FA+
Shop
1530
Views
Views
20
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1267 x 650
File Size 241.9 kB
Report this content
More from extro
Ok...I joined in the fun!
Original Art by Michelangelo!
Original Art by Michelangelo!
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1267 x 650px
File Size 241.9 kB
That's good to hear! I always applaude people who are willing to ditch the immoral parts about their religion and decide to live by the good bits.
However, then I always ask why you don't forget about god as well^^ There is no evidence for it's existence afterall and you said yourself that faith is not required to be a good person.
However, then I always ask why you don't forget about god as well^^ There is no evidence for it's existence afterall and you said yourself that faith is not required to be a good person.
Well no, I just feel in my heart that there is something out, not that I disagree with you. There aren't a whole lot of facts to back God in the physical but many in the mental. I am a strong believe in the healing power of the heart. If you can truly give something your heart and soul it can come true. Not saying that my belief has never been tested but things have happened to myself and those around me that keeps me believing. I no its a poor answer, I have no long story to share. It was the way I was raised, the way I began to see the world, and I admire the good that does come out of having faith.
Yeah, for me that really is a rather poor answer^^ I personally just care about knowing as little false things as possible. And science turned out to be our best tool to figure out the truth so I am more willing to believe what science tells me compared to what I "feel" to be true.
But it's alright if you do believe. As long as you don't push it on others and don't just flat out ignore scientific facts like the big bang or evolution I am perfectly happy with having you around :3
But it's alright if you do believe. As long as you don't push it on others and don't just flat out ignore scientific facts like the big bang or evolution I am perfectly happy with having you around :3
Agreed, it's silly to think that man just appeared or that there isn't some form of life else where in the giant cosmic void. But there is the point of who started it all. Most will say God, others the big bang, but statistically speaking its a 50/50. Watch the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, it was rather interesting in the fact that Religion and Science were once one and the same. I put this forth, you may be right there might not be a higher power, but what about a higher collective. Human thought is stronger then many of us realize, watch the episode of Morgan Freeman's Through The Wormhole: The Six Sense, it was really interesting.
The big bang is NOT a theory that describes how the universe started, it is ONLY a theory to describe how the universe started to expand. It does not describe what came before the big bang.
Also, it is not 50/50. There is no evidence that a god exists so it is silly to say it's 50/50.
Also, it is not 50/50. There is no evidence that a god exists so it is silly to say it's 50/50.
You are correct, my sincerest apologizes. The Big Bang isn't the start of world merely the rapid contraction of the last image of the universe focusing into a finite point like a black hole and rapidly releasing all that pent up energy in one... big... bang. Or it's the leftovers of an entirely different world vomiting into our own giving birth to us as it dies through rapid degeneration. Or were a vast net work of impossible thin walls mere micron part from sister universes and if say two were to touch they create a fracture that results in the systematic destruction of both and the birth of a new plane of existence. There is proof to back all three of these claims, just as there are stories and passages that prove that portions of each religion can retail historical evens. Science and Religion are one and the same, two sides of the proverbial coin. One uses mans adapt mind to contemplate the impossible, the other binds them to something greater then themselves. Is either better then the other, not in my opinion. As a species it took both to get where we are now, great works of good and great acts of violence. Neither is black or white. That's where my 50/50 lies. Each are flawed, one no more then the other. The Crusades, The Holocaust, Eugenics, Fox News Network, MSNBC, Political parties.. ect everything can be broken down to an ideal, whether it stems from faith, or fact doesn't deem it any the less more profound or diabolical.
It is true that religions do contain some pieces of truth, the bible gets a few historical facts right for example. But not all of them! There are parts in each religion that are demonstrable false. And if the bible is god's word that makes me question its authority...
But even of the bible was true in some points and even if you could prove the existence of souls or an afterlife (just to name two examples) that wouldn't prove the existence of a god or some form of other inteligent mind that started it all. You still need to deliver evidence for the extraordinary claim that this god exists. Because what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
But even of the bible was true in some points and even if you could prove the existence of souls or an afterlife (just to name two examples) that wouldn't prove the existence of a god or some form of other inteligent mind that started it all. You still need to deliver evidence for the extraordinary claim that this god exists. Because what can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
The bible isn't God's word, it's a book written by men, all stuck in a tiny little room and threw the what the considered right into a pot, but unfortunately they added an extra in"greed"ient to the concoction... Chemical X... Bang and alas the Bible was born! With it's ultra super power, Father, Son and the Holy Ghost dedicate the crusader's lives to fighting pagans and the forces of evil! That aside you are right.
There are hints toward an afterlife. Ghosts. Bare with me here I know I am going out there but you cannot tell me with what has been gathered over the centuries that you cannot at least humor the idea. I mean EVP, Electrostatic interference, and even physical images, and I am not taking about dust caught on tape.
