I'm not referring to Christianity, I'm referring to God himself, and what he has done. Exactly! That's my point. And you believe in that written work do you not? Which is my reason NOT to. If he exists, I'm saying he surely could and probably does have different views than those. But to believe in a book like that, and one that shows him like that... that's what I'm going on. If he proves to exist, or at least maybe gives us a new book, one he completely has written and one that is true to form his word and views, I could go off of that. But since the only book that claims to know his views is the Bible, I am going off of that, and why based on that I wouldn't want to follow him. Yes and that is part of the reason life is so wonderful and should be enjoyed and not looked at as a test for an even better life that may not exist. And it doesn't matter if it looks like that to you, if he exists and knows this, he is having us do this when he knows. If he knows, he shouldn't be putting us through this. It'd save everyone time if he just sent us on our ways before we were born. I will then. If given the chance to speak to him after death and when and if I find out I was wrong, then I will not argue my placement, but at least ask him why he put me and all of us through a pointless life. See below: Exactly, you ARE living in fear, and you just don't realize it. You want to go to heaven because you are afraid of going to hell. You want the pleasure and fear the pain. Besides that, believing just to get to heaven is basically pascal's wager, and I thought that doesn't work because only true faith and not faith based on getting to heaven is what gets you there. I'm not telling him to leave, I'm just saying if he feels that this is pointless, it is an option. EDIT: @Scop- Stop where you are and shut up. Don't go calling us blind. There is no logic behind God creating the universe. And disproving the big bang does not prove God. It just means that the big bang isn't true. There could still be plenty of more logical ways for it to have happened. Using God to say the universe was created is taking the fact you can't figure it out on your own and you are using God as the fill in the blank.
I never said you had to leave. I said you had to prove yourself. Why is god the only possibility? It's only one idea on how the universe began - there are many more scientific ones. Consider this: Imagine time as a dimension, just like height or width or depth. We can both agree that our universe is theoretically infinite in scale - the only reason we consider the universe to have an 'edge' is because that is the furthest point that matter has reached. As matter continues to expand outwards, so will the edges of our universe. Outwards into nothingness. Time is the same. Time began at the big bang, just like the the matter in our universe begins at the edge of the universe, and time continues to expand forwards forever. We perceive time as something completely different from our universe, but that doesn't mean that it is. The universe never had a beginning and will never have an end, just like the boundaries of our universe have no beginning or end. There. A second theory. So now we have 3 things to believe: (1) god did it, (2) the above, and (3) we don't know. Obviously, 1 and 2 are completely theoretical, we have no proof of either. The only logical choice is 3. We can't just pick between 1 or 2 at random. Instead, we have to settle for not knowing. Something could change in the future. We learn new things every day, make new breakthroughs. Just like people of the past would say things like electricity or television are completely impossible, you today say that knowing the beginning of the universe is completely impossible. That's not the case.
NO I want to know where you guys ****ing think everything came from! Not ONE of you has given me even a simple theory! The big bang oh ho ho ho! No that ****, if real, was created somehow. WHO CREATED IT THEN!?
NO ONE. No one created the Big Bang. And stop getting so worked up. Cursing and flipping out isn't helping anything. If anything, it makes you look bad, so I'd suggest you calm down.
You don't understand the concept of the big bang. The big bang has nothing to do with how our universe got here. The big bang theory attempts to let us see the nature of the universe instants (10^-43 seconds) after it began.
Peek my head in here? If you're frustrated at how my posts make you're beliefs seem unlikely, it's not my fault, and asking people to leave is just tacky. You're claiming God created the universe, and I'm claiming to not know the specifics. If you want to claim the universe as something that god has done YOU need evidence, I don't. And stop swearing.
How was it created? I'll take an approach you'd take had we asked you who created god. It was always there, like the God you believe in.
Look Mr Swine flu this is the second time you've told me to leave. If anything, you're the one that's getting offended. I'll I'm asking is a simple question but all of you dumb asses are so quick to speak that you don't even want to try to answer it. All I want is a theory. Your 'NO ONE' theory is so dumb. The universe is so ****ing complex. It doesn't just appear. The debate shouldn't just be if God exists or not but rather 'Does god exists and where the hell did we all come from'. Because you see if there is no God or some kind of creator, we wouldn't be here. If you can believe that it was always there why can't you believe in a God that created it? This entire thread has just proved to be pointless. I'm going to sleep.
