This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Just because
you
don't accept something doesn't mean that it isn't accepted.
Human macro-evolution has not been proved.
Had to be done.
Hmm?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
@faceshield , the whole point of the argument is that there has to be an exception and we name that exception god, the point being to prove that there had to be something in the beginning , then build on it.
Why do we name it god? I don't call the Big Bang god, its not a sentient being, but it could potentially have had those exceptional traits. The whole thing with calling it "God" is just a cheap trick to attempt to justify that a possibly natural phenomenon "proves" a certain religion, which it doesn't at all.
When I use a word, I use it exactly how I mean it.
That's the problem, you're not supposed to use a word however you want to, you use the word how it is used. 1=2 if you use the value 1 to also describe 2, but you say that to someone else, and it doesn't make logic sense, because they use the generally accepted values.
Post by
Orranis
How you mean it isn't always the accepted term but anyway lets keep on topic.
@faceshield , the whole point of the argument is that there has to be an exception and we name that exception god, the point being to prove that there had to be something in the beginning , then build on it.
Okay, I agree with Mediator that this in no way shape or form automatically points to God, but lets assume it does. How do you know it is this one God in which you have faith? If there is one exception there could just as easily be three.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
When I use a word, I use it exactly how I mean it.
That's the problem, you're not supposed to use a word however you want to, you use the word how it is used. 1=2 if you use the value 1 to also describe 2, but you say that to someone else, and it doesn't make logic sense, because they use the generally accepted values.
I don't use a word however I want to. The problem is that I work and study in a completely different world that most people here. Take 'faith' and 'trust'--those are two completely different human actions as far as I and many other people are concerned.
Just because you use a term one way does not make your the sole authority on that term.
Post by
Xelvanox
There are two great views on religion: the George Carlin view and the Pastafarianist view. I, personally agree with both. There is the same amount of proof that God created the universe as there is that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Some Jewish dude thousands of years ago did a pretty good job at persuasion, because he actually convinced an intire culture, and later, most of the world, that there is an invisible man up in the sky who watches over every thing you do. He has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, and if you do any of these he has a special place full of fire and torment and smoke and agony that he will send you to until the end of time... But he loves you.
Post by
TheMediator
When I use a word, I use it exactly how I mean it.
That's the problem, you're not supposed to use a word however you want to, you use the word how it is used. 1=2 if you use the value 1 to also describe 2, but you say that to someone else, and it doesn't make logic sense, because they use the generally accepted values.
I don't use a word however I want to. The problem is that I work and study in a completely different world that most people here. Take 'faith' and 'trust'--those are two completely different human actions as far as I and many other people are concerned.
Just because you use a term one way does not make your the sole authority on that term.
Neither are you, hence someone linking the dictionary to settle the dispute.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Neither are you, hence someone linking the dictionary to settle the dispute.
And the dictionary agreed with me. Or did you not take the time to read it?
Post by
TheMediator
Neither are you, hence someone linking the dictionary to settle the dispute.
And the dictionary agreed with me. Or did you not take the time to read it?
Are you god damn kidding me? You just won't accept defeat will you? The dictionary said actually what I said it would say. Get the **** out.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
The dictionary agrees that I am using it properly, therefore I don't have to stop using it that way on your whim.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
@hyperspace I actually quoted the Oxford dictionary to show that I was using the word correctly, then you started questioning the dictionary and refused to accept the fact that slang that is widely know is adopted into the language which is how the huge difference between old English and modern English evolved
I never said you weren't using it correctly. I said that's not how I use it. And our discussion of slang didn't even occur in this thread FYI.
Post by
Orranis
The big bang came from a minuscule mass, where did that mass come from.
@faceshield , I believe in god , Christians believe in god , Jews believe in god , Hindu's believe in a god with thousands of different aspects , wiccan's believe in a god-face formed of the horned god and the three faced mother, most religions believe in a god , sometimes divided , but still one god.
What? Are you stupid...? There are plenty of pantheons from successful civilizations. Greek, Norse and Egyptian come to mind. Most are in fact older as well, but were obliterated (mostly by Christianity). Saying that the Gods of the pantheons are simply split versions of one God is pure ignorance, as they are often related in son/daughter relationships
Post by
Orranis
How you mean it isn't always the accepted term but anyway lets keep on topic.
@faceshield , the whole point of the argument is that there has to be an exception and we name that exception god, the point being to prove that there had to be something in the beginning , then build on it.
Which in no way proves God. If there is an exception, then it is an exception and does not have to follow any specific "rules".
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
The big bang came from a minuscule mass, where did that mass come from.
@faceshield , I believe in god , Christians believe in god , Jews believe in god , Hindu's believe in a god with thousands of different aspects , wiccan's believe in a god-face formed of the horned god and the three faced mother, most religions believe in a god , sometimes divided , but still one god.
What? Are you stupid...? There are plenty of pantheons from successful civilizations. Greek, Norse and Egyptian come to mind. Most are in fact older as well, but were obliterated (mostly by Christianity). Saying that the Gods of the pantheons are simply split versions of one God is pure ignorance, as they are often related in son/daughter relationships
I still wish to complete this argument, as it has not been properly addressed.
Post by
HiVolt
The big bang came from a minuscule mass, where did that mass come from.
@faceshield , I believe in god , Christians believe in god , Jews believe in god , Hindu's believe in a god with thousands of different aspects , wiccan's believe in a god-face formed of the horned god and the three faced mother, most religions believe in a god , sometimes divided , but still one god.
What? Are you stupid...? There are plenty of pantheons from successful civilizations. Greek, Norse and Egyptian come to mind. Most are in fact older as well, but were obliterated (mostly by Christianity). Saying that the Gods of the pantheons are simply split versions of one God is pure ignorance, as they are often related in son/daughter relationships
I still wish to complete this argument, as it has not been properly addressed.
Perhaps because of the insult in the beginning of the post... I'm not disagreeing, merely pointing out why it may not have been addressed.
Post by
484763
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
I had though I had answered , but maybe the net lagged.The insult to my intelligence is worthless to me threefold as it was said in ager , on the internet, by someone who doesn't know me.
Most
was a keyword , I was also speaking about modern day religions.I never said anything about the pantheons being one god.The Egyptian gods aren't related by son/daughter, but ahh you said often which alters the meaning(this is an example of what you did btw if you didn't get it).
So? What does the time period have anything to do with it? If the entire Jewish religion was wiped out during the holocaust, would that make it any less worth while? No, it was the first religion containing only one God. Just as the pantheons of old were precursors to modern day Religion (being born again is very Osiris like...) I didn't mean to come out angry, just a bit frustrated at your answer. Not to mention your answer is false, because look at a chief God, Osiris. He fathered Horus, as well as being thought to be as the son of Nut (Sky) and Geb (Earth). Not to mention the countless other Pantheons with parental relationships among Gods (Norse, Greek...)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.