Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Ugly Bastard]

Well then it must be a slam of this guy's arguement. I don't understand what it is about this guy's arguement that is so illogical that it makes you deem Christianity more plausible. Everything about his arguement very well could be exactly how it is. Back up your arguement if you really think this guy's article is complete hogwash.... besides just saying he's high on himself.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Well i posted that link as i hoped that, over time, you read the 7 other articles that come with it.
I really like where it says 'its impossible to prove the negative' sums it up there.
However, im finding it extremely hard not to argue with christians. Fuck they piss me off.

[Beebs]

How is christianity not plausible if you believe in an all powerful god, which this god clearly is? So here we have this guys god, who can kill off the dinosaurs, and "set an alarm for the first sign of aerial activity" which of course "he usually does" which clearly puts him in the all powerful category, and on the other hand we have the christian god who creates the world, basically purges the bad with the flood, and then appears in human form, which this guys god does too. You are just hating on the christianity to hate on christianity, and I'm no christian, but I don't see how you can say that everything in this story could be true, yet bash a very similar creation story.

Now, getting into why this guy seems pretty silly, there's the basic problems of a theist god compared to a deist god, like the problem of why a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving would allow evil to take place. This guy says basically "it is for our own good and development" well guess what, this guys god is all powerful and all knowing, he can do anything he damn well pleases, so he could easily make a development system that worked just as well without evil.

Theres the problem of voluntary action and free will with an omniscient god, as this god is which described by Nelson Pike as "If god existed at time 1, and if Jones did X and Time 2, it was not within Jones' power at time 2 to refrain from doing X".

This guy is simply trying to reassure himself, and the general mood of this article is just him patting himself on the back for not being christian.
"‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.' "

Except of course for when he came and helped us out, say in the case of talking to this guy, and when he comes right out and says
"The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn’t get a foothold against such mighty predators. You’ve now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that’s only been true for about a thousand years, you wouldn’t have stood a chance 2 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go."

The entire exchange about how god became god is terrible and avoids any attempt to answer it other than avoiding the question with one word answers that are intentionaly unclear so the auther doesn't have to do any real hard thinking.

The purpose of this article is best summed up by these two passages:
I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.
And Christianity is rediculous?

‘Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?’

‘Why You? Because can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '

He bascially could put a picture of himself masturbating here and it would achieve the same purpose.

[Ugly Bastard]

Uhhh... I can't focus enough to read all that right. Sorry for instigating last night. I was drunk and like to pick fights for some reason. Sorry for bein a dick. You have your beliefs, I have mine, neither of us can ever prove we're right, so.... agree to disagree.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Of course the post is bullshit, but it makes you think, and so long as you think, im happy.

http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/44..._than_Your_God

Thats another one, I like it, I dont agree with it because Ill be needing evidence before I believe in god, but it does give me that warm feeling in the heart region.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Uhhh... I can't focus enough to read all that right. Sorry for instigating last night. I was drunk and like to pick fights for some reason. Sorry for bein a dick. You have your beliefs, I have mine, neither of us can ever prove we're right, so.... agree to disagree.

I was drunk too and didnt think you were instigating at all, posts like that are fun.

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Beebs

How is christianity not plausible if you believe in an all powerful god, which this god clearly is? So here we have this guys god, who can kill off the dinosaurs, and "set an alarm for the first sign of aerial activity" which of course "he usually does" which clearly puts him in the all powerful category, and on the other hand we have the christian god who creates the world, basically purges the bad with the flood, and then appears in human form, which this guys god does too. You are just hating on the christianity to hate on christianity, and I'm no christian, but I don't see how you can say that everything in this story could be true, yet bash a very similar creation story.

Now, getting into why this guy seems pretty silly, there's the basic problems of a theist god compared to a deist god, like the problem of why a god who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving would allow evil to take place. This guy says basically "it is for our own good and development" well guess what, this guys god is all powerful and all knowing, he can do anything he damn well pleases, so he could easily make a development system that worked just as well without evil.

