Argonath RPG - A World of its own
Argonath RPG Community => Speakerbox => World and local news => Topic started by: Clone on June 03, 2012, 05:55:40 pm
-
I've had permission from Gandalf to make a topic on this, so no whining for advertising.
Well me and a friend have decided to open a facebook page called the Teenage Atheist Union, as the title may imply, it's a page for young non-believers to discuss religious or other matters, or just to chill out. It is not a page for religious believers to attempt to convert others, nor is it a page for prejudicing religions. The purpose of the page is for young atheists to talk, maybe have a laugh and discuss certain topics that might have been in the news, or maybe a few pictures. This does not mean religious believers can't join, they are welcome to, if they are able to discuss matters in a civilized manner.
Obviously we're going to need a kick-start with this page to get it running, I've got a few other similar pages to help with it but I think the Argonath community could also help a lot. Please if you have the time, go hit like on our page, maybe share with your friends too.
https://www.facebook.com/TeenageAtheistUnion (https://www.facebook.com/TeenageAtheistUnion?ref=tn_tnmn)
Thanks in advance if you like the page.
-
Well, this is interesting. :neutral:
-
Ok, this is becoming stupid. In 50 years, 50% of da world will be atheistic. I seriously DO NOT support this.
-
Ok, this is becoming stupid. In 50 years, 50% of da world will be atheistic. I seriously DO NOT support this.
This is not a debate topic.
-
Ok, this is becoming stupid. In 50 years, 50% of da world will be atheistic. I seriously DO NOT support this.
Already more than 50% is not following your religion. What is so problematic about them being atheist ?
If there is an afterlife, there are two options:
1. Only people from the correct religion are going to heaven. Apart from this being rather spiteful, it means that you are not sure if you religion is the right one and you may find you are still out.
2. Everyone who has done more good as bad is going to heaven. This gives an atheist the same chance as a religious person.
-
So you essentially post pictures that bash religion
-
Was going to take part untill I clicked the link and found out you pretty much just post pictures making fun of every other belief... Can't believe Gandalf allowed you to post this shit.
-
you pretty much just post pictures making fun of every other belief.
You mean pictures that point out flaws in religious systems which can be ludicrous. And don't be so short-minded as to imply all we do is prejudice religious, because it is not.
-
2. Everyone who has done more good as bad is going to heaven. This gives an atheist the same chance as a religious person.
Actually the Bible states that you must believe in God and the Holy Kingdom in order to be accepted.
-
Actually the Bible states that you must believe in God and the Holy Kingdom in order to be accepted.
The bible says a lot of things.
-
I couldn't help noticing this picture on the facebook page.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c9.0.403.403/p403x403/539923_143397999128352_341079705_n.jpg)
Its very true though..
Besides if there was a god, and he rejects people from heaven for not following religion, send me to hell because I don't wan't to be with that asshole.
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
Anyway, pope (catholich leader) is just a dooshbag... While people starve all over the world he drives in his popemobile ( a big luxury car with a glass dome so everyone can see him...), lives in a great place in vatikan, he is rich. Nice job a?
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment.
I thought Christians believe in heaven and hell, not reincarnation?
-
The bible says a lot of things.
Yes, of course it does.
It explains the teaching of Christianity.
Its very true though..
>implying gold can save starving children all over the world.
The western world would rather make big money out of gold and invest it in their own countries.
-
I thought Christians believe in heaven and hell, not reincarnation?
Whell i got my own theory that some of the reallly low ranked bad guys get a second chance to fix theyre bad deeds, or they just suffer for it, to get cleaned for heaven.
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment.
That doesn't make sense.
-
Got to love how Africa is always used as an example for AIDS, Racism, Starving children, Murder.
-
Can't tell if serious. Is atheism still a cool thing for teenagers? 2012 man, c'mon.
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
LOL GOTTA LOVE SERBIA
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
I fucking lol'ed.
-
Funny enough that the biblic facts are prooven to be true long time ago.. As well as scientists prooved that human indeed does have a soul.
-
Can't tell if serious. Is atheism still a cool thing for teenagers? 2012 man, c'mon.
Oh yes you're right, we're not atheists because we don't have a belief in any religion and pay attention to facts instead of 2000 year old books, we're obviously atheists because it's cool these days.
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Wtf is wrong with you.
>implying gold can save starving children all over the world.
The western world would rather make big money out of gold and invest it in their own countries.
Whats gold worth? Oh yeah! Money!
Money can help charitys and such.
-
Whats gold worth? Oh yeah! Money!
Money can help charitys and such.
The western world would rather make big money out of gold and invest it in their own countries.
-
They seem to be bashing agnostics even more :bird:
Agnostics, unlike zealous religious people and atheists, do not claim that theories without any indisputable evidence are fact.
-
Actually the Bible states that you must believe in God and the Holy Kingdom in order to be accepted.
But what if the Bible is wrong and the Quoran is right ? Then those believing in the Bible still end up in Hell.
-
Funny enough that the biblic facts are prooven to be true long time ago.. As well as scientists prooved that human indeed does have a soul.
Which facts ?
-
Which facts ?
Probably by judging gingers behaviours (preferrably Coppercab from Youtube), from which they found out they act differently than non-gingers, and as everyone knows they don't have a soul, the others must have one.
-
Funny enough that the biblic facts are prooven to be true long time ago.. As well as scientists prooved that human indeed does have a soul.
Someone must of forgotten to tell the world of this amazing discovery, please enlighten us.
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
Really ? Truth be told, if god is such a retard he allows anyone who fucking believes in him to go to heaven, and sends someone to an eternity of suffering because he doesn't believe, despite all the good he may have done, fuck it, i'm signing up for the eternity of suffering.
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals, and God gave them this as punishment. That is how my Religion teacher, and priest in chruch explained it.
Yeah man, babies in Africa these days going around stabbing people to death.
Anyway, pope (catholich leader) is just a dooshbag... While people starve all over the world he drives in his popemobile ( a big luxury car with a glass dome so everyone can see him...), lives in a great place in vatikan, he is rich. Nice job a?
I find it hilariously ironic that you feel the suffering occuring in Africa is justifiable punishment from God, yet you go on to show sympathy for those starving around the world.
Funny enough that the biblic facts are prooven to be true long time ago.. As well as scientists prooved that human indeed does have a soul.
Nope.
-
Atheism isn't a group related belief. It's not a belief at all, actually. It's not believing in a deity. There is no such things as ''the atheists'' or the united atheist alliance. Atheism is not against any deity, it's just a choice people make to NOT believe in one. Making atheist groups is just missing the point.
-
Atheism isn't a group related belief. It's not a belief at all, actually. It's not believing in a deity. There is no such things as ''the atheists'' or the united atheist alliance. Atheism is not against any deity, it's just a choice people make to NOT believe in one. Making atheist groups is just missing the point.
I'd go with this.
Atheism is the default. Anything else is mere indoctrination after the fact.
-
Atheism isn't a group related belief. It's not a belief at all, actually. It's not believing in a deity. There is no such things as ''the atheists'' or the united atheist alliance. Atheism is not against any deity, it's just a choice people make to NOT believe in one. Making atheist groups is just missing the point.
When atheists start to try convincing believers, they often act very similar.
Als atheists hold no more proof than those who believe.
-
I'll join, but only because 9GAG is getting a bit old nowadays. Also I'll be there to correct you on little things (like the fact that Benedict's ferula isn't gold).
-
Atheism isn't a group related belief. It's not a belief at all, actually. It's not believing in a deity. There is no such things as ''the atheists'' or the united atheist alliance. Atheism is not against any deity, it's just a choice people make to NOT believe in one. Making atheist groups is just missing the point.
So religions can make churches and events, but atheists can't even make a facebook page? You're missing the point.
I'll join, but only because 9GAG is getting a bit old nowadays. Also I'll be there to correct you on little things (like the fact that Benedict's ferula isn't gold).
k
-
When atheists start to try convincing believers, they often act very similar.
Als atheists hold no more proof than those who believe.
Atheism shouldn't be about convincing believers not to believe, it should be about not believing in common.
So religions can make churches and events, but atheists can't even make a facebook page? You're missing the point.
I'm not saying it wrong to make a facebook page. I'm saying it's missing the point to define atheists as a social group, as it isn't a group of people who share the same thoughts, it's just something... That isn't. It's like ''hey John, I don't believe in a deity!'' ''wow hank, I don't either, let's not believe in a deity together!'' It's obvious that you can make a facebook page, make jokes about religions and saints, nothing wrong with that, freedom of speech, be my guest. Just try to remember what you represent as an atheist... Absolutely nothing.
-
You know being atheist seems like being a carnivore, both really don't need a support group.
-
You know being atheist seems like being a carnivore, both really don't need a support group.
You'd be surprised how some atheists are treated around the world.
-
God is not bad. Kids in africa were probeably criminals
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
-
Als atheists hold no more proof than those who believe.
Of the existence or non-existence of a deity, no. However, as I mentioned before the "default" behaviour is atheism, in that a baby is born with no religious belief.
In addition, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, the same way as in law. Russell's teapot is again an excellent analogy.
-
"HURR HURR U BELIEV IN MAN WIT BEARD IN SKY XDDDDDD LOL FAIRY TALES XOXOXOXOXOXO" <- Atheists.
Religion is a vital part of our society as much of our today's moral norms stem from our various religions. Countries with a christian background have a lot in common with each other, as have countries with a Muslim background. You might not be religious, but you still conform with the ideals of multiple religions all across the world (most of those ideals of course being "don't be a dick" or anything of the like, but celebrating Christmas and not working on a Sunday come from Christianity).
Belonging to the same religion gives people a sense of unity, a really good example being the Crusades, where many people from different nationalities joined as one to fight a common enemy, the Muslims in Asia and the pagans in the Baltics. Had there been no religion keeping the people together, Europe would've definitely entered a period of devastating wars, eventually allowing the Muslims to simply march in and take over with little to no resistance. Just look at what happened in the Thirty Years' War.
Since the majority of the players here are from European countries, we all celebrate the same holidays, most if not all of which stem from Christianity, such as Easter or Christmas.
Before Christianity was introduced in Rome, it was normal to be "lewd" and "immoral", as that was the norm back then. They had a god for everything, from virility to abstinence. A lot of Romans were extremely superstitious and it affected a lot of what they did, including giving them an Empire.
Religion isn't about the bloody belief in a divine entity who created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, it's about guiding people along their path, but the minority who takes it literally is sadly the loudest, and as such make every single religious person look bad. Stories and set scenarios help people visualize things better and it helps them to "get the point" better than an atheist crying "US COMON SENZE!!"
a baby is born with no religious belief.
Nor is it born with an ability to speak or think coherent thoughts. Every human being is retarded by default according to your logic.
-
Of the existence or non-existence of a deity, no. However, as I mentioned before the "default" behaviour is atheism, in that a baby is born with no religious belief.
In addition, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, the same way as in law. Russell's teapot is again an excellent analogy.
Which is why I chose Agnosticism.
-
"HURR HURR U BELIEV IN MAN WIT BEARD IN SKY XDDDDDD LOL FAIRY TALES XOXOXOXOXOXO" <- Atheists.
Religion is a vital part of our society as much of our today's moral norms stem from our various religions. Countries with a christian background have a lot in common with each other, as have countries with a Muslim background. You might not be religious, but you still conform with the ideals of multiple religions all across the world (most of those ideals of course being "don't be a dick" or anything of the like, but celebrating Christmas and not working on a Sunday come from Christianity).
Belonging to the same religion gives people a sense of unity, a really good example being the Crusades, where many people from different nationalities joined as one to fight a common enemy, the Muslims in Asia and the pagans in the Baltics. Had there been no religion keeping the people together, Europe would've definitely entered a period of devastating wars, eventually allowing the Muslims to simply march in and take over with little to no resistance. Just look at what happened in the Thirty Years' War.
Since the majority of the players here are from European countries, we all celebrate the same holidays, most if not all of which stem from Christianity, such as Easter or Christmas.
Before Christianity was introduced in Rome, it was normal to be "lewd" and "immoral", as that was the norm back then. They had a god for everything, from virility to abstinence. A lot of Romans were extremely superstitious and it affected a lot of what they did, including giving them an Empire.
Religion isn't about the bloody belief in a divine entity who created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh, it's about guiding people along their path, but the minority who takes it literally is sadly the loudest, and as such make every single religious person look bad. Stories and set scenarios help people visualize things better and it helps them to "get the point" better than an atheist crying "US COMON SENZE!!"
Nor is it born with an ability to speak or think coherent thoughts. Every human being is retarded by default according to your logic.
