This is a true event... A post in another forum reminded me of this...

I was once threatened with a law suit by an outraged individual, as they were very upset about the "What came first, the Chicken or the Egg" riddle. I explained why it must be the chicken and they couldn't cope -- they cracked. Now, that wasn't just a bad pun for the sake of humor, that really happened. I've probably had stranger encounters, but I'll leave that for the biography.

No doubt. You must live in the USA :D

Originally posted by Pilgrim
No doubt. You must live in the USA :D

Indeed. Or, rather, the other person was here (it is irrelevant that I was too). This was, of course, online. The United States; Home of Internet users that think paying $9.95 a month entitles them to special, exclusively privileges that only apply to them and what they want. It's fun when a user is abusive at a free site you run, for example, and you have to block them due to their harassment and threats, but if you don't unblock them and let them do what they want, even in breach of your terms of service, they threaten to sue you because they pay for Internet access. Heh. Mind you, this is in regards to a personal site of mine I used to run a while ago. I'm going to change the title to "Logic does not apply here". If people ask why, I'll say; "Because".

People seem to have a hard time understanding that the internet is not a democracy.

"You have no right to ban me from your site!" --> Sure I have, it is MY site.

"You have no right to delete my posts from the forum. I have the right of free speech!" --> Eh, it's MY forum. I can delete, ban and use whatever god-like powers the forum script gives me.

I am sure Chicken has received some pm's from disgruntled WHT users about the above issue during the recent years :)

*note, this is about a personal site, not about my webhosting business :D *

Originally posted by Pilgrim
"You have no right to ban me from your site!"

"You have no right to delete my posts from the forum. I have the right of free speech!"

I am sure Chicken has received some pm's from disgruntled WHT users about the above issue during the recent years :)
We get these all the time. People don't seem to actually understand the concept of the 1st Amendment, and how it doesn't apply here. They also think they have the right to spam the forum, etc., basically what you said above.

"You have no right to ban me from your site!"

"You have no right to delete my posts from the forum. I have the
right of free speech!"

MMMMmm,

Can I just say something,

If someone is threating you like this and they are realy going to sue you I would think it is in the forums best interest to keep them off the site permanantly, but that obviously creates more hastle.

Create a second copy of siad site, use the offenders cookie to redirect them to the copy whilst taking there IP then only allow there IP to enter the copy they have been pointed to.

Then you are not stopping them entering your forum, or posting to it, shame no one else will ever see it or talk back, except you and your choosen few.

Is this inside the law? I think so. Could be a problem if they change user name etc but this is only part of an idea that needs expanding.

I find it hard to believe someone would loose it over what you siad Mr Greer I think your a very knowlegble chap, maybe they were lost already.

I know its a nasty move but it solves a legal problem I bet many hosts are having...

Unfortunately, in the United States, lawsuits are common knowledge. If you look at someone wrong they will sue. I just found out from a friend that if you shovel your snow (I'm in the Midwest) onto your neighbor's yard and he's asked you not to do it, legally he can sue. Isn't that a bunch of bull... Our country is made up of many stupid laws but there are just as many stupid people out there to test them.

Cheesy, if I ban someone, I bam more than their username. But, yeah, I had fun on occasion with them. I.e., if they are a banned server and/or user, it displays a page saying that "The site is being updated, please check back later" on all the pages, whereas everyone else gets to participate, etc. That's just to keep them from trying to use proxy, a different email address and different username and try and get back in -- and save me the hassle.

I just found out from a friend that if you shovel your snow (I'm in the Midwest) onto your neighbor's yard and he's asked you not to do it, legally he can sue. Isn't that a bunch of bull...
Oh? If your neighbor specifically asks you not to dump snow on his yard, then how is it bull? Why don't you dump it on your own yard or leave it there?

Our country is made up of many stupid laws but there are just as many stupid people out there to test them.
Agreed, your friend falls in this category - don't blame the neighbor. That's how the laws started, if we didn't need them we wouldn't have any.