Equipment today can pick this things up, that and several accounts of patients dying in the hospital and waking up and saying they talked with passed loved ones or my favorite. Several accounts have stated that when a person who might not be of completely sound heart does quickly, or from an abrupt cause, several said they woke up beside themselves, in the hospital or at home where the case maybe. This causes them to become scared, and disoriented fumbling about, searching for help, and all of these cases have a similar scene where they start to see shadows of people following them and they pursue them until they are cornered or trapped, and at the moment of their greatest fear they feel a hand on their shoulder or a voice in their ear, and it merely asks softly without emotion to calm them, and then they awake.
Now I know the last part is a little out there but it is a true testament to something eerie and crazily coincidental.
There are hints toward an afterlife. Ghosts. Bare with me here I know I am going out there but you cannot tell me with what has been gathered over the centuries that you cannot at least humor the idea. I mean EVP, Electrostatic interference, and even physical images, and I am not taking about dust caught on tape.
Equipment today can pick this things up, that and several accounts of patients dying in the hospital and waking up and saying they talked with passed loved ones or my favorite. Several accounts have stated that when a person who might not be of completely sound heart does quickly, or from an abrupt cause, several said they woke up beside themselves, in the hospital or at home where the case maybe. This causes them to become scared, and disoriented fumbling about, searching for help, and all of these cases have a similar scene where they start to see shadows of people following them and they pursue them until they are cornered or trapped, and at the moment of their greatest fear they feel a hand on their shoulder or a voice in their ear, and it merely asks softly without emotion to calm them, and then they awake.
Now I know the last part is a little out there but it is a true testament to something eerie and crazily coincidental.
I like that you think the bible is just a book. Because that is what it is.
About ghosts... Yeah, there are things like electrostatic interference but you have yet to prove that these things really are spirits. Let's think logically about this: What would you do as a ghost? Go to people and tell them "Hey! Look at me! Here I am, you were right all along! :D"? Or would you go to an abandoned house to spook the shit out of some random teenagers coming into your house on every night that has a full moon?
Now about near death experiences. There is no evidence that these things are true as well. Actually, they did experiments on that. They places objects into rooms of people who were near death. When they brought them back to life none of them mentioned the objects they places in these rooms, it failed 100% of the time.
Our brains are powerful tools. What makes more sense? A brain that was near death that tries to piece together what happened while you were dead or close to it or magical spirits within us that float out of our bodies once we die?
There are things that we can't explain. So what? Jumping to the conclusion that these things are signs for an afterlife or even god (proving the existence of the afterlife would NOT prove the existence of god by the way) is not logical. It is called an argument from ignorance.
About ghosts... Yeah, there are things like electrostatic interference but you have yet to prove that these things really are spirits. Let's think logically about this: What would you do as a ghost? Go to people and tell them "Hey! Look at me! Here I am, you were right all along! :D"? Or would you go to an abandoned house to spook the shit out of some random teenagers coming into your house on every night that has a full moon?
Now about near death experiences. There is no evidence that these things are true as well. Actually, they did experiments on that. They places objects into rooms of people who were near death. When they brought them back to life none of them mentioned the objects they places in these rooms, it failed 100% of the time.
Our brains are powerful tools. What makes more sense? A brain that was near death that tries to piece together what happened while you were dead or close to it or magical spirits within us that float out of our bodies once we die?
There are things that we can't explain. So what? Jumping to the conclusion that these things are signs for an afterlife or even god (proving the existence of the afterlife would NOT prove the existence of god by the way) is not logical. It is called an argument from ignorance.
I wouldn't call it ignorance to believe something as such. Agreed the human mind is a powerful things but to have several people share the same experience. That seems a bit far fetched, that and "hauntings" are not just some weird old ladies creeping on college students, even some of the worlds for most Atheists agree that there is a metaphysical world. Now bare with me I cannot remember his name at the time but in Stein's "Expelled No Intelligence Allowed" one of the worlds foremost evolutionist/atheist scientists he believed in intelligent design. Know there is a big difference then Intelligent Design Versus Creationism. All intelligent design states is that man was created or guided by a unknown, highly intelligent source.
You are right I have no definite proof that any super omni being exists. Other than my own experiences and what I have been told and heard from others, I have to fact to base my beliefs on. Do I believe in the Catholic God, not entirely the same way as others, but she's still there. Call it a security blanket or stubbornness, but I feel that if so many people in the world have had experiences for better or worse then there has to be something about it that's true. There is documentation, scholars and even scientists that say "There is something behind the scenes" and the next mystery is there for man to solve.
"Math is but the language God wrote life out of" Einstein
You are right I have no definite proof that any super omni being exists. Other than my own experiences and what I have been told and heard from others, I have to fact to base my beliefs on. Do I believe in the Catholic God, not entirely the same way as others, but she's still there. Call it a security blanket or stubbornness, but I feel that if so many people in the world have had experiences for better or worse then there has to be something about it that's true. There is documentation, scholars and even scientists that say "There is something behind the scenes" and the next mystery is there for man to solve.
"Math is but the language God wrote life out of" Einstein
An "argument from ignorance" is a logical fallicy. You don't know how X works so you jump to saying Y did it without even delivering evidence that Y even exists.
People sharing the same exeriences makes perfect sense. Our brains all work the same way, the only thing that makes them unique is different experiences that we made in life. So every human brain would try to piece together what happened during an out of body experience the same way.