Democracy came from the Romans and Greeks before Christianity.
Our law system is a mix of the codex Hammurabi and Roman law, nothing to do with modern religion.
Superstition is as prevalent in Christianity and Islam as it was in Roman religion, and conduct is not much better either.
-
I'll join, but only because 9GAG is getting a bit old nowadays. Also I'll be there to correct you on little things (like the fact that Benedict's ferula isn't gold).
Sauronism!
-
Which is why I chose Agnosticism.
But are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?
-
What does not believing in a god and denying our current modern civilisation have in common? Sure all life around us is baed on Christianity, The Islam, Hebrewism but that doesn't mean you HAVE to pick one of them. Atheists just pick none.
Post Merge: June 10, 2012, 07:54:37 am
Nor is it born with an ability to speak or think coherent thoughts. Every human being is retarded by default according to your logic.
That's because babies are empty. They are empty because they are to be culturally, socially and psychologically influenced by their surroundings. If their surrounding is to be a pack of wolves, treating the child as one of their own, it is influenced to behave like a wolf. If a baby is born in an Islamic home, with all sides of the family believing in the same deity, that child will grow up islamic.
Now if a child was to be born in a dark room, with no influence at all. Light, feeding, contact, etc. It would be an atheist. Not because it chooses to reject the surrounding around him, but simply doesn't believe in a deity. So yes, every child that is born, is retarded.
-
That's because babies are empty. They are empty because they are to be culturally, socially and psychologically influenced by their surroundings. If their surrounding is to be a pack of wolves, treating the child as one of their own, it is influenced to behave like a wolf. If a baby is born in an Islamic home, with all sides of the family believing in the same deity, that child will grow up islamic.
Now if a child was to be born in a dark room, with no influence at all. Light, feeding, contact, etc. It would be an atheist. Not because it chooses to reject the surrounding around him, but simply doesn't believe in a deity. So yes, every child that is born, is retarded.
So, simplified, a child is like a clay. Sorrounding shapes it. Simple enough huh?
-
But are you an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?
I don't believe in the concept of a deity as religions put it (i.e: A great wise father figure in the sky with angels standing around his throne), but I believe in some sort of mechanism that brought the universe to order as it is today, as many things happen to be conveniently arranged.
What does that make me?
-
Funny how most of the people in this topic pray for God when they're in serious crisis or about to face death etc.. :roll:
-
religion has outlived its usefulness
-
What does not believing in a god and denying our current modern civilisation have in common? Sure all life around us is baed on Christianity, The Islam, Hebrewism but that doesn't mean you HAVE to pick one of them. Atheists just pick none.
Post Merge: June 10, 2012, 07:54:37 am
That's because babies are empty. They are empty because they are to be culturally, socially and psychologically influenced by their surroundings. If their surrounding is to be a pack of wolves, treating the child as one of their own, it is influenced to behave like a wolf. If a baby is born in an Islamic home, with all sides of the family believing in the same deity, that child will grow up islamic.
Now if a child was to be born in a dark room, with no influence at all. Light, feeding, contact, etc. It would be an atheist. Not because it chooses to reject the surrounding around him, but simply doesn't believe in a deity. So yes, every child that is born, is retarded.
If that is true then how did religion come in to existence ? After all the first people had no examples and no influence of religion. By your idea religion should never have existed.
-
Now if a child was to be born in a dark room, with no influence at all.
How?
... no influence at all. Light, feeding, contact, etc. It would be an atheist.
It would be dead. :skull:
-
I don't believe in the concept of a deity as religions put it (i.e: A great wise father figure in the sky with angels standing around his throne), but I believe in some sort of mechanism that brought the universe to order as it is today, as many things happen to be conveniently arranged.
What does that make me?
Still a Deist.
Post Merge: June 10, 2012, 12:18:26 pm
It would be dead. :skull:
And would burn in hell for not believing in God!
-
And would burn in hell for not believing in God!
Actually, according to some religions, kids go straight to heaven after death. :rules:
-
Actually, according to some religions, kids go straight to heaven after death. :rules:
Are those religions famous for child abuse ? :D
-
Limbo, limbo, limbo; how low can you go?
-
Limbo, limbo, limbo; how low can you go?
Below is hell above is heaven....
-
Below is hell above is heaven....
Depending on your view point, and how much smoke and mirrors are employed... :roll:
-
If that is true then how did religion come in to existence ? After all the first people had no examples and no influence of religion. By your idea religion should never have existed.
If let's say a cavemen looked at the sun, noticed it brought them warmth and light. He might make assumptions and theories on why the sun is there, created from his own mind. That is something only humans can do, have influence on their surroundings.
-
If let's say a cavemen looked at the sun, noticed it brought them warmth and light. He might make assumptions and theories on why the sun is there, created from his own mind. That is something only humans can do, have influence on their surroundings.
Psychologists estimate that the theory of God(and other theories such as that of ghosts, end of the world e.t.c) emerge from a part of your brain, and the action is called arguement from ignorance(No its not a offensive name, idiots really need to change it though). It states that when no logical explaination is available, you go for the closest one to it. In other words everyone alive is retarded.
-
That's because babies are empty. They are empty because they are to be culturally, socially and psychologically influenced by their surroundings. If their surrounding is to be a pack of wolves, treating the child as one of their own, it is influenced to behave like a wolf. If a baby is born in an Islamic home, with all sides of the family believing in the same deity, that child will grow up islamic.
Now if a child was to be born in a dark room, with no influence at all. Light, feeding, contact, etc. It would be an atheist. Not because it chooses to reject the surrounding around him, but simply doesn't believe in a deity. So yes, every child that is born, is retarded.
If a child was to be born in a dark room with no contact whatsoever, it would die of hunger, so such a scenario is impossible. Saying that "oh but he gets fed every 6 hours" is simply a sadistic imagination and you should go see a psychiatrist.
Every child is most influenced by their parents when growing up, and most influenced by the media/their friends when adolescent, but in the end chooses to make their own decision, be it conforming with their nation's religious beliefs or choosing to believe something entirely different. You can't say that all children born in the same conditions are exactly the same, there have always been people who reject their cultural norms and instead choose to pursue something different, like whiteys converting to Islam or moving to Arabic countries.
Besides, if the child in the dark room was capable of thought, it would certainly not be an atheist as it would believe that the person feeding them was some sort of a divine being keeping it alive.
A great wise father figure in the sky with angels standing around his throne
Who the f*ck actually genuinely believes it except for some niche zealot groups?
-
This is not a debate topic.
-
Oliver, if a child is born in a dark room, with no contact at all, does it believe in a god? No, it doesn't, that's what makes it an atheist.
-
Oliver, if a child is born in a dark room, with no contact at all, does it believe in a god? No, it doesn't, that's what makes it an atheist.
Well, being an atheist is the belief that god does not exist. A child born in a dark room does not accept or deny the existence of a god because they are unable to comprehend either option.
-
Toxic, if you don't want people posting their opinions, then you shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.
-
Well, being an atheist is the belief that god does not exist.
No.
Atheism is the lack of belief that god does exist.
There is a massive difference.
-
Toxic, if you don't want people posting their opinions, then you shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.
Okay then, I'll give my opinions too.
Anyone who believes in any form of deity has been brainwashed by their society, whether it be parents or school, they've been told that if they don't believe in this religion, they will be sent to hell after they die, essentially scaring belief into them. The afterlife I believe to be another factor in this, people are afraid of, and can't deal with the fact that when you die, you will rot in the ground and be forgotten in 100 years. People don't like the feeling of being worthless and meaningless, although they know it to be true. This makes them want to believe in a God, to take their chances at believing that when they die, they go to heaven. They ignore blatantly obvious contradictions in their holy book because they simply will not let all their apparent belief mean nothing. Check this (http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png) for examples of this, every red arch is a contradiction. Another thing I find to be massively absurd is the fact that many theists say they believe in a deity because there's no other possible reason for us coming into existence. If you don't believe in the evolution theory, that's fine, but to instead turn to what a 2000 year old book tells you is just mad. Something not yet explained by science = God? No.
I could write much, much more, but I have to go to bed now. To summarize my opinion of religion, it's for the short-minded who are so brainwashed that they refuse to accept what's outside their little religious bubble.
-
Who the f*ck actually genuinely believes it except for some niche zealot groups?
Just about everyone who thinks the Bible is pure and indisputable fact. :devroll:
No.
Atheism is the lack of belief that god does exist.
There is a massive difference.
Exactly.
Believing that God does not exist is not Atheism, as you still believe in a deity, except that your belief in the deity centers on its absence. Atheism is the absence of any belief in a deity, including the aforementioned.
-
Well, being an atheist is the belief that god does not exist. A child born in a dark room does not accept or deny the existence of a god because they are unable to comprehend either option.
For the last time, Atheism is not a BELIEF. It is a NOT belief. Atheism isn't about not believing, it's NOT BELIEVING. Jeez.Atheism is the absence of any belief in a deity, including the aforementioned.
Thank you!
-
What most people consider as atheism is actually antitheism.
-
Oliver, if a child is born in a dark room, with no contact at all, does it believe in a god? No, it doesn't, that's what makes it an atheist.
Actually it is very likely that like the caveman the child will develop explanation for the unknown by attributing it to the supernatural.
-
Before continuing the discussion one has to define what religion is, and what it does.
Religion is the belief in one or more supernatural beings who influence our lives by their presence and are responsible for our presence. A second element of religion which is universally present is hope.
Through these elements religion has been used to control people. By providing the poor people with hope of reward after death, they are less likely to revolt against society in life. Also providing strict rules for living right brings a discipline and level of control in a society.
Those who base their atheism on denouncing a single religion have not done their research very well. They may find inconsistencies in control guidelines written many ages ago, but there is only a small part of religion that will state every word of their history and guideines is correct, even those who claim it to be so.
There are many other religions who do not claim the impossible, and who do not believe in old men sitting on clouds.
Before renouncing religion based on a single one you got to know, it would be wise to explore other variants.
Atheism is a product of science, not a product of early mankind. You have to have a level of knowledge to find it unlikely that a supernatural power exists. There for the idea that people without contact to religion would be atheist is valid only if they would have our knowledge and experience. Without it, they would seek to find explanations for things they can not understand or control and attribute it to supernatural powers, naming these the equivalent of what we know as God.
To find evidence, just look at any ancient mythology, or at present tribes who have limited contact with the outside world. Almost all of them have religion. The argument that religion only exists by influence of society is there for invalid, and is correct only for the religion prevalent in that society.
The problem of atheism is not that is removes the element of a supernatural power. The problem is that it removes hope of an afterlife. This means that it drives materialism and removes caring for others and the society as a whole.
This is why in a society driven by atheism, these elements have to be provided in other ways. Most atheists there for show religious behaviour in their support of a brand or person.
-
You disgust me..
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx)
http://usahitman.com/photo-soul/ (http://usahitman.com/photo-soul/)
-
You disgust me..
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/01/02/soul.aspx)
http://usahitman.com/photo-soul/ (http://usahitman.com/photo-soul/)
Neither articles provide scientific proof that has been accepted without doubt. There are many unknown factors in our brains that could actually contribute to this, and the weighing of a soul has been impossilbe to be reproduced.
Even if true, the existence of a soul does not prove the existence of any religious God to be true, especially as the NDE seems to be culturally bound.
-
For the last time, Atheism is not a BELIEF. It is a NOT belief. Atheism isn't about not believing, it's NOT BELIEVING. Jeez.
Thank you!
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
- Oxford English Dictionary
Seems to be officially recognised as a belief :roll:
-
The theory or belief that God does not exist.
- Oxford English Dictionary
Seems to be officially recognised as a belief :roll:
Is the child born in a dark room without any contact, believing in a deity? No. Is there not believing in a deity? Yes. When you don't believe in a deity, you don't believe in a deity! It's not that you have to actively think about NOT believing in a deity.. Does the child say: God does not exist? No, the child says nothing, not even about a deity, which makes it NOT believe in a deity, which makes the child a fucking atheist!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Is the child born in a dark room without any contact, believing in a deity? No. Is there not believing in a deity? Yes.
Not believing in something would require you to consciously understand what it is your not believing in. The child can't be an atheist because it has not chosen to not believe in it. Lack of any belief what so ever does not automatically make it an atheist, at least under the accepted definition of an atheist.
-
Is the child born in a dark room without any contact, believing in a deity? No. Is there not believing in a deity? Yes. When you don't believe in a deity, you don't believe in a deity! It's not that you have to actively think about NOT believing in a deity.. Does the child say: God does not exist? No, the child says nothing, not even about a deity, which makes it NOT believe in a deity, which makes the child a f**king atheist!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
You seem to ignore my point that this child would almost certain attribute questions to a supernatural being, and there for not be atheist.