Theres the problem of voluntary action and free will with an omniscient god, as this god is which described by Nelson Pike as "If god existed at time 1, and if Jones did X and Time 2, it was not within Jones' power at time 2 to refrain from doing X".

This guy is simply trying to reassure himself, and the general mood of this article is just him patting himself on the back for not being christian.
"‘so we’re not obliged to "please" you or follow your alleged guidelines or anything like that?’

‘absolutely not. Never issued a single guideline in the lifetime of this Universe. Have to find your own way out of the maze. And one early improvement is to stop expecting me - or anyone else - to come and help you out.' "

Except of course for when he came and helped us out, say in the case of talking to this guy, and when he comes right out and says
"The mammals who are, as you rightly say, couldn’t get a foothold against such mighty predators. You’ve now reached the stage where you could hold your own even against dinosaurs, but that’s only been true for about a thousand years, you wouldn’t have stood a chance 2 million years ago, so the dinosaurs had to go."

The entire exchange about how god became god is terrible and avoids any attempt to answer it other than avoiding the question with one word answers that are intentionaly unclear so the auther doesn't have to do any real hard thinking.

The purpose of this article is best summed up by these two passages:
I have discussed this with the level two species and the consensus is that this tiny prod is capable of increasing the contenders for level two without letting through any damaging traits. It has been tried in 312 cases. The jury is still out on its real benefits although it has produced a 12% increase in biological species embracing the transition to information species.
And Christianity is rediculous?

‘Why me? Why pick on an atheist of all people? Why are you telling me all this? And why Now?’

‘Why You? Because can accept my existence without your ego caving in and grovelling like a naughty child. '

He bascially could put a picture of himself masturbating here and it would achieve the same purpose.

teehehehe, your best post ever. i agree with everything you said. this story's way of explaining God is no different that christianity other than putting a hipster spin on it. this is the cool way to think about god. where do i sign?

I agree 100%

[jbonham]

I have to agree with Beebs that this article is just as plausible as christianity...no more no less...and I am a Christian...I am not a typical christian (I think) as I think this article is plausible. I doubt it to be true, but this type of article is interesting and I applaud the post of it.

[Heaven Can Wait]

I can be an idiot when im drunk.

[Heaven Can Wait]

http://www.venganza.org/

Most likely that youve heard of Him and discussed Him before, ive been touched by his noodly appendage.

[jbonham]

That's awesome. Everybody should read it. Good argument on the point of teaching intelligent design next to Evolution. I don't know about FSM in the curriculum specifically though.

[jbonham]

and i didn't notice, but i just broke a hundred posts!! Congratulations, me!!

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by jbonham

That's awesome. Everybody should read it. Good argument on the point of teaching intelligent design next to Evolution. I don't know about FSM in the curriculum specifically though.

I think the whole point of that website, aside from praising The Almighty FSM, is to make fun of the idea of teaching intelligent design.

[jbonham]

it does make fun of intelligent design. But i think, not trying to argue here, that the point of which I speak next to evolution is that the point of view based upon the God of Abraham shouldn't be taught next to a scientifically based theory. Intelligent design is definitely a philosophical theory. Teaching them both together is a bad idea. I guess I should have specified that. I think teaching I.D. is good in a world religions course or philosophy course. As where Evolution should be in bio or some such course. Making both courses part of a requirement would bring both into view of children, and in a world religions course, bring it to light in a way as to not persuade belief in a specific religion. I was taught I.D. in a world course and it wasn't put in a christian context despite Thomas Aquinas (I think that's his name). So, yeah it does make a good point, it makes a mockery of aligning church and science. I don't think you can compare apples to oranges.

I feel as though I am rambling, I have been thinking too much, playing moola too much. I guess I should have said "good argument against" and then stipulated what I did above. I don't know, my fiancee says I am a bad communicator.

Is it really that far-fetched of an idea to suggest that Intelligent Design is real and that evolution is merely a part of that?