Same counts for ghosts and hauntings.
"Intelligent design" is a term made by creationists as a loophole because teaching "creation by god" in classes would be unconstitutional in America, just sayin'.
Also, what intelligent design? That we have one tube for food and air so that we can choke to death? That is pretty stupid design^^
I also know what ID is supposed to be. I just don't see any evidence for said creator or that we were created to begin with. The evidence that we have points to evolution and abiogenesis.
People sharing the same exeriences makes perfect sense. Our brains all work the same way, the only thing that makes them unique is different experiences that we made in life. So every human brain would try to piece together what happened during an out of body experience the same way.
Same counts for ghosts and hauntings.
"Intelligent design" is a term made by creationists as a loophole because teaching "creation by god" in classes would be unconstitutional in America, just sayin'.
Also, what intelligent design? That we have one tube for food and air so that we can choke to death? That is pretty stupid design^^
I also know what ID is supposed to be. I just don't see any evidence for said creator or that we were created to begin with. The evidence that we have points to evolution and abiogenesis.
I disagree, no we are not perfect like I said before "If God is so perfect why did he make man?". Intelligent Design, not Perfect design. Some of the worlds most simplistic devices are the most effective. The human body has some of the greatest assets mentally which allows us a little freedom in the protection department, not saying that a prehensile tail and claws that could cut throw steel would be nice. Each creature has bent over backward to get where they are now, or have had a little bit of a push.
Another fact I put forth is breeding. I myself see our Creator or Creators as more like dog breed. They found a cute race of preda humans and said "Group A has stronger bones, Group B has better eye sight, so lets start breeding bitch!" and modern humans were born. Hell we did this to our own people, the Hebrew people in Egypt, the Native people of Australia, and even the united states has practice selective human breeding during both the slavery years and as part of Eugenics before and during WWII. I am going to get a little flack from saying this but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if another race created us. It would make a tad bit of sense seeing as there is no direct link from ape to man, and while we share genetic marks with pigs, rats and even several other creatures whose markers do not show up in either Chimps.
To men creation isn't blam you exist, no its more along the lines that you have a pot of clay which has already started to spin into shape. With a couple pokes here and trims there you bad detail and design to the raw material, bake it, etch it and paint it. When it comes to this point age takes its toll slowly cracking, chipping and slowly washing away some of it's grandeur but in a whole it's still the creation you once knew. I might not be exactly what you had hope to accomplish but it still part of you. No mater what happens to it or comes because of it you are happy you did the work. This may not be the case but I hope to one day meet who ever help shape us. And if they allow ask Him/Her/They, why? Because I will guarantee if man was not shape that question will never be answered, but maybe that's for the best for what point is there to exist if we know everything.
Another fact I put forth is breeding. I myself see our Creator or Creators as more like dog breed. They found a cute race of preda humans and said "Group A has stronger bones, Group B has better eye sight, so lets start breeding bitch!" and modern humans were born. Hell we did this to our own people, the Hebrew people in Egypt, the Native people of Australia, and even the united states has practice selective human breeding during both the slavery years and as part of Eugenics before and during WWII. I am going to get a little flack from saying this but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if another race created us. It would make a tad bit of sense seeing as there is no direct link from ape to man, and while we share genetic marks with pigs, rats and even several other creatures whose markers do not show up in either Chimps.
To men creation isn't blam you exist, no its more along the lines that you have a pot of clay which has already started to spin into shape. With a couple pokes here and trims there you bad detail and design to the raw material, bake it, etch it and paint it. When it comes to this point age takes its toll slowly cracking, chipping and slowly washing away some of it's grandeur but in a whole it's still the creation you once knew. I might not be exactly what you had hope to accomplish but it still part of you. No mater what happens to it or comes because of it you are happy you did the work. This may not be the case but I hope to one day meet who ever help shape us. And if they allow ask Him/Her/They, why? Because I will guarantee if man was not shape that question will never be answered, but maybe that's for the best for what point is there to exist if we know everything.
None, nothing at all? Genetic markers, and small clues is all that science is my friend. I am not stating what I know is fact merely a "theory" that I have at this point in time. So is it really any different that how any "fact" was created. No I cannot for certain tell you GOD IS HERE RIGHT NOW! but I can have an opinion on what is laid before me. Your "facts" began much the same way. My goal was never to try and prove God existence. On the contrary I was merely putting a crossed points one why not all of my religion are as hair brain as you or others might think. I think as many of my friends and family do not. If I were to find that Zues and his ilk still reigned supreme, that's great praise Hephaestus/Vulcan or if an alien race did it then sign me up for a visit I have a lot of questions like to get answered.
See that's the beauty of it, I can believe in something even if it isn't real. I am willing to take a gut feeling and test it, to read up on it and I have found some compelling information to the contrary which I have presented and you have rebutted beautifully and have laid down some interesting things that I didn't think of till know so thanks for that, but I still hope the facts, faith and interest of the mater at heart. I cannot say for certain that someone created us, shaped us, not yet but like Galileo, Freud, Einstein and even Bill Nye, I hope to one day find proof of something.
