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

[Ironic Mustache]

Scientology is where its at.

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
Note: I would like to get someone on the board to find any number of topics where FC actually agrees with me. As I have stated before, If I would say that the sky is blue, and everyone else is wrong, he would somehow try to tell everyone that it is, in fact, green.

FC gets off on disagreeing with me on every thing I talk about on here. Anybody else notice this trend? Because of this, i'm not even going to read the above post, because you are wrong. I say you're wrong, i know you're wrong.

http://www.nubblies.net/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000615;p=1#0000 0 7

The only difference is it only takes a sentence or two to state that you agree. And most of the time, a post consisting of 'I agree' wouldn't be worth posting at all.

You really need to calm down. If arguments get you all angry to the point where you ignore the other persons points, then this is not the thread for you.

[ September 21, 2005, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: DJ FC ]

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by DJ FC:
Guess what buddy, common sense is often wrong, and entire societies may believe something even though it is blatantly wrong.

Common sense is often wrong, is it? Please, mr. philo expert, explain that to me, as I am only a lowly typical college student.

And you're right. Entire societies do believe in things even though they are blatantly wrong. But in your own argument, who's to say what's right and wrong? Some cultures believe that young boys ingesting semen is the only way for them to achieve manhood. Other cultures blindly believe in Christianity. I guess you're right, I shouldnt go off and tell everyone that they are wrong in their religious choices, that was "ignorant" of me. However, one of the main reasons I say that is because "Christians" impose their beliefs on everybody else, and commonly state that every other religion is wrong.

I don't quite understand what you're arguing for here, because if it's Christianity, you're just contradicting yourself. If it's just to correct me from telling everybody what's right and what's wrong, then yes, you were right about that.

[Repugnant Abomination]

If we're going to bash religion let's not single out Christianity. I know the main reason it happens is because it's the dominant religion of our culture, but still, let's try and spread the hate around evenly.

[Lucy Fur]

all religions are a scam that prey on peoples weaknesses

there. is that better?

[ September 21, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Lucy Fur ]

[ninjaface]

Originally posted by jbonham:
The only evidence we have today of Jesus' existence
are books written by men who followed Christ's side.
These books are written by eyewitnesses to the divine
proof that Ninjaface seeks in this
thread.

The only "evidence"? How is a book written 2000+ years
ago considered evidence? It's a BOOK. I'd say it is
the closest thing you have to being evidence, but not
actually evidence. You said, " These books are written
by eyewitnesses to the divine proof that Ninjaface
seeks in this thread." You might as well have started
that sentence with "Legend has it that..."

Originally posted by jbonham:
The scientific method will never prove everything in
the world. It like other things is a guide to test
observations. Well, if you can't observe then you
can't use the scientific mehtod.

There are too many things in the world and the
scientific method takes time, so ff course the
scientific method will never prove everything in the
world, but that is still the goal.

So what you're basically trying to say is that you
can't prove it's existence by any other means than an
old book and some vague notion of faith/belief.. right?

[Ironic Mustache]

Not scientology.

[Beebs]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
I like definition 4 best. Of course heavenly could be relative...but I think everyone could come to a consensus that perfect means something without flaws.

Would you agree? Do you want to hear a divine statement from the Bible now?

I don't mean to squabble of the meaning of Divine.

By divine I mean show me something from the Bible that has been proven true, that would not be possible without the intervention of a God. Basically I am asking for a verifiable act of God. I bring it up because Jbonham said "things from the Bible are being proven everyday," and I agree in that there is obviously some historical truth to the bible, but I have yet to see any discovery that proves an act of god.

[Beebs]

I'm not going to be able to provide any materialstic support that there is absolutely a higher being that created us. Rather, I want to support the idea that you can realize that there is a "greater being" just by looking at your thought process.[/QB]

This is pretty much the meat of the thread and you raise two good points.

A)There is no material proof of any God, so we can all drop that. Proof could be possible in the future, but as of right now, there is zero.

B)I think you're missing the fact that by looking at your thought process and "realizing" there is a god, you stand a distict possibility of being wrong, and you cannot deny that. Just as an example, if you take a complex machine, and show it to two laymen, they might both "realize" how i works in seperate ways, and one or both of them will most likely be wrong.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
First of all, I'm going to say it doesn't surprise me that you hold that type of view. I still hold the opinion of you that you are the type of person that is influenced by branding. Look at yourself and tell me that it is not there. I'd say what drives you in life is looking good, being cool, and attention.

I'm glad you think i'm cool. What drives you, Active? What do you have everyday that gets you up and going? What is your reasoning for going to school? You should be able to answer that one pretty well, since you're taking 3 classes on it, it practically makes you an expert in reason.

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
and you cannot deny that. Just as an example, if you take a complex machine, and show it to two laymen, they might both "realize" how i works in seperate ways, and one or both of them will most likely be wrong.

I can...and it will probably seem as blind faith to you, but that is because there is no materialstic evidence that is right in front of your face.

I'd like to relate it to this idea...tell me if you think it's flawed. Say there was an artificial intelligent *computer* ..it was super smart, and continued gaining knowledge and input from all different sources which continually fed it input.

