Do you believe in "GOD" ,and the "Great" beyond ?
0
NeoStriker wrote...
We aren't "created" equally.
In the bible, it does say that God created us equally, and you made that statement to disprove it.
NeoStriker wrote...
If we have our own circumstances, then we aren't equal.However, your evidence is irrelevant.
NeoStriker wrote...
If we have our own circumstances, then we *are* not equal.The bible never stated that man was destined to stay equal. We were merely created equal, and from that point on, is where the equality ends and the test begins.
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
You religious folks do realise it's been proven "God" doesn't exist, right?Give me any scientific proof that supports the nonexistence of God. Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys who were to narrow-minded to think outside the concept of the Jewish god. Also, go read some of the Bible, preferably the old testament where God is spiteful as a spoiled brat.
While God in the sense of Abraham's God is forgiving he is also very vengeful and cruel to both his followers and those who deny him.
Also, not religious here. But I would never discard the possibility of a god.
Then I want you to discard it, as all people should. "Made up"? Are you a fucking retard? Even if it is "made up", how does that deter from the immense logic that it holds? First of all, Epicurus was Greek, and last I checked, Greece was a polytheistic society. So not only was he able to think outside of his own polytheistic society, then think about the possibility of monotheism, but he then concluded that that shit doesn't make sense. Narrow-minded? HAH! Wait, were you trying to say Epicurus didn't exist? DOUBLE-FUCKING HAH!
And fuck this shit with the, "read the Bible first, nub". I don't need to read the Bible to use logic.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
You religious folks do realise it's been proven "God" doesn't exist, right?Give me any scientific proof that supports the nonexistence of God. Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys who were to narrow-minded to think outside the concept of the Jewish god. Also, go read some of the Bible, preferably the old testament where God is spiteful as a spoiled brat.
While God in the sense of Abraham's God is forgiving he is also very vengeful and cruel to both his followers and those who deny him.
Also, not religious here. But I would never discard the possibility of a god.
Then I want you to discard it, as all people should. "Made up"? Are you a fucking retard? Even if it is "made up", how does that deter from the immense logic that it holds? First of all, Epicurus was Greek, and last I checked, Greece was a polytheistic society. So not only was he able to think outside of his own polytheistic society, then think about the possibility of monotheism, but he then concluded that that shit doesn't make sense. Narrow-minded? HAH! Wait, were you trying to say Epicurus didn't exist? DOUBLE-FUCKING HAH!
And fuck this shit with the, "read the Bible first, nub". I don't need to read the Bible to use logic.
STOP IGNORING MY LOVE
0
"In the bible, it does say that God created us equally, and you made that statement to disprove it."
Wait, you're trying to use the Bible as evidence? No. That doesn't work. And no. We aren't created equally. Explain birth defects, which were somehow bypassed by the "all-knowing One".
"However, your evidence is irrelevant."
No, it is relevant.
"The bible never stated that man was destined to stay equal. We were merely created equal, and from that point on, is where the equality ends and the test begins."
So you're basically admitting that while you're still in your mother's womb, getting ready to be born; sure, you're the same as all those other little babies getting ready to be born. But you're also saying that that's it. When you're born, that's when the equality stops (I for one believe we're never completely equal). Which means we're all different, with different upbringings and luxuries and whatnot. Which means the "test" is different for everyone. Which means there is no point to the "test".
Wait, you're trying to use the Bible as evidence? No. That doesn't work. And no. We aren't created equally. Explain birth defects, which were somehow bypassed by the "all-knowing One".
"However, your evidence is irrelevant."
No, it is relevant.
"The bible never stated that man was destined to stay equal. We were merely created equal, and from that point on, is where the equality ends and the test begins."
So you're basically admitting that while you're still in your mother's womb, getting ready to be born; sure, you're the same as all those other little babies getting ready to be born. But you're also saying that that's it. When you're born, that's when the equality stops (I for one believe we're never completely equal). Which means we're all different, with different upbringings and luxuries and whatnot. Which means the "test" is different for everyone. Which means there is no point to the "test".
0
"Wait, you're trying to use the Bible as evidence?"
Yah, hold on.
Super layman time.
"Explain birth defects, which were somehow bypassed by the "all-knowing One"."
All part of da test.
"So you're basically admitting that while you're still in your mother's womb"
Not rlly.
"You're the same as all those other little babies getting ready to be born"
No, because birth defects.
"Which means there is no point to the "test"."
There is obviously a purpose so great that we cannot understand or comprehend. Yah.
I apologize for the layman, I'm super busy.
Yah, hold on.
Super layman time.
"Explain birth defects, which were somehow bypassed by the "all-knowing One"."
All part of da test.