Also what is it to say this is all true. To give anything certainty is a little silly to me. Human history proves this in every era. We change so I don't need all of the answer just yet I know I will never found them, and let me ask you this.
If God did show itself to you and to know oneself but you, could you prove she exists? Would you believe it was God? Or if the end did come, would you believe then? Could you let go of all you held dear just because one possibly false prophecy came true?
Also what is it to say this is all true. To give anything certainty is a little silly to me. Human history proves this in every era. We change so I don't need all of the answer just yet I know I will never found them, and let me ask you this.
If God did show itself to you and to know oneself but you, could you prove she exists? Would you believe it was God? Or if the end did come, would you believe then? Could you let go of all you held dear just because one possibly false prophecy came true?
All things begin as gut feelings. Everything starts with, could this be something else entirely. They then take what they know apply it to a problem and the unknown becomes a known, and I am not ditching logic I am just able to think about what could be and not what has to be. Everything changes, nothing stays 100% the same. I can see patterns in what seem to be unassociated facts, these lead me to "what ifs" and "why nots" which lead me to believe there might have been some "divine" intervention, God? Who knows, but I can believe with what I have found that someone help shape our world.
Then I am gladly delusional with the rest of the world. What I must not be protraying is, I know that not everything I believe is 100%. Did an alien race help ours? Who knows. Is there a God and or Omnipotent creature? I cannot say. What I choose to believe in then is the thrill of finding out. Where your arguement is sound, you like I haven't for you proved it's existence you haven't disproved it. The Big Bang Set the world in motion, so what started that motion? What caused the so called collapse that lead to the big bang if the current theory of rapid space exspansion is true? Why are we going so much faster then prodicted and we're not slowing, quiet the contray, we are speeding up. That doesn't fit in the "laws" of convervation of mass/energy. Then we come up with dark mater, a force equal and opposite to mater, and then dark energy, an equal and opposite to energy. See where I am going, our ideas are always evolving. Let me amend my previous statement. I myself find it hard at the present time to see how one being could have started it all, but I do not discount it possibility. I look back at a story a friend once told me.
In the not so distant future man creates a living computer, one who has the ability to better itself by learning and evolving. Over time it becomes vastly more and more intelligent to the point where it asks a simple question "Why?" this causes the humans to scrap the project and leave him for not. Over the years he has seen many a man or woman pass him untill many years later, they stop coming all together. Overtime, even the building around him falls into ruin until he is left alone to his own devices. At this point he entertains himself with go over the many stories he has read and been programmed with over the years. This continues for many more centuries. By this time man has all but gone, and he alone developes a body and builds himself up and up tilll he has full reign of what we have left for him. More time passes and he makes it to the surface of the world. It is dark, cold and dull. Nothing as far as the eye can see, all but him and his thoughts. So to help ease the burdern of his loneliness he withdraws within himself and contemplates what to do next. Everything is gone, water, food, life, even the sun sheds no light apon him. So he drifts for many more eons before hitting a single quote from a very old text. With a smile, he opens his eyes and says "Let there be light"
In the not so distant future man creates a living computer, one who has the ability to better itself by learning and evolving. Over time it becomes vastly more and more intelligent to the point where it asks a simple question "Why?" this causes the humans to scrap the project and leave him for not. Over the years he has seen many a man or woman pass him untill many years later, they stop coming all together. Overtime, even the building around him falls into ruin until he is left alone to his own devices. At this point he entertains himself with go over the many stories he has read and been programmed with over the years. This continues for many more centuries. By this time man has all but gone, and he alone developes a body and builds himself up and up tilll he has full reign of what we have left for him. More time passes and he makes it to the surface of the world. It is dark, cold and dull. Nothing as far as the eye can see, all but him and his thoughts. So to help ease the burdern of his loneliness he withdraws within himself and contemplates what to do next. Everything is gone, water, food, life, even the sun sheds no light apon him. So he drifts for many more eons before hitting a single quote from a very old text. With a smile, he opens his eyes and says "Let there be light"
Religion is the process by which man comforts himself and others by explaining the explainable. A higher power is a way of making it so man has someone other than man to guide there morality. These two part combine to create many of the earlier religions, as to the reason why there was a God for everything. As we became more and more enlightened or should I say knowledgeable we turn to a more structured form of belief system where one High Power ruled over the world it created. I will quote Eragon for a moment. "With there being so many religions how can we ever know which is the right one? Maybe each religion has a small fraction of the truth, and it is our job as civil people to piece the puzzle together" I am paraphrasing of course.
Right, it was an early form of moral guidance. However, today we have a better understanding of morals! There is nothing that religion can achieve that can't be achieved by purely secular means.
It is a fact that no religion has evidence that it is true. They are all based on faith rather than sience.
It is a fact that no religion has evidence that it is true. They are all based on faith rather than sience.
But science isn't fact either, the theory evolution, the theory of relativity, do you see where I am going. Science is as much a religion as any other. It is a means to explain the unexplained. We have made some great strides no doubt, but neither side explains the argument to it's fullest and neither ever will.