[blackbirdsjoy]

a big point of Evolution is that its un-directed. That the species determine their direction themselves, weeding out the week ones and leaving the strongest. It gives us a theory that can explain a nature (enviroment) that creates itself, through natural selction, and a natural process without having to fall back on the idea of a creator. I think a big mind set for Americans is that the spiritual realm, and its gods, where needed to explain our orgin and purpose to the ancient race. But now that were so much smarter and better we don't need to rely on myths becuase we have science to explain history.

Edward O. Wilson "If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selction, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species." ~On Human Nature

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

Is it really that far-fetched of an idea to suggest that Intelligent Design is real and that evolution is merely a part of that?

If you can accept a deist "clockmaker" god, no not really, but I don't know if you can call that kind of creation "intelligent design"

[blackbirdsjoy]

the idea of a deist clock maker God only means that God started this world, designed, created and wound it up, but then left it alone. The idea of intellgence is still there. Just as William Paley tended to prove with his watchmaker argument. That being, when you find a watch or something intricate, with intricate design and function you attribute it to an intelligent being. This should also be the case for the universe. Is it plausable that God used evolution in the creation process? Some Christians seem to think so, but you are left with the problem of intermediate forms and the difficulties that they present for the survival of certain animals. Once this can be reconciled I will be willing to consider the idea that evolution was used in the creation process, but as of yet I cannot think of a way to reconcile this. Lastly, I must say that all Christians must avoid a deist view of God in that if we do, then we negate the life and death of Christ, which is the basis and foundation of Christianity.

this was submitted by a different person than blackbirdsjoy

[Beebs]

That has some good points, but what I ment was that a deist god would create the world and then have nothing to do with it, and care nothing about it, which does leave room for evolution as a built in process. The problem is that, correct me if I am wrong, ID treats humans as special, whereas the desist god cares equally little about all of his creations.

What I like about that article is that it points out why a deist god and christianity don't mix, but where it fucks up bad is the mixing of the "Clockmaker" and "Watchmaker" (sucks that two very different ideas have basically the same name) The clockmaker is a metaphysical argument with some plausability, the watchmaker is a scientific observation that has pretty much been proven totally inaccurate.

The watchmaker idea came about from looking at complicated organs and such and saying they couldnt have evolved, when as the fossil record and our understanding of evolution grows, says they not only could, but would have HAD to evolve.

For a explanation of the difference of clockmaker and watchmaker that is probably better than mine is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_hypothesis
The watchmaker article mentions something I had to read in genetics and evolution that does a great job of explaining why the watchmaker doesn't work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker

[Mr. Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Beebs

ID treats humans as special, whereas the desist god cares equally little about all of his creations.

ID views no human as special, ID uses mortals as mere pawns.

[Heaven Can Wait]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

Worth a read.

[ninjaface]

The Naked Truth

With Jordan Maxwell, Bill Jenkins, and Derek Partridge

Discover the astrological and mythical symbols from ancient Egypt and earlier civilizations, which bear striking similarities to Judaic, Christian and Islamic teachings, and learn how orthodox religious institutions have suppressed these truths to consolidate their power over the masses!

In this riveting presentation, you will discover ...

* Uncanny similarities like those between the Virgin births of Krishna, Mithra, Osiris/Horus and Jesus.

* Underlying astrological symbolism such as the two fishes of Christianity, representing the Age of Pisces.

* How sun worship of the pagans was transformed into "Son" worship of today's Christians.

* The history of the suppression of thought that has led to "holy wars," the Inquisition and other reprehensible acts by the so-called righteous!

Now you can learn how many religions (or cults) have borrowed from one another for short term gain, control, power, and the eventual enslavement of the populace! Learn how this has been done systematically; not for decades, not for centuries, but for thousands of years!!!

This

video

video

is not riveting, but it does show religion for what truly is. Watch it all. I'm interested to see people's responses.

Edit: The video is 1 hour and 50 minutes long.

[ninjaface]

Bump.

[blackbirdsjoy]

? its considered nudity by smartfilter so i can't watch it.