"So you're basically admitting that while you're still in your mother's womb"
Not rlly.
"You're the same as all those other little babies getting ready to be born"
No, because birth defects.
"Which means there is no point to the "test"."
There is obviously a purpose so great that we cannot understand or comprehend. Yah.
I apologize for the layman, I'm super busy.
0
Not at all. The very notion of 50 foot high bearded man who watches everybody on a bunch of tv screens is pretty idiotic.
0
"There is obviously a purpose so great that we cannot understand or comprehend. Yah."
You just pulled the very common religious cop-out. "God" is not exempted from our laws. If he is, then he doesn't exist.
You just pulled the very common religious cop-out. "God" is not exempted from our laws. If he is, then he doesn't exist.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Then I want you to discard it, as all people should. "Made up"? Are you a fucking retard?Did you just call me a retard for using a religious view, while you use a philosophical one? -_-'' Why would I discard the possibility that God might exist, when we have absolutely no proof that says he doesn't? This also work the other way around, I will not argue that there is a possibility that God don't exist. But you say you have hard-proof about his nonexistence? give it to me then.
NeoStriker wrote...
Even if it is "made up", how does that deter from the immense logic that it holds? First of all, Epicurus was Greek, and last I checked, Greece was a polytheistic society. So not only was he able to think outside of his own polytheistic society, then think about the possibility of monotheism, but he then concluded that that shit doesn't make sense.Indeed, what I ment was that he was thinking to hard on the concept of the Jewish god, since he was Greek, and therefor had knowledge about greek religion, he should realise that Gods are infact spitefull little brats.
NeoStriker wrote...
Narrow-minded? HAH! Wait, were you trying to say Epicurus didn't exist? DOUBLE-FUCKING HAH!Wait what?.. Where did I state that Epicurus didn't exist? I only said he was a narrow-minded old fool who obviously didn't think things thorugh enough. As were the people who took what he said to heart.
NeoStriker wrote...
And fuck this shit with the, "read the Bible first, nub". I don't need to read the Bible to use logic.No but you might want to read up on the basics of the subject you're arguing against, instead of being ignorant.
0
Did you just call me a retard for using a religious view, while you use a philosophical one? -_-''
Yes, because religions and philosophies, are indeed, not the same thing. They might coexist, but they are not the same.
Why would I discard the possibility that God might exist, when we have absolutely no proof that says he doesn't? This also work the other way around, I will not argue that there is a possibility that God don't exist. But you say you have hard-proof about his nonexistence? give it to me then.
If "God" exists, then how does he work? Does he work outside of our boundaries and understanding? Does he work outside of nature? Then that's the same thing as saying he doesn't exist. All you need to use is logic to realize "God" doesn't exist. If you REALLY want scientific proof, then have you ever heard of the raven's paradox? Basically, everything in nature that we observe that ISN'T "God" nor the work of "God" is proof upon proof that he does not exist. You'd probably say something like, "God exists in us all". Then why aren't we omnipotent? "Because God wants to test us to see if we can use the powers correctly" The tests aren't fair, and thus pointless. "God" cannot be observed, and that in itself is scientific proof that he doesn't exist.
Indeed, what I ment was that he was thinking to hard on the concept of the Jewish god, since he was Greek, and therefor had knowledge about greek religion, he should realise that Gods are infact spitefull little brats.
Are you trying to say "thinking" is wrong? Because there is no such thing as "thinking to hard".
Wait what?.. Where did I state that Epicurus didn't exist? I only said he was a narrow-minded old fool who obviously didn't think things thorugh enough. As were the people who took what he said to heart.
"Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys who were to narrow-minded to think outside the concept of the Jewish god."
See where you say "Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys", which is basically implying that instead of Epicurus, a bunch of other different guys made up the statement. Since you tried to take Epicurus out of the picture, it seemed like you thought he was made-up.
No but you might want to read up on the basics of the subject you're arguing against, instead of being ignorant.
So you agree that I used logic to debase everything you say, without having read the Bible.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Yes, because religions and philosophies, are indeed, not the same thing. They might coexist, but they are not the same.True, but neither of them relies on facts, only speculations.
If "God" exists, then how does he work? Does he work outside of our boundaries and understanding? Does he work outside of nature? Then that's the same thing as saying he doesn't exist. All you need to use is logic to realize "God" doesn't exist. If you REALLY want scientific proof, then have you ever heard of the raven's paradox? Basically, everything in nature that we observe that ISN'T "God" nor the work of "God" is proof upon proof that he does not exist. You'd probably say something like, "God exists in us all". Then why aren't we omnipotent? "Because God wants to test us to see if we can use the powers correctly" The tests aren't fair, and thus pointless. "God" cannot be observed, and that in itself is scientific proof that he doesn't exist.