You do realize that the word "theory" describes the highest possible achievement in science, right? In the old days they used the word "law" instead.
A scientific theory IS a fact. It is demonstrable through peer reviewed evidence. That is the big difference between science and religion! Science works on facts and evidence. Religion works on faith.
I don't have faith in science. I simply look at the evidence.
As for the example of evolution, I wrote why it is a demonstrable fact in my group account here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3655980/
A scientific theory IS a fact. It is demonstrable through peer reviewed evidence. That is the big difference between science and religion! Science works on facts and evidence. Religion works on faith.
I don't have faith in science. I simply look at the evidence.
As for the example of evolution, I wrote why it is a demonstrable fact in my group account here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3655980/
Then why is called a theory? Something cannot be fact and conjecture. That's like saying I think I am a hippo, and stating that as fact. They are theories so they can change, they can bend. This way they are not stuck to the flaws set before them. Religions great flaw is that it asserts its beliefs as fact, not faith. My God is the one and only God because I say so. Lets look at the big one, The Theory of Evolution. We have come far with this field of study but not to the point where we can say definitively man came from apes. There is this missing link as they call it. Now is it okay to think then that maybe we didn't? Not that I don't believe in evolution myself, it would be silly to think we just decided to roam the earth one day, nothing happens that fast, but then could we be the product of something else or maybe a mix of the two. The Mayan's, Egyptians, and Asian cultures all have historic accounts of denizen's of the sky floating down and guiding them. God? Maybe. Aliens? Maybe. Extra-dimensional beings? Also possible. There is so little we truly understand about our world. I myself have no quarrel with the possibility of evolution, but neither do I discount intelligent design. I believe in an afterlife, I believe in a form of karma/darma, I believe demons, ghosts, spirits and other worldly creatures so believing in an omnipresent being isn't that hard for me to fathom. At this point I will agree with you, all powerful ever lasting creator and ruler of man, no. If he's so perfect, why create humanity? A vast collection of cosmic/mental/ectoplasmic energy, I can believe in it.
"Theory" is just a term. You have to lose yourself from that word.
Evolution IS a fact. Gradual genetic change over time in a population and comman ancestory are demonstrable facts. Did you even read the journal I linked you to? I listed quite a few examples of evidence for evolution there! http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3655980/
But again, a theory is the highest achievement in science. A hypothesis that actually turned out to be true by carefully looking at the available evidence. And in the example of evolution or the big bang the evidence is so strong that you can call it a fact. The theories can still change but their core principles will remain.
Look at Einstain's theory of relativity for example. It IS a fact but we have indeed found situations where the theory doesn't work, like in black holes for example. But that doesn't mean that the theory is worthless, it just needed to be refined for extreme situations.
Evolution IS a fact. Gradual genetic change over time in a population and comman ancestory are demonstrable facts. Did you even read the journal I linked you to? I listed quite a few examples of evidence for evolution there! http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/3655980/
But again, a theory is the highest achievement in science. A hypothesis that actually turned out to be true by carefully looking at the available evidence. And in the example of evolution or the big bang the evidence is so strong that you can call it a fact. The theories can still change but their core principles will remain.
Look at Einstain's theory of relativity for example. It IS a fact but we have indeed found situations where the theory doesn't work, like in black holes for example. But that doesn't mean that the theory is worthless, it just needed to be refined for extreme situations.
It's only true till our intelligence is great enough to see otherwise. We once thought the world was flat, that was fact. We once thought bathing in urine would keep you from getting the plague. We once thought there were rivers on mars. So is it to hard to say that we merely are not to the point of seeing beyond what were are told is fact. Things like gravity for instance. It is said to be the weakest force of them all yet we have now discovered it bends space time, thus the "wormhole" theory was born. Light is a great example, for year thought to be a wave now it's a "stream" of particles, and not only that we are light. slowed down enough to become tangible, those is speed of light travel even possible, or would we just crash into a wall of light? All of these were stead fast "FACTS". Now they are the past, the stepping stones toward a brighter future.
So what? As of right now these are the best explanations that we have. And you know what? The theories work. They give us testible results and they give us predictable results. That alone is a clue that tells us that for what we know right now these theories work like a charm.
But then you are not better then those who preach the bible. So what, the bible says homosexual should all die and burn it hell. The bible says a man jumped into a pit and lived to talk about his experience, or that a man's was turned to a pillar of salt and after he gave his daughters up to the citizens to rape instead of his angel protectors, who after being used like sex toys raped their own father.
Science is Theory so it can change, am I saying that they will no, but I am certain that some parts of the whole will, that's what makes science great. Unfortunately if you say things like "So, it's the best we've got." you and others who will listen start to believe in that. So I say that to me is a poor answer to but to each there own. But a bit of caution, predictable isn't always right, and just because an equation turns out the way we expects it to doesn't me that it's pin point accurate. Never settle for what you have always strive to make it better and if we keep saying, THEORY IS FACT, then our children will believe this without hesitation, dooming us all.