I could understand that if it was a tonne of concrete, but SNOW? snow melts, well uk snow does! it just of and goes all by itself!
You would look realy daft if you tried that in the UK, by the time your case came around, if in fact it got accepted at all, you would be laughed out of court! I think your laws are ridiculous to waist court time on petty instances like those when you have so much real trouble on the streets in some of the cities... :confused:

"The site is being updated, please check back later"

Thats is a great solution, that way there is no offence or lashbacks, perfect, and as you say rather good fun, will remember that one! :D

This thread is going straight into the twilight zone...:D

But if you ask your neighbour not to put his snow in your yard, he should not put his snow in your yard.

If he still put the snow in my yard just to piss me off, I wouldn't sue him, but I'ld hit him with the snow shovle so he'ld think twice about ever putting his snow in my yard again.

Either way, the problems between these two neighbours did not start with the shoveling of snow but probably have a much deeper and longer history :rolleyes:

I suggest one of the neighbours moves.

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Either way, the problems between these two neighbours did not start with the shoveling of snow but probably have a much deeper and longer history :rolleyes:

I suggest one of the neighbours moves.

That's a good observation.

Most law suits could be avoided if all parties would just act reasonably and responsibly.

I'd much rather that someone take their neighbor to court for being unreasonable than take a shovel to their head.

It should be illegal to say you're going to sue if you haven't filed yet. I'm sick of people threatening to sue. I wish they would just sue and then get fined for abuse of process for filing a frivolous law suit.

Originally posted by Pilgrim
...Either way, the problems between these two neighbours did not start with the shoveling of snow but probably have a much deeper and longer history :rolleyes:

I suggest one of the neighbours moves.

That is correct. There are many other problems other than the one mentioned. I just felt the snow "issue" was rediculous. Like cheesysticks said, it's just snow. Snow melts and whether it's in your yard or his, would you be able to tell? Say he didn't notice you doing it, can you identify the snow that was put in your yard that belongs the your neighbor? Plus, I must mention, the person that was threatened with the lawsuit never tried putting the snow there just to upset the neighbor.

The guy that made the threat has been after them for a long time trying to find anything and everything to get them into court. I agree that I would be either moving or at least getting a lawyer to protect myself just in case.

Was the chicken-egg riddle explained from an evolutionary point of view? That's the only thing I can imagine pissing someone off...if they're a hard-core Creationist.

Originally posted by Sastan
Was the chicken-egg riddle explained from an evolutionary point of view? That's the only thing I can imagine pissing someone off...if they're a hard-core Creationist.

I'm not a fan of, nor do I agree with the Darwin theory -- yeah, I believe in God, he's my hero. And, no it doesn't mean I don't look at things with only faith and no logic. :-) After all, according to Darwin's charts, we should maybe all be elephants by now -- and who's to say that God and evolution would dictate each other anyway. (Oh, I can feel the strong winds of debate coming forth, heh.)

Anyway, logically speaking, of course the chicken would have to came first, due to the fact that a lone egg would have to be incubated, and without a chicken, there's no chance of that egg becoming a chicken, so it it has to start, it must start with the chicken -- unless you believe it was a direct result of a really over achieving frog or something. I don't find that logic ever overrules or contradicts any theory or believe that there's a God, or God. After all, God must have a sense of humor too, eh.

Well, we all know how religious debates turn nasty, and I have no intention or desire to get into one, but remember that religion is a belief (i.e., Atheism is a religion) and God and religion are not the same thing. Hopefully that will stifle any attempts to bring that subject up after it's been mentioned and people start going on about it.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
Well, we all know how religious debates turn nasty, and I have no intention or desire to get into one, but remember that religion is a belief (i.e., Atheism is a religion) and God and religion are not the same thing. Hopefully that will stifle any attempts to bring that subject up after it's been mentioned and people start going on about it.

This board needs an OR :D

Egg first: because a chicken has to start from an egg, but an egg is only normally made by a "chicken" ;)

Douglas

So what you are basically saying is that he was going to sue you because you believed in God? :eek:

He must be in court a lot :D

Before I get to the chicken-egg thing, I just want to address Tim_Greer's comments.

1. Darwin didn't predict, he looked at the evidence and theorised what happened in the past.

2. Even if he did make any such prediction, it wouldn't have much of a scientific basis...evolutionary theory is based on the evidence, not on what Darwin had to say. A number of concepts in his theories have been demonstrated to be wrong.