The computer would make smart decisions based on it's input. But...if it was truley intelligent, would it not be able to know that it was performing a task? By that I mean--it would become self aware, eventually.

If something becomes self aware--would it have any doubt that it is not aware?

I don't think it would...

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AcTivE:
First of all, I'm going to say it doesn't surprise me that you hold that type of view. I still hold the opinion of you that you are the type of person that is influenced by branding. Look at yourself and tell me that it is not there. I'd say what drives you in life is looking good, being cool, and attention.

I'm glad you think i'm cool. What drives you, Active? What do you have everyday that gets you up and going? What is your reasoning for going to school? You should be able to answer that one pretty well, since you're taking 3 classes on it, it practically makes you an expert in reason.</font>[/quote]
At the moment, nothing drives me. I'm very apathetic about most things, and could careless what happens for the most part. As long as I'm not in physical agony, I do not care what is going on.

My reasoning for going to schooling is that I should be doing something now--that is furthering my experience...while I figure out what I ant to do.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it, only a few weeks into the class. I would say that I'm pretty reasonable though, and that helps.

[Mr. Blonde]

Well in that case, I'll still hold the opinion of you that you don't care what other people think of you, therefore you do not dress or act to help facilitate yourself socially. Because of this, you probably have a small group of close friends similar to you, who don't party much, may drink on the occasion, but on the whole your'e not very social. Which is fine, some people aren't meant/don't like to be extremely sociable, and some people do. Like me.

Am I wrong? It's possible, but at least i gave you the chance to tell me a bit about you before making assumptions.

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
Well in that case, I'll still hold the opinion of you that you don't care what other people think of you, therefore you do not dress or act to help facilitate yourself socially. Because of this, you probably have a small group of close friends similar to you, who don't party much, may drink on the occasion, but on the whole your'e not very social. Which is fine, some people aren't meant/don't like to be extremely sociable, and some people do. Like me.

Am I wrong? It's possible, but at least i gave you the chance to tell me a bit about you before making assumptions.

You are 100% right. I do not like most people. I like being alone..most of the time, for the most part. I find value in being social, but only, like you said, with very close friends.

So...?

[Beebs]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
I can...and it will probably seem as blind faith to you, but that is because there is no materialstic evidence that is right in front of your face.

I'm not asking you to admit that you are wrong, but since you are basing your faith on your thought process, you have to realize that your thought process is often wrong, and could be wrong in this case as well. To argue this you have to your thought process is perfect.

My thought process in a dream tells me I am awake, I belive with 100% certainty that I am awake, yet I am not.

I am not even saying that it is impossible to prove something using only your thought process and you absolutely need concrete evidence., I am just saying that there is a possiblity, however small, that the truth realized through the thought process is flawed

[Beebs]

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
Common sense is often wrong, is it? Please, mr. philo expert, explain that to me, as I am only a lowly typical college student.

What he means is that alot of things are counter intuitive, like riding a stand up jet-ski. Common sense tells you to let off the throttle when you feel like you are falling, but in reality you should use more throttle to stabalize yourself, things like that.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by AcTivE:

So...?

...does there have to be a reason why i said that? I was merely making an observation based on what and how you post. To each his own, would by my point I guess.

[Ironic Mustache]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:

To each his own, would by my point I guess.

I figured that was pretty self-evident from your post. I wouldn't have thought active to get all defensive about it.

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
I don't quite understand what you're arguing for here, because if it's Christianity, you're just contradicting yourself. If it's just to correct me from telling everybody what's right and what's wrong, then yes, you were right about that.

I am arguing that you do not need to be ignorant to make reasonable arguments for the existence of God.

[ September 21, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: DJ FC ]

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
Rather, I want to support the idea that you can realize that there is a "greater being" just by looking at your thought process.

Sounds Cartesian, I would like to know these self-evident or devine truths that you have discovered please go on.
I don't think Actives saying his thought process is perfect, but I think you should hear him out before you say his process is faulty. Whos to say human thought isn't perfect when built off of divine truths? like I think therefore I am.

[AcTivE]

alright..some

"you" can't be in two places at once

everything comes from something else (..lets argue.)

shit happens regardless of any wants/needs/desires--a situation will happen

everything finds it's place in relation to something else

"love" is the connection between two things

there is nothing greater than "love", because everything is connected to something else

probably some flaws in the language...but I feel confident I can argue logic behind any of those if you find them disagreeable.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally posted by AcTivE:


everything comes from something else (..lets argue.)

Alright let's argue this.

If everything comes from something else then there couldn't possibily be an original "something" because it would have had to be created from something else right? That's a circular argument that disproves God right there. Your only logical retort would be that the rules don't apply to God, which is a contradiction to what you're trying to argue in the first place.

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Repugnant Abomination:

If everything comes from something else then there couldn't possibily be an original "something" because it would have had to be created from something else right? That's a circular argument that disproves God right there. Your only logical retort would be that the rules don't apply to God, which is a contradiction to what you're trying to argue in the first place.

Ok, or we could conclude that there never was an original "something".

[ September 21, 2005, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: AcTivE ]

[Mr. Blonde]

Then where did everything come from?

[AcTivE]

I guess that is flaw in language.

When I say "everything" I mean anything that can be tasted, smelled, touched, thought, etc. That to me is "everything".