-
You seem to ignore my point that this child would almost certain attribute questions to a supernatural being, and there for not be atheist.
I don't think the child has the ability to think so freely at all.. I'm talking about atheism as in anti-theism in the form of not believing in god. If you can't believe in god, it makes you a non believer. Everyone is atheist by default, unless learnt otherwise.
-
Everyone is atheist by default, unless learnt otherwise.
That is impossible to prove
-
That is impossible to prove
So a child is born believing in god?
-
Not believing in something would require you to consciously understand what it is your not believing in. The child can't be an atheist because it has not chosen to not believe in it. Lack of any belief what so ever does not automatically make it an atheist, at least under the accepted definition of an atheist.
No, your logic is incorrect.
"Lack of belief in god" and "belief that there is no god" are the same thing, in that they are both someone who does not believe in god.
-
So a child is born believing in god?
Did I say that?
-
Seems even the dictionaries have confused the definitions of Atheism and Antitheism.
Atheism, as can be derived from a and theos, translates to "lack of a deity" or "absence of a deity", and not the belief that there is no deity. You lack any belief in the deity's existence.
Antitheism, from the word "anti", is a belief that there is no deity. Technically speaking, it is a belief in a deity, except that the belief is that the deity does not exist. Your belief is one against the deity's existence.
I recognize that atheism has been used interchangeably with antitheism, but it's probably about time we got our wording right before deciding to spend a long discussion on tackling atheism.
-
Antitheism, from the word "anti", is a belief that there is no deity. Technically speaking, it is a belief in a deity, except that the belief is that the deity does not exist. Your belief is one against the deity's existence.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
Atheism is simply the absence of belief, where as antitheism can be seen more as active opposition towards theism - that it is harmful to both the individual and society.
-
Lol, you guys are funny, arguing over the technical differences between antitheism and atheism which are essentially two of the same. You might as well be arguing over the difference between not being a male and being a female.
-
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg#)
-
Atheism is simply the absence of belief, where as antitheism can be seen more as active opposition towards theism - that it is harmful to both the individual and society.
Antitheism does not necessarily have to be harmful for society, as it could also be a personal view that your belief is against a deity.
And you virtually repeated what I posted, so yeah. :cool:
-
Just about everyone who thinks the Bible is pure and indisputable fact. :devroll:
So some niche zealot groups?
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg#)
While an interesting argument, he completely dodged the question and instead answered with the same one that was asked from him.
It's funny seeing an "intellectual" deflecting questions though, right?
-
I don't think the child has the ability to think so freely at all.. I'm talking about atheism as in anti-theism in the form of not believing in god. If you can't believe in god, it makes you a non believer. Everyone is atheist by default, unless learnt otherwise.
Belief in which god ? If the child explains things he does not understand by supernatural influences as cavemen did, he is believing in a god, and there for no atheist.
Atheism is not limited to the God of the Bible or Quoran, it includes any supernatural being with higher powers.
I made a clear point that almost every culture we know has had religion to explain the unknown, and there for it is very likely that religion develops in every human without having extended knowledge of science and society. On the contrary, atheism seems to be limited to those who are disappointed in their religion and those who are having an understanding of science.
So contrary to your point I would like to state that everyone has a religion, unless taught otherwise.
-
Ok, this is becoming stupid. In 50 years, 50% of da world will be atheistic. I seriously DO NOT support this.
In The Netherlands is 49% of the country already atheist so..
-
By default I think human would become a pagan, believing of supernatural beings in control of the aspects that he can not.
-
Belief in which god ? If the child explains things he does not understand by supernatural influences as cavemen did, he is believing in a god, and there for no atheist.
Atheism is not limited to the God of the Bible or Quoran, it includes any supernatural being with higher powers.
I made a clear point that almost every culture we know has had religion to explain the unknown, and there for it is very likely that religion develops in every human without having extended knowledge of science and society. On the contrary, atheism seems to be limited to those who are disappointed in their religion and those who are having an understanding of science.
So contrary to your point I would like to state that everyone has a religion, unless taught otherwise.
I understand that every being which has the power to think on its own, starts believing in a religion. But does this believe in a god?
(http://www.skepticalthayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/newborn1.jpg)
I think it does not, there for it is an atheist... Right? I'm using common sense here, not sophisticated religious studies..
-
I understand that every being which has the power to think on its own, starts believing in a religion. But does this believe in a god?
(http://www.skepticalthayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/newborn1.jpg)
I think it does not, there for it is an atheist... Right? I'm using common sense here, not sophisticated religious studies..
Common sense would dictate we understand how the brain works at birth. Your trying to imply that we understand how our brains work yet they are one of the biggest mysteries of modern science. Trying to convince people of what goes through our brain at birth makes it seem like you know for certain. You can have your "belief" of what happens to us naturally but you have just as much evidence of what your refering to then anyone saying people are naturally born believing in a god.
-
I understand that every being which has the power to think on its own, starts believing in a religion. But does this believe in a god?
I think it does not, there for it is an atheist... Right? I'm using common sense here, not sophisticated religious studies..
If he starts believing in any type of supernatural power that has powers to steer his life, he is by definition not an atheist. It does not matter if he come up with the Biblical God, the Norsk Valhalla or the Roman multigods, or simply sees the Sun and Moon (providing he can see them).
To be an atheist one must not believe in any kind of such power being present.
-
Antitheism does not necessarily have to be harmful for society,
No, you misunderstood him. He means that antitheism is the belief that theism is actively harmful.
Perhaps the default is not atheism, however in that case all that needs to be taught is that not every question in life has a definitive answer yet.
At the point that this fact is taught, if someone still believes in a deity then they are indeed a wildly irrational person.
-
No, you misunderstood him. He means that antitheism is the belief that theism is actively harmful.
Perhaps the default is not atheism, however in that case all that needs to be taught is that not every question in life has a definitive answer yet.
At the point that this fact is taught, if someone still believes in a deity then they are indeed a wildly irrational person.
Which exaclty shows the point that atheism is taught and based on influence by society, not theism. ;)
-
At the point that this fact is taught, if someone still believes in a deity then they are indeed a wildly irrational person.
Or someone who sees (or wants to see) life as more than just a bunch of biological processes and refuses to accept that everything ceases to be once they stop.
The idea of an afterlife or even reincarnation gives people something to strive for, a reason to live, even. If life's completely pointless, might as well end it now instead of dicking around for 70 years waiting to kick the bucket.
There have been plenty of people who've managed to cure their alcoholism, depression or any other ailment due to turning to religion. Are you saying that those people are irrational and would've been better off remaining depressed?
-
The idea of an afterlife or even reincarnation gives people something to strive for, a reason to live, even. If life's completely pointless, might as well end it now instead of dicking around for 70 years waiting to kick the bucket.
This thinking is incredibly sad, and a terrible view on life. Why not live life for life, rather than for some fantasy afterlife?
Also, are you saying that the only "reason to live" and the only point in life is an afterlife? Because that makes me fucking sad.
There have been plenty of people who've managed to cure their alcoholism, depression or any other ailment due to turning to religion. Are you saying that those people are irrational and would've been better off remaining depressed?
Having to turn to religion to cure depression is deeply disturbing. I find it difficult to accept that someone could be so emotionally destroyed that they throw any kind of rationality out of the window in favour of a quick fix. Of course I'm not saying that they should've remained depressed, but they should find a way to solve their issues properly, rather than doing what essentially amounts to applying a band-aid.
-
Having to turn to religion to cure depression is deeply disturbing. I find it difficult to accept that someone could be so emotionally destroyed that they throw any kind of rationality out of the window in favour of a quick fix. Of course I'm not saying that they should've remained depressed, but they should find a way to solve their issues properly, rather than doing what essentially amounts to applying a band-aid.
I'm willing to bet all my money that you would turn religious if you were to survive a near-death experience.
Every time I've actually prayed when things have gone to shit, they've gotten better almost immediately afterwards. It could be a coincidence, it could be the extra willpower I got from that sort of mentality, but I choose to believe it was some sort of a divine intervention. Of course, an "educated" and "rational" atheist such as yourself would be quick to brand it as "HAHA YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES".
This thinking is incredibly sad, and a terrible view on life. Why not live life for life, rather than for some fantasy afterlife?
Also, are you saying that the only "reason to live" and the only point in life is an afterlife? Because that makes me f**king sad.
"I have cancer. I'm going to die in 2 years anyways. Might as well go on a rampage and go out with a bang, it's not like I'm going to be judged for it or anything, since once I die, nothing matters anymore."
-
Or someone who sees (or wants to see) life as more than just a bunch of biological processes and refuses to accept that everything ceases to be once they stop.
The idea of an afterlife or even reincarnation gives people something to strive for, a reason to live, even. If life's completely pointless, might as well end it now instead of dicking around for 70 years waiting to kick the bucket.
You can't choose how you want to see life. Life is exactly the way it is. It is a series of facts and a "choice" to the contrary is irrational because it is highly improbable.
That being said, the only rationally correct standpoint is Agnostic Atheism. Rational because it accepts that it is impossible to know with 100 percent certainty that there is a God, but recognizing that it is quite highly unlikely. Not only that but religion is highly convoluted and according to occam's razor, non-belief is the best, most logical option.
I'm willing to bet all my money that you would turn religious if you were to survive a near-death experience.
You don't know Panda very well, do you?
"I have cancer. I'm going to die in 2 years anyways. Might as well go on a rampage and go out with a bang, it's not like I'm going to be judged for it or anything, since once I die, nothing matters anymore."
Why do you assume all atheists are immoral? If a person has the capacity to do something like this, it's only a matter of time before he actually does it.
-
I'm willing to bet all my money that you would turn religious if you were to survive a near-death experience.
I'm sorry, but I'd have to bet against you.
It could be a coincidence, it could be the extra willpower I got from that sort of mentality, but I choose to believe it was some sort of a divine intervention. Of course, an "educated" and "rational" atheist such as yourself would be quick to brand it as "HAHA YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES".
And again I'm sorry, but yes pretty much. The first two possibilities you suggested (particularly the second one) seem far more plausible and make more sense than the fairly arbitrary third.
"I have cancer. I'm going to die in 2 years anyways. Might as well go on a rampage and go out with a bang, it's not like I'm going to be judged for it or anything, since once I die, nothing matters anymore."
I would say to that person that some of us aren't psychopaths with only the fear of hell to stop us from murdering other people.
The person in the quote would have no personal problem with murdering other people. The person in the quote is an evil person.
-
And again I'm sorry, but yes pretty much. The first two possibilities you suggested (particularly the second one) seem far more plausible and make more sense than the fairly arbitrary third.
Yet the third option makes me feel far better and more satisfied than the first two. A fair trade in my opinion.
I would say to that person that some of us aren't psychopaths with only the fear of hell to stop us from murdering other people.
The person in the quote would have no personal problem with murdering other people. The person in the quote is an evil person.
Yeah, it was a really bad example.
-
Yet the third option makes me feel far better and more satisfied than the first two. A fair trade in my opinion.
For me, the second option would make me feel far better, because it would imply that I did it myself. I would feel stronger for overcoming the adversity with my own hands and will than with the help of some higher being.
-
Yet the third option makes me feel far better and more satisfied than the first two. A fair trade in my opinion.
Doesn't change the fact that it's irrational.
-
Or someone who sees (or wants to see) life as more than just a bunch of biological processes and refuses to accept that everything ceases to be once they stop.
The idea of an afterlife or even reincarnation gives people something to strive for, a reason to live, even. If life's completely pointless, might as well end it now instead of dicking around for 70 years waiting to kick the bucket.
There have been plenty of people who've managed to cure their alcoholism, depression or any other ailment due to turning to religion. Are you saying that those people are irrational and would've been better off remaining depressed?
As I have mentioned one of the most powerful key elements in religion is hope.
The hope that what you are lacking now will be present in the afterlife (like 72 women to bang :rofl:).
This hope is what is used to control you, and I do not just mean control in the form of stopping you from crime. It also stops you from revolting against those with power who you see as evil, as they will be judged later.
Religion is a focus point. To cure depression or addiction giving someone a point of focus is often enough.
It is simlar to parent promising a big present to children if they reach their diploma or large imporvement of grades. Except this present is free. ;)
Also note that atheism does not deny the possibility of supernatural powers existing. It just denies that there are omnipowerful and omnipresent powers who control our lives.