Still doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. You're assuming a) that God is a "being" or that isn't figurative language for something else. Hebrew is similar to many languages around the area in that they can use weird words to kind of hint at something else. b) In the same vein, you're assuming that everything written (or that you were told or read) is to be taken literally. Most of the Bible in fact is meant to be taken figuratively. Right now isn't the place to be arguing if the Bible was written by God or man, it doesn't really matter TBH. At least personally, I've found myself 10x happier when I realized what the point of it is over "if you don't do this you're going to burn in Hell". Let's just throw out some idea randomly: "God" can easily be a metaphor to nature. Get what I'm saying?
Look Mr. Tempermental- First of all, don't call me swine flu. That's the first immature thing I could pick out in this post. Then, I NEVER told you to leave. I told you that YOU said you think this is pointless, and I merely reminded you that if that's the way you think, you don't have to continue to post here. In fact, NO ONE HERE HAS TOLD YOU TO LEAVE. But you told Scarecrow to get out. Then you call us dumb asses. This is the point I feel I'm no longer obligated to read further, and more so should just report the post. We aren't the ones in need of supplying a theory. In fact, I am completely fine with accepting the fact we simply don't know. You are not accepting that, and instead deciding that the only explanation when something is currently unexplainable, is to give a fill in the blank with God. And you're right, I am the one getting offended when you call me Mr. Swine Flu and call us dumb asses.
But I realize that the bible is a metaphor. What I don't understand, is why some people take some parts seriously and others not so seriously. It should be one or the other, or there should be an easy way of saying which is which. Until then, I am going to do what others do and take certain parts seriously, and maybe I'm not very good at understanding figurative language, but I don't see the metaphors in, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" just saying... And I get what you're saying, but then really, God isn't anything. If God isn't an omnipotent, omniscient being or any sort of powerful being, God is just another word used to say Nature, in which case, it is not its own idea. I do believe in things, just things that are not illogical, and things that are backed up by research and evidence. If you think Atheists are immoral or don't have reason to live then you are mistaken. I love living life because its the only one I have. It isn't the appetizer to a better meal. But I get why you believe, and it's why a lot of people do, because it is comforting and it is better to think we aren't just a random occurrence.
Again, what you've heard. Judaism is against homosexuality obviously, but much of the Bible was based off of the society at the time it was given over and such. That's not to say regardless of "who" wrote it that it's not more or less (at least IMO) the best way to live your life. It's always debatable. Anywho, back to what I was saying...first, let me point out something with the "put to death" thing. I can't remember exactly where it is (I can find a source if you need one, but I think you can only find it in Hebrew anyway), but a court was considered "bloody" if they killed one person in 70 years. Basically, they never really killed anyone. As with many foreign languages (foreign as in not English, lol), they overdramatize things ridiculously to get a point across. Anyway, on to practicality...if someone is gay and is completely open about it, that's considered bad and they should go to counseling or something, not get killed. Wether you agree or disagree with homosexuality, I don't see that as horrible as people make it seem. I can honestly say though that I don't know a lot about the topic itself, so sorry about that. Also, you can't just base stuff off what the "public opinion" is. Most people are too lazy or don't want to actually research what religion is really about. God is certainly something. I just never said that he was something tangible. Nature is 'something', and I'm not telling you that God is nature, just a thought I have. "God" is really a nonword.
Damn that was a lot of reading... @ Scopulus: Quit spamming and making yourself look bad. Also, quit putting your personal bias in your threads (ie. I'd rather believe in something rather than believe at all). Oh, and cut the personal attacks out of the discussion, it doesn't raise you to a higher level and makes you look retarded. You could be reported soon. As for answering your nagging question, Science can't prove religion is wrong, but it has strong evidence on whether or not God is incorrect in the bible. Therefore, we can make a valid argument that there is no god. @ Everyone- the way I look at it, god has no morals. I don't wan to follow a higher invisible all knowing being that has no morals. That could reflect on our society. The morals, however, that god gave us, contadict his own ( do not commit murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery). He did all of this, why can't we? That's pretty sick of him. @Rain- Muslims aren't the only faith that "get on their knees", Orthodox Christians do too at least once tipically on Sunday. Thanks for offending thousands. All of your arguments that you stated have been answered. Which is good because Im on an Ipod and am not up to Copy/Paste. It's meticulous work. @Insane- Well then, God has the bible up for interpretation. Saying that these stories written in it are metaphors Is to contradict Christianity, who use Adam and Eve to explain the origin of humanity. Or proclaim evidence of finding the Ark when it could be a metaphor describing what happens to a corrupt humanity. I just don't understand that point of view. I may write more, but for now my argument slipped after typing all this up.