The egg came first...let's say there is a proto-chicken, which is just one mutation away from being a fully fledged chicken (gross simplification), that mutation occurs during the fertilization of the hen's eggs, meaning the egg itself will become the first chicken.

Originally posted by Sastan
The egg came first...let's say there is a proto-chicken, which is just one mutation away from being a fully fledged chicken (gross simplification), that mutation occurs during the fertilization of the hen's eggs, meaning the egg itself will become the first chicken.

That's what I see too :D

Go proto-chicken!

Douglas

I don't get this discussion anymore.
Regardless of who was here first, Chicken is still posting but I have never seen a post by Egg.

And yes, I did a search on the entire forum. So maybe Egg was her first but he's not here anymore so who cares :confused:

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Regardless of who was here first, Chicken is still posting but I have never seen a post by Egg.

lol :D

Douglas

Originally posted by Sastan
Before I get to the chicken-egg thing, I just want to address Tim_Greer's comments.

1. Darwin didn't predict, he looked at the evidence and theorised what happened in the past.

There's no evidence that proves such a huge evolotionary event took place at any time, for any duration. Some things did evolve, but not in such a major way, not at ny time. There's no evidence of that, so it is just theory. And, that' when you come down to the "everything has to come from something at some point, and that first thing would have to have gotten here somehow, but from what and how", which I don't believe we'll ever be able to know. In fact, I think it's quite impossible.


2. Even if he did make any such prediction, it wouldn't have much of a scientific basis...evolutionary theory is based on the evidence, not on what Darwin had to say. A number of concepts in his theories have been demonstrated to be wrong.


What evidence shows that such a major evolutionary event ever took place for any duration of time? We're not talking about one animal evolving into another, but from a very smal, tiny thing, into a full grown human.


The egg came first...let's say there is a proto-chicken, which is just one mutation away from being a fully fledged chicken (gross simplification), that mutation occurs during the fertilization of the hen's eggs, meaning the egg itself will become the first chicken. [/B]

I do not agree. There's no way a egg could come first. Of course the egg couldn't be there without the chicken to lay it, but you see the riddle, uh, right?? I mean, after all, one can't possibly come from the other, if the one needs the other to exist. Hence why it's a riddle. I'm simply saying that if one had to be here first, it would have to be the chicken. An egg by itself could not incubate itself. So, if one did com first, it would have to be the chicken.

I get what you're saying though, since you believe that the egg wasn't a chicken in the first place anyway, and was something that evolved into that proto-egg, but that's just a theory and there's no evidence to support it. I personally don't see this an an accident, to have so many humans, all thinking for themselves and individual and no other creature is even close to all the very many things humans posses as far as ability. You'd think with billions of yers of evolution, that there would surely be some other creature at least semi-similar to humans, that still existed, if ever. No one has ever found anything to prove that there was some major evolution to where it would result in humans. It's called Darwin's "Theory" for a reason.

It was the aliens from outer space that started it all. :)

Large evolutionary shifts have been demonstrated to occur in response to environmental conditions. A good example is the development of modern corn, where organized agriculture and the high density of plants resulted in a shift from having multiple pollen-disbursing flowers to having a single flower and a vast number of seeds.

A more modern example, of course, is the existance of antibiotic resistance.

Hey, anything's possible, even mutant chickens that moderate web boards. I just have seen no evidence to support it. Not to say that it can't happen or that it can't be made to happen -- if it's God's will for it to happen (Bwahahahaa!). Seriously though, there's nothing that's shown that this major evolution did happen and assuming it's just mutation after mutation is one theory. I enjoy it though, it's interesting, of course. However, I don't think anyone has anything solid to go on, other than some people just don't believe in God, so there has to be the next logical reason. I find it odd that people will believe that we all had to come from nothing, everything, everywhere, by some means, but the idea that there's a God is so far fetched. I don't mean to bring the God aspect into this, but that too is a well supported theory. I don't see evidence either way and how we got here, is irrelevant to me, for I have reason to believe what I do, some just don't agree with me about things like that, but I don't think either of us should assume one is more sound than the other, without evidence -- after all, I personally think there's enough evidence out there to support God's existence, which in turn supports the creation theory... but that's not to say other's will see that or agree and I've yet to see anything other than theory about the full evolution theory (mind you, of course evolution exists, I know that! But in what capacity and in what dynamics, is another issue.) Now, don't make me sue you all! *LOL* [Note, that was the humorous part, to sue someone for not agreeing with you. Pretty soon, scientists will be suing each other to prove their theory is right, or more correct at least.]