As for religion being irrational, humans generally are extremely irrational. Ask Mr Spock.
-
I'm willing to bet all my money that you would turn religious if you were to survive a near-death experience.
Been there done that a few times. Still atheist.
-
Been there done that a few times. Still atheist.
What near death experience? You ran out of hamburgers? COMON, i hate LIARS da MOST on this world!
You know what they say for an atheist that is on a near death experience? You do? Whell that applies for all atheists. When you stop lying and actually go on a near death experience you will see.
-
What near death experience? You ran out of hamburgers? COMON, i hate LIARS da MOST on this world!
You know what they say for an atheist that is on a near death experience? You do? Whell that applies for all atheists. When you stop lying and actually go on a near death experience you will see.
How do you know he hasn't had a near-death experience?
I know I have. Because I'm atheist, does that make me a liar?
-
How do you know he hasn't had a near-death experience?
I know I have. Because I'm atheist, does that make me a liar?
Ok, what near death experience?
-
Ok, what near death experience?
I had a severe asthma attack to the point where I stopped breathing.
-
I had a severe asthma attack to the point where I stopped breathing.
Being close to death is not a near-death experience.
It means that you feel detachment from your body, connecting to another world.
-
Being close to death is not a near-death experience.
It means that you feel detachment from your body, connecting to another world.
Depends, it could mean either really, but now I read the whole thing again, I see I misread it.
But, I had an "experience" with it though. It was crippling pain and the worst feeling I have ever experienced in my life. The only lights I saw were those on the roof of the hospital.
-
What near death experience? You ran out of hamburgers?
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOL
-
It is said in the first post that the purpose of the page is not bashing on religious people, yet I mostly see funny pictures/quotes about religious people and agnostics.
You can't be this, you can't be that.
First mistake this page made is: "Teenage". I simply have to concur, we teenagers are blessed with knowledge. In fact, we know so much that we're simply smarter and experienced than the rest. Atheism is like fashion nowadays. It's about what's "in" and "out". Which Biblical quote shall we revert or mock at today? That is the main question.
90% of atheists can't even derive the root of the word and name where it comes from, let alone know something about it. (inb4 goes on wikipedia to see)
There is no clear line between religion and faith nowadays, most people cannot resemble those two terms so they don't choose what to bash.
Look at the example to explain your never-ending "fruitful" debating whether there is God or not:
Person A claims there is a giant walrus just underneath Pluto. This walrus is the famous "Kosmos" which communicates with certain individuals while they are at sleep.
Person B might ask: "I would like a proof of that", or answer "That's simply impossible!"
Person A answers: "Then prove me wrong"
Since our current scientific ways are limited in this example(as in the example of proving a supernatural being in general) we cannot discard either of the statements.
Thus, we rely on the empirical approach which is also wrong in this example. You can add thousand of other claims to this example and they would be listed as facts due to the majority of supporters(look at the religion distribution) but still cannot be proved as false/correct! You can't possibly grasp all claims and easily list them as true or false. Instead, we make a huge error and pick one out of the pile and the pile collapses. The context always remains context and you will always end up wrong.
Result? The debate goes on forever.
The above mentioned example should be viewed by both "clans". If you make a statement, it is your burden to prove it. Did science manage to prove there's no supernatural being? Did the Church prove the existence of their "God"?
To believe or not to believe? Choose! "You can't be an undetermined factor!" part:
Given a statement Z we are expected to conclude whether the statement is TRUE or FALSE. Why? Why can't the statement be UNDETERMINED. Is it my opinion?
What if I lack reason or motivation to decide on the statement Z? It is not necessary and desirable to form an opinion on a statement. Having an opinion about statement Z grants you no privileged status over me. Nor is there a special reason for the acquisition of belief to be a particular goal.
Person A claims there is a supernatural being while person C denies it. Where is person B? He did not form a belief about the subject either way. This is often confused with agnosticism. Agnosticism concerns lack of knowledge, not belief. Something can't be known.
The correct sentence would be: "I don't know, but I believe there is a supernatural being" and person C: "I don't know and I believe there's no such thing as a supernatur. being."
Person B has no knowledge or belief either way. Person B is not middle ground between person A and C.
Lacking belief in any supernatural being is our default position(Take a new-born child as an example). The rest is your path which is incorrect in 99.9% of cases.
tl;dr: Fools, fools everywhere. We can relativize to infinity.
-
Lacking belief in any supernatural being is our default position(Take a new-born child as an example). The rest is your path which is incorrect in 99.9% of cases.
tl;dr: Fools, fools everywhere. We can relativize to infinity.
The new-born child position has already been handled here. In fact we do not know if a new-born child has any belief, and by the time they developed the ability to answer any questioning they have already been influenced by their surrounding too much to expect a logical answer.
Also it has been successfully argued that looking at ancient and current people, belief in supernatural beings to explain the unknown is a general occurrance, more general as not having such.
From a scientific point of view it is impossible to prove something does not exist, there can be only proof of what does exist. There for no scientist can ever obtain proof that supernatural or any other beings which are believed to exist do not.
The only proof can be positive, that something does exist. That does not mean something which is not proven can not exist.
:ps: Good to see you :)
-
The new-born child position has already been handled here. In fact we do not know if a new-born child has any belief, and by the time they developed the ability to answer any questioning they have already been influenced by their surrounding too much to expect a logical answer.
Also it has been successfully argued that looking at ancient and current people, belief in supernatural beings to explain the unknown is a general occurrance, more general as not having such.
From a scientific point of view it is impossible to prove something does not exist, there can be only proof of what does exist. There for no scientist can ever obtain proof that supernatural or any other beings which are believed to exist do not.
The only proof can be positive, that something does exist. That does not mean something which is not proven can not exist.
I just dug in the intro to elaborate the poster's failed critical thinking.
Now to connect to your quote.
I've been trying to link reasoning/belief theories by reading Piaget. Now, Piaget states that the first stage of cognitive development is sensorimotor.
The time when a new-born(later an infant) learns about his world through reflex/motor actions and "sensations" which only lead to empirical conclusions. We can only ask ourselves if someone/something planted a belief into the child before it was born or et cetera. Psychology proved that there are no "rational" processes within new-borns. They develop after a few months. The problems with empirical-rational: We can either believe what Locke said: "There can't be a priori knowledge. First goes the empirical" or we can discard it and take Descartes' belief: "There is knowledge but it's not backed up by the empirical. If we don't have rational at first, we are not a part of this world".
Lets just observe animals as the answer.
:ps: Good to see you :)
Thanks. It's good to see this board can have reasonable arguments with the unbearable temperatures.
-
I just dug in the intro to elaborate the poster's failed critical thinking.
Now to connect to your quote.
I've been trying to link reasoning/belief theories by reading Piaget. Now, Piaget states that the first stage of cognitive development is sensorimotor.
The time when a new-born(later an infant) learns about his world through reflex/motor actions and "sensations" which only lead to empirical conclusions. We can only ask ourselves if someone/something planted a belief into the child before it was born or et cetera. Psychology proved that there are no "rational" processes within new-borns. They develop after a few months. The problems with empirical-rational: We can either believe what Locke said: "There can't be a priori knowledge. First goes the empirical" or we can discard it and take Descartes' belief: "There is knowledge but it's not backed up by the empirical. If we don't have rational at first, we are not a part of this world".
Lets just observe animals as the answer.
Thanks. It's good to see this board can have reasonable arguments with the unbearable temperatures.
I am sorry but I can go against Piaget and psychology from experience.
My new-born was very capable of rational processes at extremely young age, and well before any verbal communication was possible. In this all new-borns are different as some will develop it at later stage.
In this case I count as rational behaviour to find the source of food without external help or encouragement within a week. More specific; Mrs Gandalf slept and woke up to find GandalfJr happily sucking her nipple. He had moved himself in to the correct position while she was sleeping.
This requires not just empirical conclusions (sucking a nipple means food) but also awareness of where to move and the ability to move himself knowingly to the right position, thus showing capability of rational thought.
-
I am sorry but I can go against Piaget and psychology from experience.
My new-born was very capable of rational processes at extremely young age, and well before any verbal communication was possible. In this all new-borns are different as some will develop it at later stage.
In this case I count as rational behaviour to find the source of food without external help or encouragement within a week. More specific; Mrs Gandalf slept and woke up to find GandalfJr happily sucking her nipple. He had moved himself in to the correct position while she was sleeping.
This requires not just empirical conclusions (sucking a nipple means food) but also awareness of where to move and the ability to move himself knowingly to the right position, thus showing capability of rational thought.
It seems like rational thinking when you put it that way but what truly happened inside GandalfJr's head, can't be known for certain. Although, we have "free hands" to decide when it comes to categorizing it as instinct or intellect.
-
I had a severe asthma attack to the point where I stopped breathing.
That a near death experience? For real? My classmate had the same thing. Really, i know people die from it, but it can be solved in a matter of seconds. You are too busy choaking to think about God. But, yes, it is a near death experience.
Now when you flip 5 times in an old rusty "zastava" car (Serbian car brand, compleatly shitty car), try not to change your mind about atheism. Especially dont change your mind when you hang out in that wreck for 15 minutes whaiting for help to arrive. Good thing that a small city was there. I was scared like never before in my life. I was praying every second. Hopefully, as we were going on a trip, we had TONS of package, so it covered us, and we sustained no damage. If there was no package, id be laying 2 meters underground right about now.
Now, all i am saying is that, when you get into a preaty nasty near death experience you will change your mind, trust me on this.
-
It seems like rational thinking when you put it that way but what truly happened inside GandalfJr's head, can't be known for certain. Although, we have "free hands" to decide when it comes to categorizing it as instinct or intellect.
He has consistently been showing logic capabilities beyond his age, which he hopefully will maintain.
The fact is that throughout human history the belief in supernatural beings has been developed without fault.
This separates us, as far as we know at this point, from other species on this planet. It is unknown if this is due to the ability to question ourselves about our surroundings, or to the actual presence. What is known is that it takes an advanced knowledge to rationally not believe in suernatural beings, contrary to what is usually claimed.
And that excludes the 'don not give a fuck' persons who are simply not considering the matter.
-
an old rusty "zastava" car (Serbian car brand, compleatly shitty car),
Many people would already turn religious having to enter such a car. :lol:
-
That a near death experience? For real? My classmate had the same thing. Really, i know people die from it, but it can be solved in a matter of seconds.
Read what I posted again. I STOPPED BREATHING. I didn't just have a normal asthma attack, I have those all the time. And yes, people do die from it, my friend would be one of those included.
-
What is known is that it takes an advanced knowledge to rationally not believe in suernatural beings, contrary to what is usually claimed.
And that excludes the 'don not give a f**k' persons who are simply not considering the matter.
I believe we can all agree that life is a mosaic(whether good or bad) that sometimes prevents us to step back and view the whole picture in an analyst-way.
We live a fast paced mixed of "facts" so we don't have much time to indulge ourselves into something abstract as religion. This means we will rather take something as it is and go with it. "Leave it for a higher being to decide" or such.
Is this a good subject for this topic? I believe the thread derailed to the "Religion" part of "Politics and Religion". Good times.
-
If you are going to host intellectual discussion about the current situation of humanity, politics and religion are unavoidable topics.
-
If you are going to host intellectual discussion about the current situation of humanity, politics and religion are unavoidable topics.
Intellectual discussions don't go well with the term politics or religion, JDC.
-
What near death experience? You ran out of hamburgers? COMON, i hate LIARS da MOST on this world!
(Edit to remove flaming) : Never make such assumtions without knowing what you talk about.
-
What near death experience? You ran out of hamburgers? COMON, i hate LIARS da MOST on this world!
>implying you know anything about what happens in the lives of people you have never met
Man, obviously your parents didn't beat as much respect in to you as you say :rofl:
-
aleksander you sound silly there. Using a reference to 'hamburgers' - probably because the flag beside his name is the US flag? How silly.
-
aleksander you sound silly there. Using a reference to 'hamburgers' - probably because the flag beside his name is the US flag? How silly.
Whell, considering the obisety in the USA, the first thing that popped into my mind is "hamburger". Besides it is only a joke... You people take everything too seriously.
>implying you know anything about what happens in the lives of people you have never met
Man, obviously your parents didn't beat as much respect in to you as you say :rofl:
I do not know how does my post about lying have to do anything with respect :?: :?: :?: :trust:
-
Intellectual discussions don't go well with the term politics or religion, JDC.
I never said they go well hand in hand. It's just that they are inevitable at one point or another, whether we like it or not. :D
Unless you live your lives out in some kind of box which is completely isolated from the outside world. But even that may not be a perfect way to avoid those topics.