Science is Theory so it can change, am I saying that they will no, but I am certain that some parts of the whole will, that's what makes science great. Unfortunately if you say things like "So, it's the best we've got." you and others who will listen start to believe in that. So I say that to me is a poor answer to but to each there own. But a bit of caution, predictable isn't always right, and just because an equation turns out the way we expects it to doesn't me that it's pin point accurate. Never settle for what you have always strive to make it better and if we keep saying, THEORY IS FACT, then our children will believe this without hesitation, dooming us all.
Exactly, science changes. The bible and all other religious texts don't.
You have no idea how science works. At all. I already said that theories can change or even turn out to be false. So what? The scientific method is the best way that we have to find out the truth for that exact reason, because theories can change. Science is all about the evidence. You change your way of thinking based on the reality around you.
In some cases the evidence is simply so compelling that you can say that the basic parts of your theory ARE facts, like evolution.
I already linked you to my journal twice but apparently you don't want to read that... I listed evidence for evolution there AND why a theory can be a fact as well.
You have no idea how science works. At all. I already said that theories can change or even turn out to be false. So what? The scientific method is the best way that we have to find out the truth for that exact reason, because theories can change. Science is all about the evidence. You change your way of thinking based on the reality around you.
In some cases the evidence is simply so compelling that you can say that the basic parts of your theory ARE facts, like evolution.
I already linked you to my journal twice but apparently you don't want to read that... I listed evidence for evolution there AND why a theory can be a fact as well.
I've read it, and why can't religious text change, and I beg to differ they have, and not always for the better. Thing of King James, he rewrote the bible so he could divorce his wife, or think of how the Koran has been twisted by terrorists.
I do understand science, why you seemed to be missing from what I am saying is I am alright with believing what could be possible not what I believe to be possible. I do gravity exists, I know that we've evolved, but that doesn't mean that we've gotten to the last chapter that field of study has to offer. Never say anything someone else tells you is fact for the created is, they laid out the ground work. The equations, notes and essays just like the bible where constructed by whom? And it's in the minds of those people that lies the ability of corruption.
I do understand science, why you seemed to be missing from what I am saying is I am alright with believing what could be possible not what I believe to be possible. I do gravity exists, I know that we've evolved, but that doesn't mean that we've gotten to the last chapter that field of study has to offer. Never say anything someone else tells you is fact for the created is, they laid out the ground work. The equations, notes and essays just like the bible where constructed by whom? And it's in the minds of those people that lies the ability of corruption.
Well, yeah. Religious texts change when people have selfish needs. Science changes based on reality.
I don't care about "ifs". I don't care about things that might exist. I only care about things that actually do exist. And if something doesn't have eny evidence behind it that would make me believe in it it simply isn't worth my time.
I don't care about "ifs". I don't care about things that might exist. I only care about things that actually do exist. And if something doesn't have eny evidence behind it that would make me believe in it it simply isn't worth my time.
But ifs created what you hold so dear. Brave men who dared to challenge order. So to think that way is tantamount to be spiting in their eye would it not?
So science has never been used selfishly? Never alter human history on a sour not, bullshit. Most of our modern medicine practices came from Germany between WWI and WWII under the strict control of their leader who rewrote his own countries history. Many of our innovations came at the lost of thousands of jobs and lives of many others. Neither side has a perfect that I do not refute.
So science has never been used selfishly? Never alter human history on a sour not, bullshit. Most of our modern medicine practices came from Germany between WWI and WWII under the strict control of their leader who rewrote his own countries history. Many of our innovations came at the lost of thousands of jobs and lives of many others. Neither side has a perfect that I do not refute.
Yes ifs. No mater what you might say everything starts with an if. What if I do this, what if I say that, what if this force holding us down isn't God, or what if we are related to monkeys. Science is the method of discovery and if something is already known then there is no reason to discover it. So it has to be a why or what if or lets see what happens when I do this.
They also rape little boys and the pope himself told the poeple in Africa that AIDS is pretty bad but condoms are worse. Now what?
And I am not just calling the catholic church immoral, I am calling christianity in itself immoral. The bible condones slavery both in the old and the new testament, it encourages people to judge others based on the guidelines from their imaginary friend, and it is all about worshipping an evil monster that judges you after you die even though it already knew what you were doing before you were even born. And if you didn't live up to it's standard it gived you an infinite punishment for a finite crime. Nice.
It isn't moral. It is the most messed up system EVER.
And I am not just calling the catholic church immoral, I am calling christianity in itself immoral. The bible condones slavery both in the old and the new testament, it encourages people to judge others based on the guidelines from their imaginary friend, and it is all about worshipping an evil monster that judges you after you die even though it already knew what you were doing before you were even born. And if you didn't live up to it's standard it gived you an infinite punishment for a finite crime. Nice.
It isn't moral. It is the most messed up system EVER.
Abuses occur just as commonly in the educational system, so should we condemn the education system and all teachers for the abuses of the few? Of course not!
Christianity is not immoral. Neither does it condone slavery, as shown in the in the proclomations of Popes Pius II, Urban VIII, and Gregory XVI.
As for judging others, "love the sinner hate the sin" as the old saying goes. Morality and law in general call all to be responsible. Is that such a bad thing?