This is going to be a loooong thread :D

I find it odd that people will believe that we all had to come from nothing, everything, everywhere, by some means, but the idea that there's a God is so far fetched.

I do not think that the human mind is capable of comprehending everything. How large is the universe? Is it endless? What comes after the end? What was there before the big bang and the universe existed? Nothing? What would "nothing" look like? Where were we before we were born? What happens when you die? Where will "you" go then?

Don't think about it all for too long. You might go mad. Like I said, I do not think the human mind is capable of comprehending it all. So we made up God. Everything that we cannot comprehend or explain is contributed to God.

You say that you do not believe it all came from nothing. So where did God come from? What is he? Did he just one day "pop" into nothingness and create the universe?

In the middle ages when our knowledge was limited we contributed much more unexplained things to Him. For some things we now have explanations as to how/why it works that way.

But humans will always need a higher being to believe in and to make responsible for the unexplained things because we are.. well... human!

But hey, this whole discussion is pointless :) We can fill threads and threads and threads with this discussion but you were brought up with what you believe in and nobody will be able to change your believes. Neither will anyone ever change mine.

Cool with me. As long as you do not ring on my door on early sunday morning trying to convert me or try to kill me because I have a different (read: no) religion.

Live and let live. Live long and prosper. Nanu Nanu :D

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Cool with me. As long as you do not ring on my door on early sunday morning trying to convert me or try to kill me because I have a different (read: no) religion.

Personally I'd add "or use my tax money to support your religion" to that list.

Originally posted by Pilgrim
This is going to be a loooong thread :D

Naw...


I do not think that the human mind is capable of comprehending everything.


Nor do I, but that doesn't mean that things are only "made up" to make us feel better. Of course, I have my reasons to believe otherwise, and that's not expected to appply to anyone but myself.


How large is the universe? Is it endless? What comes after the end? What was there before the big bang and the universe existed? Nothing? What would "nothing" look like? Where were we before we were born? What happens when you die? Where will "you" go then?


The answer is always: 164. I just have a feeling. *L*


Don't think about it all for too long. You might go mad.


Gone own that road already. Seriously, to believe in something, doesn't mean you're doing it because you are dwelling on it out of worry, or that you believe in something just for the sake that if you don't, something bad might come of it.


Like I said, I do not think the human mind is capable of comprehending it all. So we made up God. Everything that we cannot comprehend or explain is contributed to God.


Well, I've heard that enough times, but for some people, that might be why they believe, but that's just your view on why God ever came about.


You say that you do not believe it all came from nothing. So where did God come from? What is he? Did he just one day "pop" into nothingness and create the universe?


I never said I believed it all came from nothing, nor the opposite. I don't claim to know. I imagine if God wants to be, he is. I know how ridiculous that must sound. I personally just see a lot of what the (any real) bible says, has all come to pass and it all makes sense and it applied to every aspect of social and scientific facts, as long as you look at it logically. That's not to say that it would make sense in the same way it does to me, to you as well. Just don't assume that I or anyone else is a fool or believes based on trying to have some higher power to make us feel better in life about life or anything else, is all. After all, something had to just suddenly be there, it's not more far fetched.


In the middle ages when our knowledge was limited we contributed much more unexplained things to Him. For some things we now have explanations as to how/why it works that way.


Our knowledge is still very limited, but God wasn't created (my man) to supplant ignorance. There's a difference between those that use paranoia and/or ignorance to conjur up reasons to believe. I.e., I don't believe in God because I can't explain things, etc. That's not to deny that some people don't, or didn't, surely.


But humans will always need a higher being to believe in and to make responsible for the unexplained things because we are.. well... human!