-
Unless you live your lives out in some kind of box which is completely isolated from the outside world. But even that may not be a perfect way to avoid those topics.
Stop for a moment and think "outside" of your head. Imagine yourself detaching from your mind/thoughts. You now have a perspective on your idle body which sits at the PC desk. You are free to wander around now as a "no-matter". Can you avoid these topics?
There, I created a perfectly absurd example fitting your description.
Of course we're not able to evade these subjects in our every day conversations but that still throws out the fact that they are intelligent.
Especially the religion ones.
-
Especially the religion ones.
The precursor to the concept of religion was the concept of why. Why did we find ourselves in a certain situation? In case of the example, the question would be "How and why did I get into this box" or "How and why am I a no-matter"?
It may not always be such, but the probability exists that the concept of why will somehow lead to the concept of studying the origins, and perhaps to religion.
-
This Is Interesting, But There Comes A Point When You're All Alone, No One To Talk To.. So You Go To God. Catholic. God. The Other Religions In My Opinion Are BootLeg Copies. Sorry If I Offended Anyone But It's True.
-
This Is Interesting, But There Comes A Point When You're All Alone, No One To Talk To.. So You Go To God. Catholic. God. The Other Religions In My Opinion Are BootLeg Copies. Sorry If I Offended Anyone But It's True.
Everyone who is devoted to a certain religion is bound to be convinced at some point that their religion is the only true one, with the others all being false.
This is one of the factors that has contributed to the backwardness of religion as we know it today, rather than the concept being used as a tool in the search of answers.
-
This Is Interesting, But There Comes A Point When You're All Alone, No One To Talk To.. So You Go To God. Catholic. God. The Other Religions In My Opinion Are BootLeg Copies. Sorry If I Offended Anyone But It's True.
Your Religion Is A Bootleg Copy Of Judaism.
See? It's just as absurd and untrue when I say it, so don't offend other people's beliefs when you have no knowledge of your own.
Someone answer me this: how can something exist if there is nothing around to experience and perceive it?
-
This Is Interesting, But There Comes A Point When You're All Alone, No One To Talk To.. So You Go To God. Catholic. God. The Other Religions In My Opinion Are BootLeg Copies. Sorry If I Offended Anyone But It's True.
The day jesus was born was copied from pagan beliefs of the sun god, the day that they celebrated them.
-
The precursor to the concept of religion was the concept of why. Why did we find ourselves in a certain situation? In case of the example, the question would be "How and why did I get into this box" or "How and why am I a no-matter"?
It may not always be such, but the probability exists that the concept of why will somehow lead to the concept of studying the origins, and perhaps to religion.
"Why" is the main question of everything, don't worry you cannot miss to that one. That is why we have ontological researches in philosophy. Very good point, JDC.
However, you have failed to ask the main question. How would you think outside your mind? Is that possible? Notice that I did not mention any spirits or such. Are you certain that the same rules apply for this experience?
You would not know that.
All your religions are a bootleg of animism and/or fetishism.
-
A free will is something not universal to men. Animals show one by making choices as well. The difference is not having a will, the main difference is the level of self-awareness and ability to plan ahead.
Religion is not just the question 'why' but also 'how'. People try to influence those things they have no direct control over, and hope to turn it in their favour by focusing their mind.
-
Your Religion Is A Bootleg Copy Of Judaism.
See? It's just as absurd and untrue when I say it, so don't offend other people's beliefs when you have no knowledge of your own.
Someone answer me this: how can something exist if there is nothing around to experience and perceive it?
You Took It Up The Booty Boy, You See... You're Mexican Yourself. Most Likely A Mormon Or Something.
I'm An Atheist By The Way. Nothing Personal Against God, Or Anyone Who Believes. Everyone Has The Right To Hold Their Own.
-
You Took It Up The Booty Boy, You See... You're Mexican Yourself. Most Likely A Mormon Or Something.
I'm An Atheist By The Way. Nothing Personal Against God, Or Anyone Who Believes. Everyone Has The Right To Hold Their Own.
Grammar, The Key To Success.
You're Mexican Yourself. Most Likely A Mormon Or Something.
0/10
-
0/10
-
I liked the page, but I'm not really for the abuse of other religions.
I'm an Atheist, but I don't shove it down peoples throats while whipping them with a cane.
-
(Edit to remove flaming) : Never make such assumtions without knowing what you talk about.
I'm hoping that's not directed at me.
-
0/10
-
I'm hoping that's not directed at me.
Who else would it be directed at? It was your post that was edited.
-
I'm hoping that's not directed at me.
No, this was directed at the person mentioning hamburgers.
Your history is known to the editor. ;)
-
His post was modified to contain no flaming.
So it was modified but still directed to Aleksandar.
-
I liked the page, but I'm not really for the abuse of other religions.
I'm an Atheist, but I don't shove it down peoples throats while whipping them with a cane.
Exactly The Way I Feel.
-
Thought this would suit here :
(http://thefunnyplanet.com/pictures/5143.jpg)
-
Thought this would suit here :
(http://thefunnyplanet.com/pictures/5143.jpg)
:pop: (Get The Irony? ;) )
-
People are so sure about some things that it actually brings them headaches.
Half of them can't explain some things but still align to a "faction". Religion and atheism are fashion.
-
People are so sure about some things that it actually brings them headaches.
Half of them can't explain some things but still align to a "faction". Religion and atheism are fashion.
I believe Science answers to the questions of life and has the proof of the creation of our existence, but I'm not part of Scientology, I'm an Atheist.
-
I believe Science answers to the questions of life and has the proof of the creation of our existence, but I'm not part of Scientology, I'm an Atheist.
I've waited for a comment like this. If you had actually read my comment carefully, you'd see that I was talking about people accepting either factions.
I was not making claims for and against on either of them. It's always the people ruining something.
-
I've waited for a comment like this. If you had actually read my comment carefully, you'd see that I was talking about people accepting either factions.
I was not making claims for and against on either of them. It's always the people ruining something.
That wasn't a comment you were waiting for.
I was pointing out my view, not attacking another's.
I understand what you mean about people accepting either factions, or religions, because they are unable to explain their point of view about the creation of life, it has happened to me as well.
-
That wasn't a comment you were waiting for.
You can't know that for certain.
I was pointing out my view, not attacking another's.
That was not my original thought.
I understand what you mean about people accepting either factions, or religions, because they are unable to explain their point of view about the creation of life, it has happened to me as well.
That's completely natural but some people slander it to eternity because of their ignorance.
For example, this Facebook group.
-
It's always the people ruining something.
And? People should have the right to believe what they want.
-
And? People should have the right to believe what they want.
We have the right to believe in anything. My sentence doesn't disagree with it.
Everything we get our hands in has a potential to turn out as a mistake.
-
People are so sure about some things that it actually brings them headaches.
Half of them can't explain some things but still align to a "faction". Religion and atheism are fashion.
Elaborate on what half of them can not explain.
-
Elaborate on what half of them can not explain.
Cosmos? The origin of living things? Matter of life and death? Who created the initial sparkle?
A couple of questions that require attention but there are no modern-scientific methods to explain.
-
Cosmos? The origin of living things? Matter of life and death? Who created the initial sparkle?
A couple of questions that require attention but there are no modern-scientific methods to explain.
So you are nothing? You don't believe in anything?
-
So you are nothing? You don't believe in anything?
I choose to stay silent on the subject. I might find out the answer once I die.
I am something, crook. I just don't know what that is.
-
I choose to stay silent on the subject. I might find out the answer once I die.
I am something, crook. I just don't know what that is.
Yeah something, but still mostly nothing if you think how much free space is there between atoms nucleons and electrons.
-
Yeah something, but still mostly nothing if you think how much free space is there between atoms nucleons and electrons.
That would be correct. I am something involving numerous explanations and you just picked one.
-
Don't know what you are, but I am sure I am a man.
-
I choose to stay silent on the subject. I might find out the answer once I die.
I am something, crook. I just don't know what that is.
You made a crucial mistake in your silence when you said:Cosmos? The origin of living things? Matter of life and death? Who created the initial sparkle?
A couple of questions that require attention but there are no modern-scientific methods to explain.
-
I'd rather stay neutral to this kind of discussion. I do not wish to discuss religion here.
-
Isn't there a locked topic somewhere around here stating that 'Politics and Religion' are forbidden on the forums :redface:
-
You made a crucial mistake in your silence when you said:
My silence doesn't mean I should not be observant. The first quote was about other people.
My question is, how did you know I was talking about religion/science there? It doesn't have to be either. Just because it can be an applicable method doesn't necessarily have to be it.
-
My silence doesn't mean I should not be observant. The first quote was about other people.
My question is, how did you know I was talking about religion/science there? It doesn't have to be either. Just because it can be an applicable method doesn't necessarily have to be it.
I was waiting for this.
Look carefully at what you wrote:
Who created the initial sparkle?
The use of the 'who' shows that you are from a religious background where the origin of things is attibuted to a God, after all it describes a person.
When thinking from atheist background you would have written 'What', while a completely neutral way would have been 'How was the initial spark created'.
The next part was:
there are no modern-scientific methods to explain
Which would imply that there are methods outside modern science to explain this.
By the words you used it is clear you are thinking from a religious upbringing. Whether or not you still follow this is something you wish not to go further in to at this time, which I fully respect.
-
I was waiting for this.
Look carefully at what you wrote:The use of the 'who' shows that you are from a religious background where the origin of things is attibuted to a God, after all it describes a person.
When thinking from atheist background you would have written 'What', while a completely neutral way would have been 'How was the initial spark created'.
The next part was:Which would imply that there are methods outside modern science to explain this.
By the words you used it is clear you are thinking from a religious upbringing. Whether or not you still follow this is something you wish not to go further in to at this time, which I fully respect.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/48339001/vasiliy-livanov-16.jpg)
-
Ionesco was not a fool after all.
The question I mentioned before is asked by many people around me. I picked it up apparently and it's locked in my mind.
Changing the question now would convince you less of my beliefs.
Like many people, I was raised in a religious family but due to my views, we departed.
I like knowledge and do not wish to be tagged because exactly that brought me many troubles. I am trying to seek answers from both sides. I spend time looking at both scientific and religious studies because knowing enriches you.
How we ask ourselves this question, "who" and "what" doesn't matter. We seek answers that I believe are beyond our grasp.
-
I was waiting for this.
Look carefully at what you wrote:The use of the 'who' shows that you are from a religious background where the origin of things is attibuted to a God, after all it describes a person.
When thinking from atheist background you would have written 'What', while a completely neutral way would have been 'How was the initial spark created'.
The next part was:Which would imply that there are methods outside modern science to explain this.
By the words you used it is clear you are thinking from a religious upbringing. Whether or not you still follow this is something you wish not to go further in to at this time, which I fully respect.
Encore! Encore!
-
... I am trying to seek answers from both sides. I spend time looking at both scientific and religious studies because knowing enriches you.
...
What about all other versions of the answers?
-
What about all other versions of the answers?
Specific groups do specific things. I suppose Teletubbies would not do a religious study. With this we conclude that religion related groups do religious studies. Scientist and religious people do scientific studies, religious studies or both. Anyone can do everything, it is up to you to decide which knowledge you're take into consideration. That's the beauty and horror of knowing. You're always wrong.
To Gandalf: "Who?" does not necessary mean "God" because "God" is not a person. He is not deficient and thus, he does not need anything. A person however, is far from that. That would be a Christian definition of "God". "God" is your unique view and everyone holds a different definition of the word "God" so it is impossible to please every "God" on this planet.
-
To Gandalf: "Who?" does not necessary mean "God" because "God" is not a person. He is not deficient and thus, he does not need anything.
Did God tell you this? :D
-
Just thought this would be interesting to post here.
Theological doctrines:
1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12
8. God is all powerful
Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
God is not all powerful
Judg 1:19
9. God is unchangeable
James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
God is changeable
Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30,31/ 2 Kings 20:1,4,5,6/
Ex 33:1,3,17,14
10. God is just and impartial
Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
God is unjust and partial
Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12
11. God is the author of evil
Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
God is not the author of evil
1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13
12. God gives freely to those who ask
James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving
them
John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17
13. God is to be found by those who seek him
Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
God is not to be found by those who seek him
Prov 1:28
14. God is warlike
Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
God is peaceful
Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33
15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19
God is kind, merciful, and good
James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/
1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8
16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5
17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,
sacrifices ,and holy days
Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,
sacrifices, and holy days.
Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13,4/ Is 1:13,11,12
18. God accepts human sacrifices
2 Sam 21:8,9,14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32,34,38,39
God forbids human sacrifice
Deut 12:30,31
19. God tempts men
Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
God tempts no man
James 1:13
20. God cannot lie
Heb 6:18
God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits t deceive
2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9
21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
Gen 6:5,7
Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
Gen 8:21
22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
Rom 1:20
God's attributes cannot be discovered
Job 11:7/ Is 40:28
23. There is but one God
Deut 6:4
There is a plurality of gods
Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7
Moral Precepts
24. Robbery commanded
Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
Robbery forbidden
Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15
25. Lying approved and sanctioned
Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
Lying forbidden
Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8
26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
2 Kings 14:7,3
Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
Deut 23:7
27. Killing commanded
Ex 32:27
Killing forbidden
Ex 20:13
28. The blood-shedder must die
Gen 9:5,6
The blood-shedder must not die
Gen 4:15
29. The making of images forbidden
Ex 20:4
The making of images commanded
Ex 25:18,20
30. Slavery and oppression ordained
Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
Slavery and oppression forbidden
Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10
31. Improvidence enjoyed
Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
Improvidence condemned
1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22
32. Anger approved
Eph 4:26
Anger disapproved
Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20
33. Good works to be seen of men
Matt 5:16
Good works not to be seen of men
Matt 6:1
34. Judging of others forbidden
Matt 7:1,2
Judging of others approved
1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12
35. Christ taught non-resistance
Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
Luke 22:36/ John 2:15
36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
Luke 12:4
Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
John 7:1
37. Public prayer sanctioned
1 Kings 8:22,54, 9:3
Public prayer disapproved
Matt 6:5,6
38. Importunity in prayer commended
Luke 18:5,7
Importunity in prayer condemned
Matt 6:7,8
39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
The wearing of long hair by men condemned
1 Cor 11:14
40. Circumcision instituted
Gen 17:10
Circumcision condemned
Gal 5:2
41. The Sabbath instituted
Ex 20:8
The Sabbath repudiated
Is 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16
42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
Ex 20:11
The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites
out of Egypt
Deut 5:15
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in
the same
John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
44. Baptism commanded
Matt 28:19
Baptism not commanded
1 Cor 1:17,14
45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
Deut 14:7,8
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
Taking of oaths forbidden
Matt 5:34
47. Marriage approved
Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
Marriage disapproved
1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
48. Freedom of divorce permitted
Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
Divorce restricted
Matt 5:32
49. Adultery forbidden
Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
Adultery allowed
Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
51. A man may marry his brother's widow
Deut 25:5
A man may not marry his brother's widow
Lev 20:21
52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
Luke 14:26
Hatred to kindred condemned
Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers
and punish evil doers only
Rom 13:1-3,6
It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the
good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35
55. Women's rights denied
Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
Women's rights affirmed
Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9
56. Obedience to masters enjoined
Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
Obedience due to God only
Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10
57. There is an unpardonable sin
Mark 3:29
There is not unpardonable sin
Acts 13:39
Historical Facts
58. Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19
59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease
Gen 8:22
Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years
Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart
Ex 4:21/ Ed 9:12
Pharaoh hardened his own heart
Ex 8:15
61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died
Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9
All the horses of Egypt did not die
Ex 14:9
62. Moses feared Pharaoh
Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19
Moses did not fear Pharaoh
Heb 11:27
63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand
Num 25:9
There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand
1 Cor 10:8
64. John the Baptist was Elias
Matt 11:14
John the Baptist was not Elias
John 1:21
65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob
Matt 1:16
The father of Mary's husband was Heli
Luke 3:23
66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad
Gen 11:12
The father of Salah was Cainan
Luke 3:35,36
67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:17
There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
Matt 1:2-6
68. There were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity
to Christ.
Matt 1:17
There were but thirteen generations from the Babylonian
captivity to Christ
Matt 1:12-16
69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23
The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39
70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness
Mark 1:12,13
Christ was not tempted in the wilderness
John 2:1,2
71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount
Matt 5:1,2
Christ preached his first sermon on the plain
Luke 6:17,20
72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
Mark 1:14
John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
John 1:43/ John 3:22-24
73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff
and sandals
Mark 6:8,9
Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither
staffs nor sandals.
Matt 10:9,10
74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus
Matt 15:22
It was a Greek woman who besought Him
Mark 7:26
75. Two blind men besought Jesus
Matt 20:30
Only one blind man besought Him
Luke 18:35,38
76. Christ was crucified at the third hour
Mark 15:25
Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour
John 19:14,15
77. The two thieves reviled Christ.
Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32
Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
Luke 23:39,40
78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper
John 13:27
Satan entered into him before the supper
Luke 22:3,4,7
79. Judas committed suicide by hanging
Matt 27:5
Judas did not hang himself, but died another way
Acts 1:18
80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas
Acts 1:18
The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests
Matt 27:6,7
81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre
John 20:1
There were two women who came to the sepulchre
Matt 28:1
82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:1
There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre
Luke 24:10
83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:2
It was some time before sunrise when they came.
John 20:1
84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and
they were standing up.
Luke 24:4
There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.
Matt 28:2,5
85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.
John 20:11,12
There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre
Mark 16:5
86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave
Matt 12:40
Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave
Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9>
87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost
Acts 1:8,5
Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost
John 20:22
88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go into Galilee
Matt 28:10
The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
Luke 24:49
89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at
Jerusalem
Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19
Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
Matt 28:16,17
90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
Acts 1:9,12
Christ ascended from Bethany
Luke 24:50,51
91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood
speechless
Acts 9:7
Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate
Acts 26:14
92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan
Gen 12:5
Abraham went not knowing where
Heb 11:8
93. Abraham had two sons
Gal 4:22
Abraham had but one son
Heb 11:17
94. Keturah was Abraham's wife
Gen 25:1
Keturah was Abraham's concubine
1 Chron 1:32
95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the
interposition of Providence
Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12
Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years
old without any interposition of providence
Gen 25:1,2
96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor
Josh 24:32
Abraham bought it of Hamor
Acts 7:16
97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed
forever
Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8
Abraham and his seed never received the promised land
Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13
98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan
2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be
correct. Original manuscript was incorrect>
The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan
1 Chron 20:5
99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram
2 Kings 8:25
Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram
2 Kings 9:29
100. Michal had no child
2 Sam 6:23
Michal had five children
2 Sam 21:8
101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel
2 Sam 24:1
David was tempted by Satan to number the people
1 Chron 21:1
102. The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of
Judah 500,000
2 Sam 24:9
The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of
Judah 470,000
1 Chron 21:5
103. David sinned in numbering the people
2 Sam 24:10
David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah
1 Kings 15:5
104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of
famine.
2 Sam 24:13
It was not seven years, but three years of famine
1 Chron 21:11,12
105. David took seven hundred horsemen
2 Sam 8:4
David took seven thousand horsemen
1 Chron 18:4
106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver
2 Sam 24:24
David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of
gold
1 Chron 21:25
107. David's throne was to endure forever.
Ps 89:35-37
David's throne was cast down
Ps 89:44
Speculative Doctrines
108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
109. Jesus was all-powerful
Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
Jesus was not all-powerful
Mark 6:5
110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
Matt 5:17-19
111. Christ's mission was peace
Luke 2:13,14
Christ's mission was not peace
Matt 10:34
112. Christ received not testimony from man
John 5:33,34
Christ did receive testimony from man
John 15:27
113. Christ's witness of himself is true.
John 8:18,14
Christ's witness of himself is not true.
John 5:31
114. Christ laid down his life for his friends
John 15:13/ John 10:11
Christ laid down his life for his enemies
Rom 5:10
115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 19:7
It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
John 18:31
116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents
Ex 20:5
Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
Ezek 18:20
117. Man is justified by faith alone
Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
Man is not justified by faith alone
James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13
118. It is impossible to fall from grace
John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
It is possible to fall from grace
Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21
119. No man is without sin
1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
Christians are sinless
1 John 3: 9,6,8
120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead
1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
There is to be no resurrection of the dead
Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14
121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
Prov 11:31
Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10
122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind
Job 3: 11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
Endless misery the portion of all mankind
Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2
123. The Earth is to be destroyed
2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
The Earth is never to be destroyed
Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4
124. No evil shall happen to the godly
Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
Evil does happen to the godly
Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7
125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly
Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/
Job 42:12
Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly
Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17
126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing
Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
Prov 15:6
Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward
Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
Luke 6:24
127. The Christian yoke is easy
Matt 11:28,29,30
The Christian yoke is not easy
John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8
128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
Gal 5:22
The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury
Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11
129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked
Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20
Longevity denied to the wicked
Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17
130. Poverty a blessing
Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
Riches a blessing
Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
Prov 30:8,9
131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment
Prov 3:13,17
Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow
Eccl 1:17,18
132. A good name is a blessing
Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1
A good name is a curse
Luke 6:26
133. Laughter commended
Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15
Laughter condemned
Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4
134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness
Prov 22:15
There is no remedy for foolishness
Prov 27:22
135. A fool should be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:5
A fool should not be answered according to his folly
Prov 26:4
136. Temptation to be desired
James 1:2
Temptation not to be desired
Matt 6:13
137. Prophecy is sure
2 Pet 1:19
Prophecy is not sure
Jer 18:7-10
138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years
Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10
Man's life is but seventy years
Ps 90:10
139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast
Gen 9:2
The fear of man is not upon the lion
Prov 30:30
140. Miracles a proof of divine mission
Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31
Miracles not a proof of divine mission
Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19
141. Moses was a very meek man
Num 12:3
Moses was a very cruel man
Num 31:15,17
142. Elijah went up to heaven
2 Kings 2:11
None but Christ ever ascended into heaven
John 3:13
143. All scripture is inspired
2 Tim 3:16
Some scripture is not inspired
1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17
-
To Gandalf: "Who?" does not necessary mean "God" because "God" is not a person. He is not deficient and thus, he does not need anything. A person however, is far from that. That would be a Christian definition of "God". "God" is your unique view and everyone holds a different definition of the word "God" so it is impossible to please every "God" on this planet.
Your background defines who you are, that is all I mentioned on this subject.
"who" refers to a person or entity. An event would be referred to as 'what'.
As such you referred to an entity creating the first spark, and the most common name for such an entity would be God.
-
"who" refers to a person or entity. An event would be referred to as 'what'.
We have established that already.
As such you referred to an entity creating the first spark, and the most common name for such an entity would be God.
I don't prefer thinking common in this case. I said "who" for a reason not related to a god. You can speculate about it for as much as you want. Who is as equal and legitimate question as "what" and "where". The fact is I got "framed" now and since I know how the process goes, the frame won't fall of easily. In Christian religion, there is a single god that contains three entities. Which entitiy did I actually mention?
Yes Mario, my inner god said this.
-
We have established that already.I don't prefer thinking common in this case. I said "who" for a reason not related to a god. You can speculate about it for as much as you want. Who is as equal and legitimate question as "what" and "where". The fact is I got "framed" now and since I know how the process goes, the frame won't fall of easily. I don't feel like continuing these circling fallacies.
Yes Mario, my inner god said this.
The only reason to 'frame' you was to teach you for the future. You are good at putting your words, and rarely make obvious mistakes. This one was even far from being obvious. Still you can improve your skills, especially in cases like this where you wish to keep your own ideas in private.
Should you need to remember my stance on this subject, I have studied several religions and the places of religious gathering from many are not strange to me. From a personal standpoint, I am not religious, however that does not exclude belief.
-
The only reason to 'frame' you was to teach you for the future. You are good at putting your words, and rarely make obvious mistakes. This one was even far from being obvious. Still you can improve your skills, especially in cases like this where you wish to keep your own ideas in private.
Should you need to remember my stance on this subject, I have studied several religions and the places of religious gathering from many are not strange to me. From a personal standpoint, I am not religious, however that does not exclude belief.
The only reason why I wish to keep these ideas private is because you can get in trouble for expressing yourself in my surroundings. May I remind you that we still live in a conservative society in this part of the world(Southeast Europe). We all must choose our words in as much diplomatic way as we can. I never bother discussing with people that have a narrow mindset. But then again, alteri semper ignoscito, tibi ipsi numquam.
Retuning on topic: Toxic, Bible is written by more than a single person. Take that in mind.
-
Retuning on topic: Toxic, Bible is written by more than a single person. Take that in mind.
This disproves the dogma that the Bible is an infallible source. If it were truly written by an intelligent and perfect Deity, then it should contain no contradictions (or at the least, be limited to very few contradictions as a result of being translated several dozen times from the original passages), as opposed to something compiled by a dozen or more people.