Sorry these are from 10 pages back. You all wrote a lot in 18 hours. I know what religious freedom means. it's just the way he said it it sounded like he was saying that all people seeking religious freedom were atheists. 1. I guessed as much, just checking though. 2. maybe I skipped it because I'm not going to debate something I don't believe in. 3. Um, no. I have a friend that's Jewish and his dad is a doctor(in fact my grandma's). Saying that money lenders are Jewish or Jewish people are money lenders is racist. 4. I don't get what I'm supposed to be responding to. 5. So? Everyone is guilty of that at some point in their life. 6. You forgot the phrase "In my opinion". You, as well, forgot to say "In my opinion" This picture sums up my problem. far left: islands being formed-- Wouldn't the to be fossilized objects be destroyed by the magma coming up from the earth? 2nd to left: plates pulling apart allowing magma to come up-- Same as one middle: same as 1+2 Is the 4th from left a mountain? if so see 1 far right: wouldn't the fossils be disturbed by the crunching of the earth? How is, "We should worship him because he was God," circular? And as for his effect on society, most of the major events in the past 2000 years have been at least partially related to him. Luke 1:35-38 35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God." 38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
Then you should think harder. Seriously, this is first grade, basic logic. Umm...no. Because fossils 'to be' are just that fossils-to-be. They don't exist yet so no fossils would be disturbed. Fossils on the sea bed that were already in existence would be disturbed and destroyed and if this rising mountain chain didn't do it then subduction certainly would. This is why we don't fossil hunt on the ocean floor (and can't because of a lack of technology). Fossils that formed on the islands would be by the inhabitants and it would only be inhabited if it wasn't a giant ball of magma. There would have to be green zones where plants weren't destroyed every morning. Now if you are talking about fish, invertebrate and arthropod fossils then you would be correct in assuming that fossils would be destroyed. But this isn't a rising mountain chain, its a hot spot zone which is a completely different concept all together. Just google 'Hawaiian Fish Fossil' and look at your results (there aren't any; google doesn't even suggest it). You have to look in the right places for the right fossils. That is so incredibly easy to understand and basic that it astounds me you couldn't think of that yourself. And I'm sure your response to save a bit of your self-respect will be just as astounding, if not greater... If there were fossils where the plates are pulling apart then the fossils would be dragged to a subduction zone and destroyed. It's called uplift and doesn't need magma or even have it in some cases. If just squishes the plates together and forces anything that was in the meeting point to steadily rise for a few million years. Look at the Himalayas. They are still rising but its not like its just this huge jolt destroying all the fossils in its wake. Its a rift valley that is being filled in my either a sea or a lake or a river depending on scale. Africa has a rift valley where many geologists go to study geology, not fossil hunt. No.
Im not saying this is the best picture but the far left island is a volcanic island and mag ma is no always a factor in plate movement so it wouldn't always effect levels of sediment which hold the fossils sure some fossils have probably been disturbed or destroyed do to being disturbed thats why its so very hard finding fully intact specimens. I was only talking about the shoreline plate collision which best described my post of how sea life fossils ended up on a mountain. The surrounding plate movements on the diagram just show other ways plates move. Its very hard for fossils to not be disturbed over time thats why its hard to find whole large ones intact but the smaller the fossil the better chances it has of being preserved. The 4th from the left is called the divergent because its pulling away and you can even see that water is filling the canyon. The mountain I was talking about is the convergent boundary in the center of the picture.
Sig Win!!!!!! 1. Thanks for getting smart then 2. Well then, leave that for the Christians to answer 3. Your too lazy to actually read what I wrote and continue to believe Im making personal attacks. Throughout history, from whenever to recent times, there was a great feeling of antisemitism. The Jews were looked down apon by other faiths (mainly Catholics) because their religion did not tolerate this behavior. I can't explain it better than that and by now, I forgot about why I even brought up this subject. Crack open a freaking history book if you STILL don't understand me. 4. It was argued that he'll was never mentioned in the bible. I read the last couple pages before posting unlike someone. 5. Of course, both of us are. You are religious and I once was as well. 6. Touché
You just said I was wrong, but then stated my point that there wouldn't be fossils there. Does that mean you're wrong, too? Which was my point. it would still cause disturbance. Just look at sink holes, those don't happen over night but they still destroy houses. Thanks for the clarification. All the other examples in the pic were mountains forming. Again you state my point that there wouldn't be fossils there. 2. If by Christian you mean a person who believes the bible literally then fine, but you don't have to do that to be a Christian. 3. You didn't read what I said!!!!! Please go back and read it!!!!!!!(lol now i know why you sound like an evangelical, it's because you sound like ameoba) It's just you said "we" as if you were part of that group that viewed Jews like that. 4. I was the person who said that. Spoiler lol "I read the last couple pages before posting unlike someone." condescending fail 5. No I meant everyone, even those who have never been religious.