Well, maybe, I guess it depends on your outlook and if you have a theory. Don't mistake me for not being scientific or logical about things and just assume it wa that big mysterious God that did it and whatnot.


But hey, this whole discussion is pointless :)


Yeah, maybe not to you, HERETIC! *L*


We can fill threads and threads and threads with this discussion but you were brought up with what you believe in and nobody will be able to change your believes. Neither will anyone ever change mine.


I agree, but you did post, so you must have wanted to get involved or found it interesting. It's okay, since none of us here are going to loose it for not agreeing with each other. I just see people cop the "You just are looking for reasons and explanations, so people like you made it all up". Sure has a lot of accuracies in the bible, if you actually read it and understand it though. Even science/historians have proven that Jesus was real and truly did the things written of him. If you study any of it, you won't deny it. However, I can see people denying he was born of a virgin and is the son of God. This is a web board geared towards technical issues, and I usually expect a lot of people in the feild to be strong supporters of anything non-God related.


Cool with me. As long as you do not ring on my door on early sunday morning trying to convert me or try to kill me because I have a different (read: no) religion.


How you choose to believe and live your lie, is technically a regligion. It doesn't mean you believe in God or not. So, does Sunday at 6:00 AM sound good? :-)


Live and let live. Live long and prosper. Nanu Nanu :D [/B]

Ewok gibberish!

Ofcourse! I find the whole subject very interesting.
But I guess we'll both have to wait until we die to find out who is right though :(

And to be honoust: it would be nicer if you were right :)

Originally posted by Pilgrim
Ofcourse! I find the whole subject very interesting.
But I guess we'll both have to wait until we die to find out who is right though :(

And to be honoust: it would be nicer if you were right :)

Ultimately, that is the way people will know (or not, I guess. *L*). Well, here's to the best anyway!

WE deny ourself the freedom of your own thoughts,

we converse in a virtual enviroment,

mostly about money,

and how to make it,

so we can be free...

to watch films about death,

on colour tv's,

and laugh,

at our pityfull selfs,

saying one day I might just know,

theres somewhere to go,

with no fast or slow,

only the show,

but imagine,

if the worldwide theorys of God did not exist,

OUR world would twist,

showing us what we miss,

in our calculated bliss,

Its simple to me,

because now I see,

in black and white,

how we agree,

to hide the darkness,

that we flee,

that following us,

dont you agree?

it knows the power,

and feels our greed,

it exploits evey human need,

advertising, all its seed,

to any world that yearns to read,

ignoring them who need to feed,

we watch them dying at our feet,

when powering forth,

taking no heed,

our passive life,

a life indeed?

desensitized from all our needs,

but here we sit,

with our PCs

thinking were great

since we can see?

around our planet

thinking were free,

until we realize

who are we,

to critesize beliefs,

what's realy free,

our thoughts,

that make us what we be,

to realize that we cannot see,

that were the ones holding the keys,

to the protocals,

the power,

to set minds free.

so we can walk,

or disagree,

at anywhere,

we be,

and be.


Riddles and rymes make me laugh, thats all.
I couldnt care less if you see me 1" tall,
it curves my depression,
of seeing this brawl,
all over this world,
thats affecting us all.

ScottM
:)

People are quick to believe in god, but when it comes to Heaven's Gate it's just a bunch of lunatics... Damn why don't they believe Hale Bop?

Originally posted by Skeptical
People are quick to believe in god, but when it comes to Heaven's Gate it's just a bunch of lunatics... Damn why don't they believe Hale Bop?

Who's 'quick to believe' in anything? Some people? All people? Crazy people? If you don't personally agree it's logical or reasonable, then it's lunacy and compared to some cult of maniacs? Carl Segan of all people, even converted to Christianity before he died, as did many other strong non-faith die hard fans of other theories -- he was firm believer in this theory that it's lunacy too. Of course, that was him -- that's not to say you'll ever think that and you can blame it on the fear of death for some, but there's plenty of intelligent, sane and logical people that are "well balanced" that can easily discern the difference between some nutty cults and what would otherwise make sense to them. However, there's no reason to cast pearls before swine, so I I'll end it here... (don't misunderstand that terminology). Again, I'm not here to convince anyone otherwise, but let's not insult people, okay.