Or it could be that God exists (considering the Bible scenario), yet the word as forwarded (in the form of the Bible) is not how it was originally spoken, but rather the interpretation of humans.
-
This disproves the dogma that the Bible is an infallible source.
Wikipedia is written by millions of people yet (by some) seen as infallible source.
-
Wikipedia is written by millions of people yet (by some) seen as infallible source.
Science is done and written by millions of people and also seen as infallible source.
-
Science is done and written by millions of people and also seen as infallible source.
The only way I can end this combo is to say: Knowledge is relative.
-
The only way I can end this combo is to say: Knowledge is relative.
So basically the different points of view on knowledge have no absolute truth or reality as they are all based on subjective perception? :D
-
One thing is to trust in a book, that has years of research documented and shown, another is to believe in a book that just tells you to believe in something..
And even books with those great years of research can be fake and show nothing of what truly is the real thing.
The human species won't find the answer to who created the universe, and shouldn't even bother to, it is something beyond it's reach, and even if a theory, backed up by evidence does come up, it might yet be fake. Nothing is for sure in this world.
tl;dr. Nothing in this world is an infallible source of knowledge, just some things make more sense than others. That is why, scientists create Theories, it just so happens some of these theories can just make so much sense, it actually turns into a fact, but who knows, one day a scientist can come and disprove that "fact".
So again, we won't ever find out the answer to what created this universe, and it's actually a huge waste of time trying to figure out the answer.
-
tl;dr. Nothing in this world is an infallible source of knowledge, just some things make more sense than others. That is why, scientists create Theories, it just so happens some of these theories can just make so much sense, it actually turns into a fact, but who knows, one day a scientist can come and disprove that "fact".
When talking about science, make sure you know what scientists actually call a theory and differentiate it from hypothesis.
-
When talking about science, make sure you know what scientists actually call a theory and differentiate it from hypothesis.
Fine, a bad use of the words ^^ I just completely forgot the word hypothesis in english :P
-
One thing is to trust in a book, that has years of research documented and shown, another is to believe in a book that just tells you to believe in something..
There is a book based on writings of 2000 years old, which was created 1200 years ago after extensive study and research of which parts to include. It has been read and studied for 1200 years.
There is another book that was written 150 years ago, after years of extensive study by a single person.
If they conflict, who to believe?
-
There is a book based on writings of 2000 years old, which was created 1200 years ago after extensive study and research of which parts to include. It has been read and studied for 1200 years.
There is another book that was written 150 years ago, after years of extensive study by a single person.
If they conflict, who to believe?
Whoever makes more sense, credibility isn't gained by time, and even so, science has advanced in these 2000 years, therefore the newest one should have more means to prove their hypothesis, yet we still need to rely on whatever makes more sense, not whatever is older.
-
Whoever makes more sense, credibility isn't gained by time, and even so, science has advanced in these 2000 years, therefore the newest one should have more means to prove their hypothesis, yet we still need to rely on whatever makes more sense, not whatever is older.
But how to decide which is which.
-
But how to decide which is which.
Well, that's pretty relative, I guess it seriously depends on the case handed, we analize each hypothesis and it's thoughts and ideas, and work out what makes more sense, that's why scientists are always debating stuff, there are always two sides, and each will debate and see in the end which idea makes more sense and should be considered the "right" one, yet it could also be disprooved in the future.
-
The human species won't find the answer to who created the universe, and shouldn't even bother to, it is something beyond it's reach, and even if a theory, backed up by evidence does come up, it might yet be fake. Nothing is for sure in this world.
How do you know that the human species will not someday reach a level (technologically, intellectually, spiritually, etc...) where the means to find out the truth behind the creation of the Universe will become accessible?
-
It's about looking at it from a different perspective. When believing in the bible, you rely on belief. When believing in science, you rely on facts.
-
It's about looking at it from a different perspective. When believing in the bible, you rely on belief. When believing in science, you rely on facts.
What about scientific guesses which state that something happens, although the event in question has not been seen and disputably proven correct? (i.e: The graviton hypothesis)
-
What about scientific guesses which state that something happens, although the event in question has not been seen and disputably proven correct? (i.e: The graviton hypothesis)
Well in these times, almost anything scientists say is seen as a fact..
-
Well in these times, almost anything scientists say is seen as a fact..
Remember what happened when "scientists" supported the theory of spontaneous generation?
-
Well in these times, almost anything scientists say is seen as a fact..
Except by other scientists who want to see the actual research.
-
Remember what happened when "scientists" supported the theory of spontaneous generation?
No.
-
Eh, to keep this without too much of a fight, here is the following:
Religion, if you do not bealive in God, should atleast be respected, because it is a HUUGE part of our past. It is our tradition, our custom. If you dont respect church, or mosque, or sinagoge, or whatever religion you are, you should atleast respect your past and your tradition.
-
Eh, to keep this without too much of a fight, here is the following:
Religion, if you do not bealive in God, should atleast be respected, because it is a HUUGE part of our past. It is our tradition, our custom. If you dont respect church, or mosque, or sinagoge, or whatever religion you are, you should atleast respect your past and your tradition.
I respect anyone who believes in what he stands for. I am not 'against' religion. In my opinion, everyone is able to think what he wants.
I just think it's wrong if a belief is spread into a large community and made as the form of a law, a regime, an obligation. I respect it, but I do not worship it.
-
Religion, if you do not bealive in God, should atleast be respected, because it is a HUUGE part of our past. It is our tradition, our custom. If you dont respect church, or mosque, or sinagoge, or whatever religion you are, you should atleast respect your past and your tradition.
Lots of things in the past are, while important, not worthy of respect.
-
So, the knowledge about Black Holes in space was first discovered 1200 years ago rather than the modern era.
-
Well in these times, almost anything scientists say is seen as a fact..
Before I start, yes.....I do see the word "almost"
Well look at the Global Warming hoax. Last year many scientists that worked on the Global Warming theory admitted to falsefying numbers and statistics just so that their uber-enviromental political adgendas can be put into effect. Humans aren't the cause of "Global Warming", it's cows and other livestock. Why you ask, the answer is simple. Methane. The cow/horse/etc. shit produced by them emitts more methane emissions than human-caused CO2 emissions over a period of 1 year.
-
I respect anyone who believes in what he stands for. I am not 'against' religion. In my opinion, everyone is able to think what he wants.
I just think it's wrong if a belief is spread into a large community and made as the form of a law, a regime, an obligation. I respect it, but I do not worship it.
Yea, whell in todays world, religion is left in some parts of the law because, it was it since the first religion was invented. In MINE personall opinion, i think it is there just so we can keep a link to our past, and to respect our antcesters.
-
Yea, whell in todays world, religion is left in some parts of the law because, it was it since the first religion was invented. In MINE personall opinion, i think it is there just so we can keep a link to our past, and to respect our antcesters.
Or just be progressive and look forward in society and life instead of being stuck in a fundamentalist dreamworld. IMO ofc.
-
Or just be progressive and look forward in society and life instead of being stuck in a fundamentalist dreamworld. IMO ofc.
OR look and advance to future AND keep linked to your past. THAT is the way to go! Respect the tradition, respect the past AND advance to future!
-
OR look and advance to future AND keep linked to your past. THAT is the way to go! Respect the tradition, respect the past AND advance to future!
A good way to assist that is removing ties with fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with REMEMBERING traditions and acting them out. But letting your life spinn around them and making you rely on it, that's not moving forward very much. But enough arguing, you have your beliefs, I have mine, let's keep it at that. I respect you for everything you stand for, trust me.
-
So, the knowledge about Black Holes in space was first discovered 1200 years ago rather than the modern era.
You are 1000 years wRONg.
-
You are 1000 years wRONg.
Your opinion least to say, if i proved it to you, you would deny it because the source which it's from, was only questioned and not understood by you.
-
Your opinion least to say, if i proved it to you, you would deny it because the source which it's from, was only questioned and not understood by you.
You should try rather than assume.
-
I already did many times before in the years when "Politics and Religion" board existed. He is still the same in my view. :)
-
Your opinion least to say, if i proved it to you, you would deny it because the source which it's from, was only questioned and not understood by you.
If you refer to the passage in the Quran about stars being veiled, I believe that the Quran clearly mentions you are not allowed to twist its words.
Stars are veiled from us by daylight as mentioned in the verse. It has absolutely zero to to with 'modern explanations' by those who mislead the true Muslims.
-
It's not that, if you want i can just pm you the entire thing if you want.
-
It's not that, if you want i can just pm you the entire thing if you want.
No problem, just expect me to be close to the source.
-
It's not that, if you want i can just pm you the entire thing if you want.
PM me as well then.
-
PM me as well then.
F**k that, pm everyone. Oh wait, just post it here.
-
A good way to assist that is removing ties with fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with REMEMBERING traditions and acting them out. But letting your life spinn around them and making you rely on it, that's not moving forward very much. But enough arguing, you have your beliefs, I have mine, let's keep it at that. I respect you for everything you stand for, trust me.
Same on this side. Some things just cant be proven to other ones. Eh, yea, lets keep, as you said, to that you have your beliefs and i got mine :).
Your opinion least to say, if i proved it to you, you would deny it because the source which it's from, was only questioned and not understood by you.
Technology for discovering black holes was not avilable 1200 years ago. NOPE, it was not. MAYBE, but just MAYBE, the ancient people (Egyptians, Sumerians). They had links to extraterestrials. WHY YOU ASK? Answer is AEROPLANES CARVED into PYRAMIDS by EGYPTIANS.
All ancient people speak about flying machines, people from INDIA speak about (in theyre ancient texts) about Gods coming to earth in flying castles (I mean, comon, obivously spaceships), than Sumerians speak of people from other worlds coming, and teaching them about civilization, building, science, giving them knowledge, etc...
I dont think that that is JUST a myth, but ANYWAYS, BACK TO TOPIC! (PLEASE DO NTO QUOTE WHAT I STATED UP BECAUSE IT WILL LEAD TO MASS PAGES OF OFF TOPIC STUFF, SO PLEASE, DONT QUOTE IT)
Now, anyway, there was not technology avilable 1200 years ago to discover black holes. PERIOD.
-
Technology for discovering black holes was not avilable 1200 years ago. NOPE, it was not. MAYBE, but just MAYBE, the ancient people (Egyptians, Sumerians). They had links to extraterestrials. WHY YOU ASK? Answer is AEROPLANES CARVED into PYRAMIDS by EGYPTIANS.
Not sure if stupidity or sarcasm.
-
Not sure if stupidity or sarcasm.
Actually, i gathered info, and watched ancient aliens on history channel, AND, double checked the facts from there on internet, and some books.
-
Actually, i gathered info, and watched ancient aliens on history channel, AND, double checked the facts from there on internet, and some books.
Statement not withdrawn.
Don't believe everything you see on Television and on the internet.
-
Actually, i gathered info, and watched ancient aliens on history channel
LOL
-
Statement not withdrawn.
Don't believe everything you see on Television and on the internet.
LOL
AHM AHM AHHHHHHHM.
FIRST i saw about it ON TV.
THAN i checked the internet.
THAN I looked trough some of my dads books. Amazingly he had some books about it.
NOW FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST, GET BACK TO TOPIC!
-
AHM AHM AHHHHHHHM.
FIRST i saw about it ON TV.
THAN i checked the internet.
THAN I looked trough some of my dads books. Amazingly he had some books about it.
NOW FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST, GET BACK TO TOPIC!
Quick note
Ancient Aliens?
Egyptians drawing planes?
Sources please.
Also, how can you be sure that the Egyptians were drawing PLANES? That could be a symbol they used in their language/literature commonly.
And I swear, if you use any sources from national television news like Fox, CBS or any others, I will hit you like an abusive husband.
-
Shut up! Stargate is real!
-
Quick note
Ancient Aliens?
Egyptians drawing planes?
Sources please.
Also, how can you be sure that the Egyptians were drawing PLANES? That could be a symbol they used in their language/literature commonly.
And I swear, if you use any sources from national television news like Fox, CBS or any others, I will hit you like an abusive husband.
I dont even watch those channels at all.
AND AT THIS VIDEO PAUSE AT 0:32.
Check the hieroglyphs. ON the right side, you can see three aeroplanes.
-
I dont even watch those channels at all.
AND AT THIS VIDEO PAUSE AT 0:32.
Check the hieroglyphs. ON the right side, you can see three aeroplanes.
...What video?
-
Still waiting for that PM about black holes....
As for the Egyptian planes:
(http://www.rabbithole2.com/presentation/images2/artifacts/Egypt_Planes.jpg)
However when you read or check something do not look for sites that confirm. Instead look for 'debunking' of these things as that might teach you more.
