Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
The same way that atheists know that god doesn't exist. I know enough about it. I believe in evolution, but not the one science believes in because it doesn't make sense to me.
Okay... so, you believe in evolution, but ... you don't believe in evolution? That's confusing.
nfq wrote:
What makes sense to me is that we were androgynous spirits who became jellyblobs who divided by division like cells. After dividing for a long time we divided into two genders made of meat (because of mind's separation). God, life or consciousness decided which form it wanted to become/design. My theory also explains why creatures used to be so big (dinosaurs). Because spirits don't weigh much so they can be big without gravity affecting them.
Okay, so you dismiss decades of scientific inquiry, thousands of papers written by experts in their field, who have made it their life's work to study their chosen field of science. You reject it all because it doesn't make sense, and you're too lazy to read about it so that you can make sense of it? Instead you just make up your own hypothesis that contradicts everything currently known to man? Sheeis.
If you understood god, you would believe in it, and if I understood darwin-evolution, I would believe in it.
Do you care at all about what is true and what is fantasy?
Joined: 2/13/2007
Posts: 448
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Blublu wrote:
Do you care at all about what is true and what is fantasy?
Was going into space a truth in the 1860s? No, it was just a fantasy. just as many things we consider truths. Science is just a theory we accept as correct, remember that. A possiblility is that reality is perceived differently by everyone and that since followers of a religion believe it is true, to them it is real. As this invokes schrödinger's cat, we cannot test this idea making it null intil somehow proven.
Edit: Woah, my point of focus is on LSD.
Renting this space for rent.
Trying to fix image on this site. Please cut slack.
As of April 6th, 2012:
After a long absence, here we go again?
Most religions are founded on what could very easily be hoaxes - one or two or even eight or so guys who claim some supernatural event, and they tell people who tell people and then there's a religion. But none of the peole who believe can confirm what the original guys at the top said, they can only believe it.
But this is explicitly not true for the God of the Jews. According to Judaism - and Christianity and Islam - God spoke to an assembled mass of 600,000+ people all at once at Sinai. The entire nation heard him. Judaism isn't founded on "Well, Bob talked to God, so I guess we should do what he says", it's founded on "Hey grandma, you were there, what was it like?". Anyone attempting to create such an event as a hoax even postdated 400 years would run into a lot of people saying "I never heard about any of this,a nd if it happened as you say we should have lots of stories about it passed from generation to generation and we'd be able to get independent confirmation" - and that's not what happened. Instead, the independent confirmation and the stories were present when the text was recorded.
So, there's a historical proof. The Sinai event occured. Whether the being who spoke to the nation was who he said he was, you can argue, but whether he spoke? not so much.
What about the similar revelations that occurred in Ancient Egypt, Mexico, India?
The egyptians actually had 87 different revelations, 1 a generation for 87 generations. By your logic, you should worship Ra, not the Christian God.
Some events mentioned in the Mahabharata (Indian epic) have been confirmed by physical evidence. A crater was found in an area that mentioned a massive explosion as divine intervention, for example.
Science is just a theory we accept as correct, remember that.
I don't know if you could call it just a theory we accept as correct. A good scientific theory is able to explain why the experimental data was found that was found. It will also be able to make predictions to what will be found if experiments are conducted slightly different. It might even make predictions of results of completely different experiments. Some theories are able to predict new experiments with accuracies that is just stupifying. You have to acknowledge that these theories hold some kind of thruth. There may very well be changes to the theory in the future to make it even better. No one is claiming that science is "finished"... that's the beauty of science.
Rridgway wrote:
A possiblility is that reality is perceived differently by everyone and that since followers of a religion believe it is true, to them it is real.
It indeed can't be proven that reality is perceived different by everyone. There is however no indication whatsoever that people preceive reality different. And how useful would it be to think someone for instance perceives blue, like you see red, and vice versa. You could argue that for instance people who are blind perceive reality differently... but you can hardly say that changes anything to what reality is.
One person who sees something beautiful in a certain painting, while another person can't appreciate is at all is not perceiving reality differently. Same goes with religion. You can believe in something, but whether you believe in it or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's real.
Chamale wrote:
Some events mentioned in the Mahabharata (Indian epic) have been confirmed by physical evidence. A crater was found in an area that mentioned a massive explosion as divine intervention, for example.
