that they are the culmination of all that is meaningful in this universe. We are the top of the food chain. We are the last step of evolution. We are the creatures that were created in God's image. We were the first beings on Earth and everything else was put here for our use.
The truth of the matter is that if there is a God, he probably didn't have a clue what he was doing. Picture a six year old kid who drops a Hershey bar in a mud puddle and creates an entire ecosystem for ants to thrive and flourish for a few days. If you asked the ants, I'm sure they would say that the chocolate was a gift from their benevolant omnipotent ant god. Ask the kid, and he's going to be upset that he lost his candy bar.
Submitted by jonukah (user info) at 2004-03-21 14:21:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I believe in Ash
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2004-03-21 11:48:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No, I try to base most of my belief structure on logic and science, religion and faith are not part of that particular mental empire. There are also a few paradoxes involved with accepting an all-knowing and all-powerful being.
And what the hell is squattail trying to prove on this thread?
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-03-21 11:46:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Heyzeus - I wish I could speak with you personally, maybe sit down over coffee and discuss this. I know how difficult it is to look out over the horrible things that happen in this world and think there is not a God. Then you look at the corruption in Christian churches and the murderous agenda of Islam, and wonder how any God could allow anything like that to operate in His name. The best I can tell you in this medium is that God's truest church is internal - his truth and love speaks only to the heart of the individual, not the group. When you search within yourself for the face of God, you will find it.
Submitted by Mr_Insanity (user info) at 2004-03-21 11:31:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Movies always have the best lines to explain opinions:
---
"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of him." - Keaton, according to Roger Kint (Spacey), Usual Suspects
---
In other words, I don't believe in a 'higher being', but I'm worried what it could do. But how can I be worried about something that I don't believe exists? Suppose a better way of putting it is I am anxious about something which I, or the rest of world doesn't fully understand or have a 'perfect' answer for. A fear of the unknown.
At the end of day, no one can ever prove a 'God' does not exist, however much scientific or logical theory is put forward. But then again no one could provide 100% proof to confirm that one does exist. It's a catch 22.
Nevertheless, one thing that is certain in that if people believe in something so much then in their mind it will exist, like a memory from the past, and it's something which will never be lost if it is taught in the first place.
You either believe or not, each to their own way.
+2 for a thought inspiring post.
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2004-03-21 11:17:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2