-
Still waiting for that PM about black holes....
As for the Egyptian planes:
(http://www.rabbithole2.com/presentation/images2/artifacts/Egypt_Planes.jpg)
However when you read or check something do not look for sites that confirm. Instead look for 'debunking' of these things as that might teach you more.
UFO's in Ancient Art Debunked 2 (Egyptian art) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lBnO8oa5tQ#)
-
UFO's in Ancient Art Debunked 2 (Egyptian art) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lBnO8oa5tQ#)
Nice video, it really explains a lot. The narrator explains every detail of the helicopter, submarine, jet plane and UFO. I agree with it. And of course someone will say, yeah it's bullshit and stuff. But really, if the Egyptians had links to ET and to the future, or if they somehow "built those helicopters", why weren't there be any traces of them now. I mean why the "aliens" only contacted the Egyptians and not the modern people. And as the video says, to run a helicopter, a submarine(which is useless at that time), jet plane would need a lot of fuel, which wasn't available then. So my opinion is to think that they were just writing stuff one over another and it came up to those shapes. And for the alien on the picture, or even on the renaissance pictures, are just UFO enthusiasts seeing an UFO in every god damn circle thing that is out there in the sky.
-
Nice video, it really explains a lot. The narrator explains every detail of the helicopter, submarine, jet plane and UFO. I agree with it. And of course someone will say, yeah it's bullshit and stuff. But really, if the Egyptians had links to ET and to the future, or if they somehow "built those helicopters", why weren't there be any traces of them now. I mean why the "aliens" only contacted the Egyptians and not the modern people. And as the video says, to run a helicopter, a submarine(which is useless at that time), jet plane would need a lot of fuel, which wasn't available then. So my opinion is to think that they were just writing stuff one over another and it came up to those shapes. And for the alien on the picture, or even on the renaissance pictures, are just UFO enthusiasts seeing an UFO in every god damn circle thing that is out there in the sky.
I do believe the video is a load of bullshit.
-
Nice video, it really explains a lot. The narrator explains every detail of the helicopter, submarine, jet plane and UFO. I agree with it. And of course someone will say, yeah it's bullshit and stuff. But really, if the Egyptians had links to ET and to the future, or if they somehow "built those helicopters", why weren't there be any traces of them now. I mean why the "aliens" only contacted the Egyptians and not the modern people. And as the video says, to run a helicopter, a submarine(which is useless at that time), jet plane would need a lot of fuel, which wasn't available then. So my opinion is to think that they were just writing stuff one over another and it came up to those shapes. And for the alien on the picture, or even on the renaissance pictures, are just UFO enthusiasts seeing an UFO in every god damn circle thing that is out there in the sky.
It is foolish to think that we are alone in such an enormeouse universe.
Please, take a look at our history:
First proof of aliens is Noas Arc: HOW ON EARTH can a single HUMAN BEING collect ALL animal spicies in ENTIRE WORLD, and put it on an ARC, and all that 7K B.C.?!
Now what i bealive is that there was no Arc. And actuall animals were not collected, but theyre DNA samples were instead collected, and put to a safe place which could only be explained to people from the past as an ARC. Now, collecting DNA samples of all animals is YET NOT possible by 1 guy. So, i bealive that ET's helped him. So, he put all DNA in an missinterpreted DNA BANK, that survived the great flood.
BTW HUMANS were erased because they were geneticly INPERFECT. I SAW skeleton of a human BEFORE the great flood was said to happen, and after, and thrust me IT IS WAAAAY diffrent! So, how i look upon humans: an ET genetic experiment. A workers race, created to deliver minerals to ET race. BUT over the ages, we got more developed, and huh, they lost controll.
Now it is up to you to bealive in it, or not, but other of my evidences are TOOOOO long to wright on forum, but, if you wish, i can PM it all to you.
Every day, new one, and thrust me, you will be suprised!
Post Merge: September 24, 2012, 03:59:02 pm
...What video?
SOORY, BUT the picture that i wanted to show to you in that video was already posted by gandalf:
UFO's in Ancient Art Debunked 2 (Egyptian art) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lBnO8oa5tQ#)
Eh, take a look at it...
-
Alexander your beliefs seem to be a bit mixed.
The problem with the Ark is that there was never a global flood.
To explain is very simple: there is not enough water on this planet to flood all continents.
So what may have happened is a local flood turning in to legend of being global.
As civilization may have spread from the Black Sea area, the flooding of the Black Sea would explain a flood legend around that area.
-
Alek, stop watching History channel, it's messing up your vision..
-
Alek, stop watching History channel, it's messing up your vision..
BESIDES History channel, i actually READ BOOKS. Something you could try from time to time a? AND IN BOOKS so MANY AMAZING stuff are revealed, that you just cant coperahend it UNLESS you read THE ACTUALL BOOK.
Alright now, tell me, why shouldnt i bealive in ancient alliens? Planet Earth was created in roughly 4.5 billion years ago. If some planet was created at same time, BUT, LIFE started to emerge just 100 milion years before life on planet Earth, than it would be compleatly possible that there is a race, wich is millions of years ahead of us in technology. Compleatly possible. And, i mean LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE! It is infinite! How do you know that humans are ONLY intelligent creatures in an INFINITE universe?
-
BESIDES History channel, i actually READ BOOKS. Something you could try from time to time a? AND IN BOOKS so MANY AMAZING stuff are revealed, that you just cant coperahend it UNLESS you read THE ACTUALL BOOK.
Alright now, tell me, why shouldnt i bealive in ancient alliens? Planet Earth was created in roughly 4.5 billion years ago. If some planet was created at same time, BUT, LIFE started to emerge just 100 milion years before life on planet Earth, than it would be compleatly possible that there is a race, wich is millions of years ahead of us in technology. Compleatly possible. And, i mean LOOK AT THE UNIVERSE! It is infinite! How do you know that humans are ONLY intelligent creatures in an INFINITE universe?
I'm not denying that there is life, throughout the whole universe. I just don't think aliens build the pyramids, or the earth for that matter.
Besides, if you believe this, why do you still believe in god?
-
Most things in books you will be ableto find references to on the internet nowadays.
As for life elsewhere in the universe, it is very possible. But unless they discovered a way around the laws of nature we observe, or have a very different lifespan travel through space is not feasible.
-
I'm not denying that there is life, throughout the whole universe. I just don't think aliens build the pyramids, or the earth for that matter.
Besides, if you believe this, why do you still believe in god?
I bealive in God, but, i bealive that he created it all. Aliens are just his product. In a God, i bealive, but, i also bealive in aliens. For all i know aliens could have found out about religion, a thing that humans have, and used it as theyre advantage to controll us more easily.
This aint bullshit, this is just a possible scenario!
-
I bealive in God, but, i bealive that he created it all. Aliens are just his product. In a God, i bealive, but, i also bealive in aliens. For all i know aliens could have found out about religion, a thing that humans have, and used it as theyre advantage to controll us more easily.
This aint bullshit, this is just a possible scenario!
Aliens also prove there is intelligent life form on planets other than earth. Doesn't that contradict each other?
-
Aliens also prove there is intelligent life form on planets other than earth. Doesn't that contradict each other?
Why would that contradict ?
-
Why would that contradict ?
Doesn't christian religion deny the fact that species other than humans don't go to heaven and societies can't build without christianity?
-
Doesn't christian religion deny the fact that species other than humans don't go to heaven and societies can't build without christianity?
So what exactly is the problem ?
-
So what exactly is the problem ?
Not a problem, it just seems that being a christian AND believing in intelligent life on other planets collide a bit.
-
Not a problem, it just seems that being a christian AND believing in intelligent life on other planets collide a bit.
What if the aliens are human and Christians ?
-
What if the aliens are human and Christians ?
That's something that cannot be proven or be discovered, as it could be anything.
-
That's something that cannot be proven or be discovered, as it could be anything.
which means that just the existence of aliens does not have to exclude belief in God. ;)
-
That's something that cannot be proven or be discovered, as it could be anything.
Aren't you describing Scientology?
-
Aren't you describing Scientology?
No. This has nothing to do with that.
Alexander believes in God, yet is discovering various mysteries of old times. Some are real, some are just fantasies from people who create far-fetched theories based on very little evidence.
The question is, can this co-exist ? The answer is simple, if God exists, one may assume that he did not rest after the 7th day and has since been continuing making creations, or that his existence is in such a way that it does not go against a high number of possible civilizations.
There for the existence of God does not disrupt a universe full of life.
-
Well, in Islam it said that Humans are the second race while the Jinns are the first, the one what you would call "Aliens".
-
They are not souls...
but then they didn't follow him and so he created us humans.
.... No
-
Well, in Islam it said that Humans are the second race while the Jinns are the first, the one what you would call "Aliens".
Well, in Islam it said that Humans are the second race while the Jinns are the first, the one what you would call "Aliens".
Wrong on both counts. The Jinn or the Djinn were created earlier than man, but they are a seperate society given the possibility of choosing between worshipping God or not, not much different from men. Apart from the fact that they're powerful, in greater numbers than man, and do not co-exist or show themselves. According to tradition, Hazrat Suleman (Solomon) had great power over them and used their services to build his great empire.
-
Wrong on both counts. The Jinn or the Djinn were created earlier than man, but they are a seperate society given the possibility of choosing between worshipping God or not, not much different from men. Apart from the fact that they're powerful, in greater numbers than man, and do not co-exist or show themselves. According to tradition, Hazrat Suleman (Solomon) had great power over them and used their services to build his great empire.
So if I understand right, if humans decide to stop worshipping, God will just make a new, weaker, race to get his daily dose of worshipping ?
-
Wrong on both counts. The Jinn or the Djinn were created earlier than man, but they are a seperate society given the possibility of choosing between worshipping God or not, not much different from men. Apart from the fact that they're powerful, in greater numbers than man, and do not co-exist or show themselves. According to tradition, Hazrat Suleman (Solomon) had great power over them and used their services to build his great empire.
Read again... I said the humans are the second race while Jinns are the first. Also, you can't wrong me on having the possibility of Jinns being the aliens because they are, considering if you are Muslim.
So if I understand right, if humans decide to stop worshipping, God will just make a new, weaker, race to get his daily dose of worshipping ?
Don't bring out his errors but rather educate him.
-
Read again... I said the humans are the second race while Jinns are the first. Also, you can't wrong me on having the possibility of Jinns being the aliens because they are, considering if you are Muslim.
Don't bring out his errors but rather educate him.
God makes errors ? :wow:
-
God makes errors ?
My post is a response to your statement that is directed towards omarlay's comment. WHAT GOING ON WITH THIS THREAD!
-
My post is a response to your statement that is directed towards omarlay's comment. WHAT GOING ON WITH THIS THREAD!
Nit-picking... that's what's going on. :roll:
-
I MADE BOLD LETTERS, AND HIGHLIGHTED THEM IN RED, AND THEY SAID DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC, READ IT, DO NOT COMMENT ABOUT IT, KEEP ON TOPIC!
But NOOOOO noone listens...
-
You remind me of Cicero from Skyrim, infact your post aligns perfectly with his voice.
-
You remind me of Cicero from Skyrim, infact your post aligns perfectly with his voice.
-
You should take it as a compliment. :)
-
Meh, i just posted that to see how it looks :D
How does he sound like?
-
Skyrim - Cicero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8JBPbuiIWE#)
-
I MADE BOLD LETTERS, AND HIGHLIGHTED THEM IN RED, AND THEY SAID DO NOT GO OFF TOPIC, READ IT, DO NOT COMMENT ABOUT IT, KEEP ON TOPIC!
But NOOOOO noone listens...
Read topic... Teenage Atheist Union....
:devroll:
-
Skyrim - Cicero (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8JBPbuiIWE#)
Oh my god he does too, that is so creepy
Also he's a hypocrite because he helped derail the topic
-
Whell, in english class they always tell me that i sound like this guy :roll: :
Grand Theft Auto IV - Niko Bellic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lALQQpJiHUw#ws)
-
Whell, in english class they always tell me that i sound like this guy :roll: :
Grand Theft Auto IV - Niko Bellic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lALQQpJiHUw#ws)
>Demands no off-topic
>Goes off-topic
-
>Demands no off-topic
>Goes off-topic
>>Acts like an asshole and attacks me all day and night
>>Sounds like dooshbag to me...
-
>>Acts like an asshole and attacks me all day and night
>>Sounds like dooshbag to me...
facepalm.jpg
This has completely derailed imo.
-
Stop putting trash in this topic, or we will have no choice but to clean it.