My take:

I wouldn't call the belief in a God a logical inference by any means. It's more of a reversion when scientific evidence is lacking rather than a conclusion in itself. The worship of the sun is a classic example. The sun formed an important religious part of a vast number of ancient civilisations (Egypt, Greece, Inca, etc), as it was unexplained at the time. Now that we have a scientific understanding of the sun and what it is, it no longer forms a fundamental part of religion.

What is unexplained today is likely to be explained in future. In my mind, the key issue is whether the human mind can grasp a knowledge of all. If it is possible for humans to explain everything by science, there is no room for a God. If there is something fundamentially unexplainable, there is room for a God - not that there necessarily is one, but there is room for one. There are some unexplainable things that we know of. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it the uncertainty principle in Physics which demonstrates you cannot ever witness an atom in its ground state, because by witnessing it you influence it out of its ground state? I know there is something like that, if there's someone around who has studied it, they may be able to explain it more.

So again, it comes down to belief and faith, and the argument goes nowhere.

I don't mind people's different beliefs, whether they are grounded in religion or science. I'm a habitually practising Catholic, with a faith in Christianity that couldn't shake a string. I'll have to take a different definition from Tim and say that a religion is an institution, and is not the same as a belief. You can have a belief without it being a religion (a crude but real example is Satanism, which is the belief of some, but not an institutionalised religion). What annoys me is not belief, but religious institution. The Catholic Church in particular is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Not the belief itself, but the institution, their hierarchy, and their rituals. Unless the traditions in a religion can evolve as the explained and unexplained evolve, I just see it becoming irrelevant and dying out. The Catholic Church, at least in the western world, seems to be on its way to this sort of irrelevancy. A religion in my mind needs to be dynamic to flow with the times, not grounded in one time and state.

It's all a slow process though, as everything in the Church is :)

I don't personally feel at all, that once everything can be explained, that it rules out any existence of God, or rather, to say that's the reason for some not to have reason to have faith. Anyone that comes to the conclusion, truly, that it might be a reason to have faith, has no faith to begin with.

As for the way of life or institution, that's an opinion. Any belief that is practiced, is a religion though, unless someone breaks that practice, and although organizations can institutionalize it, surely --and if it's not an individual aspect, perhaps institution would b more appropriate. I think it can depend. And, there's always room for God. :-)

Who's to determine what is crazy and what is not? Who's to say who god is, what he is, how many of him there is, or if he is not a she? Is he buddhist, is he catholic, is he christian, is he hindu, is he islamic, or is he puritan?

Have I seen god? No. Have I heard from god? No. Have I ever felt god's presence? No. Is there un-deniable proof, proof that can't be easily attributed to pure coincidence, proof that can't be easily contradicted, that god does exist? No. So why should I believe he even exists?

Originally posted by Skeptical
Who's to determine what is crazy and what is not? Who's to say who god is, what he is, how many of him there is, or if he is not a she? Is he buddhist, is he catholic, is he christian, is he hindu, is he islamic, or is he puritan?

Have I seen god? No. Have I heard from god? No. Have I ever felt god's presence? No. Is there un-deniable proof, proof that can't be easily attributed to pure coincidence, proof that can't be easily contradicted, that god does exist? No. So why should I believe he even exists?

I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to be of much help to answer those questions. The one's above you mentioned, teach very different things. If you cared to look into it, you can and make a logical judgment based on it. My advice would be to read the Kings James version bible and pick up a Strong's Concordance that will better translate some of the words from their original Hebrew and Greek forms to better understand it. To me, there's a lot of proof there, and I don't expect God to appear before me. After all, if he did, wouldn't you commit yourself and start taking some anti psychosis medication? Same if you "heard" him. I'm sure some people do, and I'm sure they are mentally ill too. I don't claim to be personally prepared to submit concrete evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I don't know that I ever could. Conversely, I don't think anyone could to the contrary, since nothing can easily be proven either way, which is why it's faith.