First of, Ravens Paradox is a theory, no proof of anything. And neither does it work while dealing with the philosophical question about a deity's existence since it requires multiple, concrete objects. No object we have found in the world as it is today give any proof of Gods non/existence as God "as we know him" is not a physical object.
Are you trying to say "thinking" is wrong? Because there is no such thing as "thinking to hard".
It's a figure of speech, it means that he was concentrating to much on a single thing so you miss out on others.
"Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys who were to narrow-minded to think outside the concept of the Jewish god."
See where you say "Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys", which is basically implying that instead of Epicurus, a bunch of other different guys made up the statement. Since you tried to take Epicurus out of the picture, it seemed like you thought he was made-up.
See where you say "Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys", which is basically implying that instead of Epicurus, a bunch of other different guys made up the statement. Since you tried to take Epicurus out of the picture, it seemed like you thought he was made-up.
Yeah, my bad. I meant Epicurus and his followers.
So you agree that I used logic to debase everything you say, without having read the Bible.
I do. But there is also a lot of flaws in your arguments. For example, if you had read the bible, or parts of it you would know that it does in fact NOT state that everyone are created equally. It really pretty much tells you to suck it up. Those who are born into slavery should obey their masters and try to be good slaves, those who are born to be kings should try to be good and just kings.
Logic does no good if your facts are incorrect.
0
thegreatnobody wrote...
epsilon_013 wrote...
Sorry. i'm not the one who believe in GOD or other GREAT things. i'm in science side,the opposite side of spiritual. Because i just believe in something that is real and can (almost) be proven. like i believe in evolution thing than God create the world in 7 days. but i believe plague in Egypt before Moses across red sea because there are (kind a possible) scientific evidence about it
Science is not the opposite of spirituality, you know. Science is to study, to learn. Spirituality can be studied to deepen understanding, and spirituality can lead science to more knowledge. Galileo, the greatest scientist of his time, quote that it is through science and arithmetic that God wrote the laws of the universe. And as stated, theologians go to scientists to explain the reality of biblical facts.
i agree theologians go to scientists to explain the reality of biblical facts, that's happen when they need to prove it. like i told about Egypt's plague.
And i read magazine about evolution theory contradiction 's in Islamic religious. They don't believed in it, What Darwin's said, and said Darwin kind of infidel. They are not realise that it can proven by DNA nowadays, even for missing link. If God created world in 7 days, when dinosaur has change to live on the Earth? because there's no record God created giant lizard.
I remembered when archaeologist find a tomb and claimed it as Jesus' tomb. First i didn't care at all. The only thing catch up my attention is they, who disagree it is not Jesus' tomb, commented sound like afraid if it's true. Son of God, who supposed to rise up to Heaven after crucified, laid in tomb. If it is true, all faith in Bible will crumble. That's why i said science is the opposite side of spiritual.
0
The simple truth is that there is no proof for either side. It is our choice to believe or not. That is the essence of individuality. We can all make our own decisions.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
1)Yes, because religions and philosophies, are indeed, not the same thing. They might coexist, but they are not the same.2)If "God" exists, then how does he work? Does he work outside of our boundaries and understanding? Does he work outside of nature? Then that's the same thing as saying he doesn't exist. All you need to use is logic to realize "God" doesn't exist. If you REALLY want scientific proof, then have you ever heard of the raven's paradox? Basically, everything in nature that we observe that ISN'T "God" nor the work of "God" is proof upon proof that he does not exist. You'd probably say something like, "God exists in us all". Then why aren't we omnipotent? "Because God wants to test us to see if we can use the powers correctly" The tests aren't fair, and thus pointless. "God" cannot be observed, and that in itself is scientific proof that he doesn't exist.
3)Are you trying to say "thinking" is wrong? Because there is no such thing as "thinking to hard".
4)See where you say "Epicurus' statement is BS made up by cynical guys", which is basically implying that instead of Epicurus, a bunch of other different guys made up the statement. Since you tried to take Epicurus out of the picture, it seemed like you thought he was made-up.
1)OK, I do agree they're different
2)On my part, I only believe of his existence, since there's a cause for every effect, there should be an absolute source of everything(If you wanna keep whinning like a baby about it, it'll only be an endless cycle coz no one had any solid proof of the absolute source either)... What God does afterwards will always be a question... All of us equal? I don't believe in such crap either! Another proof he exists? Every "Normal Person's" component & substance, from the cell-tissue-muscles-etc, in the body harmonizes perfectly, just like how everything in the universe functions in harmony, just like a machine made by hand...