Err... did you ever consider beliefs and religions were formed/created to explain things that weren't understood? People found themselves on this planet, with no ideas where they came from. There was no scientific method present at the time, not the tools we have now, and whatever else not. You still want some kind of explanation to explain some of the questions that people will wonder about. How we came to be here, why we are here, why there is some kind of giant rock falling from the skies, producing a massive explosion, and leaving a crater. It is not so terribly hard to imagine such an impact would be explained with a divine being. So do you really consider this as physical evidence for a revelation?
>> Do you consider this evidence for a revelation?
No, I'm saying it shows that if one believed exactly in a religion, this would be evidence.
>> I'm not aware of any religion that makes any similar claim
The Aztecs believed that Quetzalcoatl had been on earth at a point in the past, and would return. They mistook the Spanish for his messengers, and were slaughtered.
The ancient egyptians considered their pharaohs to be a god, frequently visited by other gods
The Celts believed gods had once lived on earth
The Mayan calendar begins when humans were seperated from the gods on Earth
What do you Christians think of the "fact" that Jesus didn't actually exist because he was just a remake of an ancient solar-myth, as told in the movie Zeitgeist? Not only Jesus, but also the story of Moses and Noah is found in ancient Sumerian texts, except the names are different.
Bob A wrote:
meaning you live in sweden but were born in finland?
I was born in Sweden and I live in Sweden, but I'm Finnish because my parents were born in Finland.
Blublu wrote:
Okay... so, you believe in evolution, but ... you don't believe in evolution? That's confusing.
It's no more confusing than someone who believes in creation but does not believe in the christian creation. I believe in all religious creation-stories (because they all make sense), but only one evolution-theory.
Okay, so you dismiss decades of scientific inquiry, thousands of papers written by experts in their field, who have made it their life's work to study their chosen field of science. You reject it all because it doesn't make sense, and you're too lazy to read about it so that you can make sense of it?
It's no more insane than atheists who reject God because it doesn't make sense, and they're not interested in reading about it so that they would understand. However, I don't believe that any words could make me believe in evolution, just like they couldn't make you believe in God.
When I was an atheist I used to believe in Darwin's evolution and I couldn't understand how someone could believe in God.
Do you care at all about what is true and what is fantasy?
I think reality is a fantasy where focusing on things makes them "true".
Baxter wrote:
I don't know if you could call it just a theory we accept as correct.
The basis of science (physics) is philosophical because there is no evidence that the world is physical. Science (observation and experimentation) is obviously very useful for creating new things, but it doesn't really explain things.
There is however no indication whatsoever that people preceive reality different.
Some people see ghosts, some see God, some don't, some people can fly etc. There's no reality outside our perceptions, because the only way we can experience reality is by perceiving it. The game does not render what you're not experiencing.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
It's no more insane than atheists who reject God because it doesn't make sense, and they're not interested in reading about it so that they would understand. However, I don't believe that any words could make me believe in evolution, just like they couldn't make you believe in God.
When I was an atheist I used to believe in Darwin's evolution and I couldn't understand how someone could believe in God.
Are you implying I don't know anything about god? Because I do. I do for example know all the main arguments for the existence of god, and as I have found out, all of them are refuted by relatively simple deductions and Occam's razor . Sometimes, I hear new arguments, but then I find out they are thinly disguised variations on the old ones. Really, give me a robust, honest, and logical argument for believing in god, and I promise I will think about it.
The Aztecs believed that Quetzalcoatl had been on earth at a point in the past, and would return. They mistook the Spanish for his messengers, and were slaughtered.
The ancient egyptians considered their pharaohs to be a god, frequently visited by other gods
The Celts believed gods had once lived on earth
The Mayan calendar begins when humans were seperated from the gods on Earth
Yeah, none of those are anything like what I was saying. I was talking about a single historical event in which an entire nation was addressed supernaturally, and the latest time afterwards at which the event could have been made up, if it were, was only 400 years after, still far too soon for a hoax of that magnitude to catch on (because there would be quite a lot of evidence against it were it false).
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
and as I have found out, all of them are refuted by relatively simple deductions and Occam's razor .
Buy a new razor. If you shave off enough of anything you will find god, nothing, ignorance, creator, source.
Really, give me a robust, honest, and logical argument for believing in god, and I promise I will think about it.
Instead of arguments I give you 2 proofs:
Proof #1. you are god, therefore god exists.
Proof #2. we can't explain things, therefore god is the only thing left that can explain them. For example: why is there something instead of nothing? Answer: god made it.
and as I have found out, all of them are refuted by relatively simple deductions and Occam's razor .
Buy a new razor. If you shave off enough of anything you will find god, nothing, ignorance, creator, source.
Really, give me a robust, honest, and logical argument for believing in god, and I promise I will think about it.