Christianity is not immoral. Neither does it condone slavery, as shown in the in the proclomations of Popes Pius II, Urban VIII, and Gregory XVI.
As for judging others, "love the sinner hate the sin" as the old saying goes. Morality and law in general call all to be responsible. Is that such a bad thing?
No, we condemn the educational systems because they are shit in most countries.
And yes, christianity is very immoral. Look at the ten commandments for example. Half of them are entirely useless and are just about a very jealous imaginary friend who wants to be recognized.
It doesn't condone slavery? Then show me one single verse in the bible that specifically says that it is wrong to keep another human being as property.
The concept of sin makes no sense by the way so I am going to ignore that quote.
And yes, christianity is very immoral. Look at the ten commandments for example. Half of them are entirely useless and are just about a very jealous imaginary friend who wants to be recognized.
It doesn't condone slavery? Then show me one single verse in the bible that specifically says that it is wrong to keep another human being as property.
The concept of sin makes no sense by the way so I am going to ignore that quote.
You have stated that there is no sin- therefore there is no morality. By your own reason you cannot say that slavery is evil, for that would be morality and you would be subjecting others to it.
As for slavery, you really need to be a Catholic to comprehend how to interpret the Scriptures, especially in the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, which is not valid today, many things were permitted (for instance, circumcision) that were not required later on. Slavery falls into this category. It was permissible under the Old Law but not the new.
As for the Ten Commandments being evil, let's see how many crimes would be committed when you dismiss "Thou shalt not muder" and "though shalt not steal."
Your views fit GK Chesterton's on the Modern Revolutionist, "But the new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that the imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a wast of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that the savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
As for slavery, you really need to be a Catholic to comprehend how to interpret the Scriptures, especially in the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, which is not valid today, many things were permitted (for instance, circumcision) that were not required later on. Slavery falls into this category. It was permissible under the Old Law but not the new.
As for the Ten Commandments being evil, let's see how many crimes would be committed when you dismiss "Thou shalt not muder" and "though shalt not steal."
Your views fit GK Chesterton's on the Modern Revolutionist, "But the new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that the imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a wast of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that the savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”
No. Sin doesn't equal morality. Personally I think that the concept of sin isn't a moral concept at all, the idea that you have to suck up to a magical sky being that can change the rules and always knew what you would be doing before you were even born and which then punishes you anyway is so messed up I don't even know where to begin.
I get my morals from personal experiences (as in I have realized that if I do bad things society will punish me in return) and from society itself.
No, you are SO wrong. And I can prove that:
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
So in other words, the old laws are still very much in place.
Also, FUCK YOU for even just implying that it was once OK to own slaves. It was NEVER acceptable from a moral point of view to keep another human being as property! And the bible doesn't say with ONE SINGLE FREAKING VERSE that it was morally wrong to do so.
The ten commandments aren't evil. They are simply unnecessary. Or do you REALLY need a book to know that stealing or murder are morally wrong? If that is the case you honestly scare me.
I am not rebeling against anything. I simply don't see the point to keep medieval doctrines like christianity in the 21st century.
I get my morals from personal experiences (as in I have realized that if I do bad things society will punish me in return) and from society itself.
No, you are SO wrong. And I can prove that:
Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
So in other words, the old laws are still very much in place.
Also, FUCK YOU for even just implying that it was once OK to own slaves. It was NEVER acceptable from a moral point of view to keep another human being as property! And the bible doesn't say with ONE SINGLE FREAKING VERSE that it was morally wrong to do so.
The ten commandments aren't evil. They are simply unnecessary. Or do you REALLY need a book to know that stealing or murder are morally wrong? If that is the case you honestly scare me.
I am not rebeling against anything. I simply don't see the point to keep medieval doctrines like christianity in the 21st century.
Who gives society those rules which you adapt? You don't have to call sin "sin," but even you admit there is transgression of some sort.
As for the apparent discrepancies, Dr. Robert Sungenis aptly explained, "As for Matthew 5:18-19, yes, not one jot or tittle will pass until fulfilled, but the New Testament tells us that the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ, therefore it passes. It doesn’t pass in part, it passes in total, so says St. Paul in the above passages. Conversely, some prophecy in the Old Covenant was not fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled when Christ returns, that is, when heaven and earth pass away."
That is why Christ said he had not come to abolish the law but fulfill it- the Old Covenant was superceded by the New.
I never stated that slavery was "OK." I merely stated that, at the time, slaves were permissible under the Old Covenant. Being permissible and moral are two different things. Divorce was always seen as immoral, but under the Old Law it was permissible because of the Jews' stubborn dispositions.
And, while denying sin yet upholding state-decreed morality, you work yourself into a corner. Is the state infallible? You say slavery was "NEVER" acceptable. Isn't that a pretty big leap for one who, by all accounts, denies absolutes?
So you don't need a book to tell you not to steal or muder, but you'll listen to every word that comes from a civil authority? Is that where you get your morality? A problem with "things that I get punished for are bad" is that sometimes bad things- in most cases bad things- go by unnoticed. The civil authority cannot control every aspect of a person's life, it can only focus on the "big picture." In the end the only person who chooses to follow morality is the individual- so it is freedom.