If your proof that he doesn't exist is only because he's unobservable, then has anyone been able to observe the whole universe? Or more simpler, has anyone even been able to see the center of the earth? All that science has now is just a theory from what they've studied... Yes, most things can be explained scientifically, but to totally erase the possibility of the unexplainable is plainly stupid, coz there are still some things that are...
3)True, there should be no barriers in reasoning coz there should be freedom in all... But are you also stating that believing in something is wrong? Most who are lucky would think God is good, while most who aren't would think God is cruel or there is no God... Like you said, we're not equal, thus our beliefs & philosophies are mostly from experiences, which differ from each of us...
4)OK, not a Jew, don't know about Chlor, but I'm an Agnostic, so I don't recall this Epicurus guy... so I'll pass...
0
Since someone already posted the Carlin spiel I wanted to put here, I'll contribute in another way. My opposition to the Judeo-Christian god is not based on science, philosophy etc. It's two-fold and quite simple.
1. I was born without religion and never taught to worship a god; so I consider this my natural state and see no reason to deviate from it. I did just fine without for my entire life.
2. I simply don't like the guy, real or not. So it really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme o' things for me. Jealous tyrants with penis envy aren't my thing.
If we're talking a generic "god" in the "first cause" sense without all the religious hocus pocus, why does it care whether I believe in it or not?
1. I was born without religion and never taught to worship a god; so I consider this my natural state and see no reason to deviate from it. I did just fine without for my entire life.
2. I simply don't like the guy, real or not. So it really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme o' things for me. Jealous tyrants with penis envy aren't my thing.
If we're talking a generic "god" in the "first cause" sense without all the religious hocus pocus, why does it care whether I believe in it or not?
0
I was going to type up some long explanation to refute what Chlor and Cyworg said, but please first answer how "God" exists in the face of Epicurus's statement.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
I was going to type up some long explanation to refute what Chlor and Cyworg said, but please first answer how "God" exists in the face of Epicurus's statement.Epicurus' statement only applies to the Jewish/Christian God, we're (initially) discussing the concept of God, not any particular religion. And Epicurus' statement does neither "prove" the existence or nonexistence of God.
Epicurus' statement is also based on that God is not malevolent, which he is, if you read the old testament. And let's just ignore the new one, as it wasn't written until around 5-600 years after Epicurus death.
I figure we'll have to post Epicurus Statement for those who don't know it. (It's also posted on the first page.)
Epicurus wrote...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
God is malevolent, just read the Book of Job, or Jona, or pretty much the entire Old Testament. Time after time God shows pettiness and cruelty, towards "heretics" and his own.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Some might think that, but is he really? Is it "evil" or "cruel" by God to not step in and force us to do things differently?
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Because God supposedly gave us free-will. Why would he do such a thing and then step in when we do something wrong? Why do we expect that God should be the one to stop the evils that we commit?
0
Chlor wrote...
Epicurus' statement only applies to the Jewish/Christian God, we're discussing the concept of God, not any particular religion. And Epicurus' statement does neither "prove" the existence or nonexistence of God.Epicurus' statement is also based on that God is not malevolent, which he is, if you read the old testament. And let's just ignore the new one, as it wasn't written until around 5-600 years after Epicurus death.
First of all, I want to bitchslap you for making this so much harder than it has to be. You. Oh my god. Second of all, if "God" is malevolent, then why are there so many goddamn fucking people who follow him? Because basically, the Bible teaches that even though "God" killed around 5 million people, it was for some good cause. So yes, "God" is benevolent, or in the view of his followers, supposed to be. If "God" is malevolent, then he shouldn't be called "God", and would be something else entirely, which also probably wouldn't exist.
Because God supposedly gave us free-will. Why would he do such a thing and then step in when we do something wrong? Why do we expect that God should be the one to stop the evils that we commit?
Because the statement is saying that "God" is willing. I want to bitchslap you. So hard. Are you sitting in your chair, thinking you're so awesome, having debunked all my claims so soundly? Sounds to me like you don't understand a lick of what we're talking about. Please, at the very least, try thinking for a good hour before responding.
0
First of all, I want to bitchslap you for making this so much harder than it has to be. You. Oh my god. Second of all, if "God" is malevolent, then why are there so many goddamn fucking people who follow him? Because basically, the Bible teaches that even though "God" killed around 5 million people, it was for some good cause. So yes, "God" is benevolent, or in the view of his followers, supposed to be. If "God" is malevolent, then he shouldn't be called "God", and would be something else entirely, which also probably wouldn't exist.
i am not here to take a side, i simply want to point out that "God" being a singular entity defines it as "God" so a difference in defining traits based purely on belief would not change the name said entity would be referred to by.