Instead of arguments I give you 2 proofs:
Proof #1. you are god, therefore god exists.
Proof #2. we can't explain things, therefore god is the only thing left that can explain them. For example: why is there something instead of nothing? Answer: god made it.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
After reading an extended Monty Python sketch in the cheese thread and reading the latest comments in this thread, I'm suddenly reminded of the old Argument Clinic sketch.
Monty Python's Flying Circus wrote:
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
Yeah, none of those are anything like what I was saying. I was talking about a single historical event in which an entire nation was addressed supernaturally, and the latest time afterwards at which the event could have been made up, if it were, was only 400 years after, still far too soon for a hoax of that magnitude to catch on (because there would be quite a lot of evidence against it were it false).
Quetzalcoatl came to Earth in a flaming chariot and spoke to a huge crowd.
The gods of ancient Egypt came and spoke to EVERYONE in the area.
Mass revelations happy. Either a lot of religions are equally right (which is mutually exclusive in many cases) or none of them are.
You may think that if you like. I'm not trying to convince, only inform. But I don't think likening an event that would have been invented 10 generations removed, but which concerned everyone who was told, compared to the Prometheus myth, which was set with the first human? Doesn't that seem like a stretch? "This happened 400 years ago to the ancestors of everyone present" seems like a much easier tale to prove a hoax (again, assuming the latest possible date it could have been invented) compared to "This happened untold millenia ago to the first human being". Then, when the author of that article says "Fine, if you won't accept an obvious fabrication, I'll just point out some other Biblical event and disprove that instead" which is missing the point. I'm not a Biblical literalist, nor an advocate for inerracy. The events of Joshua 10:13 were adapted from a different work, the Book of the Upright, as stated clearly in the text. I imagine the priest who wrote Deuteronomy and Joshua as a primarily historical text used whatever sources he could to add legitimacy to his claims (when those claims conflicted with the other two works floating around, both of which depended upon the Sinai event as legitimacy).
There's genetic evidence of a partilineal descended priesthood dating back enough generations to have originated around that time, anyway, so it's not like the history is single-source.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
You may think that if you like. I'm not trying to convince, only inform. But I don't think likening an event that would have been invented 10 generations removed, but which concerned everyone who was told, compared to the Prometheus myth, which was set with the first human? Doesn't that seem like a stretch? "This happened 400 years ago to the ancestors of everyone present" seems like a much easier tale to prove a hoax (again, assuming the latest possible date it could have been invented) compared to "This happened untold millenia ago to the first human being"
So... Are you saying Adam and Eve, or more or less everyone before Noah, didn't exist?
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
nfq wrote:
Really, give me a robust, honest, and logical argument for believing in god, and I promise I will think about it.
Instead of arguments I give you 2 proofs:
Proof #1. you are god, therefore god exists.
Proof #2. we can't explain things, therefore god is the only thing left that can explain them. For example: why is there something instead of nothing? Answer: god made it.
Really, give me a robust, honest, and logical argument for believing in god, and I promise I will think about it.
Instead of arguments I give you 2 proofs:
Proof #1. you are god, therefore god exists.
Proof #2. we can't explain things, therefore god is the only thing left that can explain them. For example: why is there something instead of nothing? Answer: god made it.
Bible = 66 books = 666
The Bible says something that 144000 people will be saved...
Here's the proof that it's actually the devil who will take them: 6x6x6=216. 144000/216=666.666... Want more proof? Take the first 144 decimals of Pi and add them together and you get 666. Or you can just take the first 10 decimals and do this: 3x(14+15+92+65+36)=666
Proof that God = Pi: God is 3 in 1. 3+1=4 (God = 3.14 = Pi)
Conclusion: Because God is Pi, God is a circle. Voltaire said: "God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."
Proof that 360 (circle) is from the devil: 6x6=36(0). add all numbers from 1-36 and you get 666.
---
hint 1: there is 1440 minutes in a day. god created the world in 6 days (6x24=144)
hint 2: 12x12=144
12 hours in a clock
12 disciples of jesus
12 tribes of israel
12 sons of jacob
12 gates of jerusalem
etc.
solution: god = zodiac
180/777-720=3.15 or so
sin666=phi
Random numerical coincidences and no more.
I'd like to say that god is like the end of pi. Can't prove it exists, there's a bunch of other crap before it, and it's irrelevant if it does exist.
Correct, if in degrees.
You should use the ° symbol. Failure to do that implies radians.
In fact, all sine and cosine of rationals are algebraic if in degrees, but transcendental if in radians unless it is 0.