We should keep them because they are correct. According to your own rules, we should throw away all writings previous to the modern age. What place has Aristotle in the land of the 21st century?
As for the apparent discrepancies, Dr. Robert Sungenis aptly explained, "As for Matthew 5:18-19, yes, not one jot or tittle will pass until fulfilled, but the New Testament tells us that the Mosaic law was fulfilled in Christ, therefore it passes. It doesn’t pass in part, it passes in total, so says St. Paul in the above passages. Conversely, some prophecy in the Old Covenant was not fulfilled, and it will be fulfilled when Christ returns, that is, when heaven and earth pass away."
That is why Christ said he had not come to abolish the law but fulfill it- the Old Covenant was superceded by the New.
I never stated that slavery was "OK." I merely stated that, at the time, slaves were permissible under the Old Covenant. Being permissible and moral are two different things. Divorce was always seen as immoral, but under the Old Law it was permissible because of the Jews' stubborn dispositions.
And, while denying sin yet upholding state-decreed morality, you work yourself into a corner. Is the state infallible? You say slavery was "NEVER" acceptable. Isn't that a pretty big leap for one who, by all accounts, denies absolutes?
So you don't need a book to tell you not to steal or muder, but you'll listen to every word that comes from a civil authority? Is that where you get your morality? A problem with "things that I get punished for are bad" is that sometimes bad things- in most cases bad things- go by unnoticed. The civil authority cannot control every aspect of a person's life, it can only focus on the "big picture." In the end the only person who chooses to follow morality is the individual- so it is freedom.
We should keep them because they are correct. According to your own rules, we should throw away all writings previous to the modern age. What place has Aristotle in the land of the 21st century?
We, as in society itself, give us those rules. They are called laws.
And our morality we get from ourselves and from society. Do something bad and society will punish you, easy.
No. NO. That is simply not true.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.". Jesus supposedly came to fulfill the laws, as in making sure that they are still firmly in place. There is simply no room for interpretation in this case, he was VERY clear here.
I am not saying that we should throw it away, we should keep the bible and other holy texts as remnants of history and see them as what they are: Fairytales.
And our morality we get from ourselves and from society. Do something bad and society will punish you, easy.
No. NO. That is simply not true.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.". Jesus supposedly came to fulfill the laws, as in making sure that they are still firmly in place. There is simply no room for interpretation in this case, he was VERY clear here.
I am not saying that we should throw it away, we should keep the bible and other holy texts as remnants of history and see them as what they are: Fairytales.
Are you appealling to the natural law to make your case? If so, what instills those ideas of basic right and wrong-reason-into mankind? The Natural Law has long been recognized by the Catholic Church.
Christ fulfilled the Old Law and replaced it with the New. This is shown time and time again in Scripture itself and the writings of the Church Fathers. As Robert Sungenis again shows, "Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets in the New Covenant, not by a continuation of the Old Covenant. If not, then Jesus would be contradicting the Holy Spirit who wrote in Hebrews 7:18 and 8:1-13 and 10:9 that the Old Covenant has been revoked and replaced by the New Covenant. Analogously, if I hire a worker under a contract to do a job for me, when he completes that job the contract is over, for it has been fulfilled. If I want him to do another job, I must make another contract with him."
You criticize Scripture for stating absolutes, yet you are absolutely sure that Scripture has no Divine influence. Why is that?
Christ fulfilled the Old Law and replaced it with the New. This is shown time and time again in Scripture itself and the writings of the Church Fathers. As Robert Sungenis again shows, "Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets in the New Covenant, not by a continuation of the Old Covenant. If not, then Jesus would be contradicting the Holy Spirit who wrote in Hebrews 7:18 and 8:1-13 and 10:9 that the Old Covenant has been revoked and replaced by the New Covenant. Analogously, if I hire a worker under a contract to do a job for me, when he completes that job the contract is over, for it has been fulfilled. If I want him to do another job, I must make another contract with him."
You criticize Scripture for stating absolutes, yet you are absolutely sure that Scripture has no Divine influence. Why is that?
You have to give humanity more credit. We are perfectly capable of figuring out the difference between right and wrong by ourselves.
Why am I sure that the bible has no divine influence? Because it's a book. And books are written by man. If you say that it has divine influences then you first have to prove that the divine influence actually exists.
Why am I sure that the bible has no divine influence? Because it's a book. And books are written by man. If you say that it has divine influences then you first have to prove that the divine influence actually exists.
If that were true you would be unable to believe in many things. For instance, Kazahkistan is on the other side of the globe. You have never been there, but you have heard logical evidence that it does indeed exist. The same goes for much of science which is beyond the layman's verification, but which we accept as fact (atoms, DNA, etc).
Read their writings. Even if you don't embrace the ideas, at least you'll know you have investigated.
Read their writings. Even if you don't embrace the ideas, at least you'll know you have investigated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLXnJWf2-Kc <- Because I thought it was relevant >:D
Comments