This reminds me of the movie "Contact" (good movie, I thought), and Jodie Foster's character didn't believe there was a God, so this preacher asks her to prove love. Of course, that's something you feel, not an object or whatever, but it's a good comparison. Prove there's air, prove we're really here, prove your not dreaming. Of course, it would be just as ridiculous to try and use semantics to say that it's reasonable to say there's a God, just because I can say that in theory, we can't prove a lot of obvious things, and I realize it's different. The information is there, it's been out there, it's there for you to look into if you want to. I can't give you reasons for you to believe, that's up to you and your business. Believe me, I'm just in this for the debating aspects, which is a very difficult subject to debate when someone hasn't studied the subject well enough. (I know I need to more).

Originally posted by Skeptical
Who's to determine what is crazy and what is not? Who's to say who god is, what he is, how many of him there is, or if he is not a she? Is he buddhist, is he catholic, is he christian, is he hindu, is he islamic, or is he puritan?

These religions all have their own perception of what a greater power is. Only a fundamentalist Christian would tell you that God is male. Any other Christian would tell you that God is imaged as a loving father, which is why "he" is often used. There are certainly people who prefer a loving mother analogy, because they can relate to that better. But your questions really miss the point. Creating religions and imagery is about personifying God into something that can be related to more easily. It is symbolism. Some sects of Christianity may even call it idolatry.

I talk about Christianity a lot because I while I know facts and figures about other religions, I couldn't say I truly understood them. I should say also that faith is intrinsically personal. I'm making sweeping statements which I realise don't apply to everyone.

Have I seen god? No. Have I heard from god? No. Have I ever felt god's presence? No. Is there un-deniable proof, proof that can't be easily attributed to pure coincidence, proof that can't be easily contradicted, that god does exist? No. So why should I believe he even exists?

There is no reason for you to know that God exists. I don't think anyone can truthfully tell you that they know God exists. Excuse another sweeping statement, but if they did that, they are being foolish by denying the lack of evidence supporting God's existence (read those words carefully!). You need facts before you can have knowledge I suppose. But they will tell you that they *believe* God exists. Belief isn't about facts, it's about faith. You cannot contest someone's belief by throwing facts at them, unless the facts disprove their belief. There is no conclusive evidence to prove or disprove the presence of a higher power, which is why it's all still faith. Even in science, speculation comes before research, so I suppose in a way belief is a speculation based on faith and hope rather than past facts and findings.

I'm just in this for the debating aspects

Yep, gotta love these ones :D

As far as I have known and read (somewhere, in the King James bible), that a few people at some time choose to worhship the "Mother of Heaven", as in literally a female and that God didn't like this, at all, so I think, assuming someone goes by this bible (referred to as the most accurate one from the Greek and Hebrew translation), that it would then mean that God is a "he", is that helps, at least from a Christian point of view from the KJV. Of course, there are a *lot* of other bibles and versions of Christianity a one, and out of them, many theories of what will happen and how. Such as pre-,a-, and post-mellennium theories. Theories and beliefs about the rapture theory, etc. However, I find that once people go back to the original meanings in the KJV anyway, that they usually agree and things are pretty clear. Anyway, just some information I know of to contribute. Shouldn't this thread be longer? Maybe it's because it didn't have religion in the title of the thread? *L* I honestly had no idea or intention for this to take this turn, at all. :-)

How old is the most accurate text you know? When was it written? 1000, 2000yrs? or OLDER?

Originally posted by Tim_Greer
As far as I have known and read (somewhere, in the King James bible), that a few people at some time choose to worhship the "Mother of Heaven", as in literally a female and that God didn't like this, at all, so I think, assuming someone goes by this bible (referred to as the most accurate one from the Greek and Hebrew translation), that it would then mean that God is a "he", is that helps, at least from a Christian point of view from the KJV.


I don't think that's quite right. What happened was that the people of Israel at some stage split over the issue of whether the chicken or the egg came first, and the mother/father argument came from there. Somewhere in Exodus perhaps? :D

Originally posted by cheesysticks
How old is the most accurate text you know? When was it written? 1000, 2000yrs? or OLDER?

Dead sea scrolls are the oldest I know about. From memory, they were written sometime in the first century AD, or something of the sort. That would have been before much, or any, of the New Testament was written.

Originally posted by Tim_Greer


I am not qualified or knowledgeable enough to be of much help to answer those questions. The one's above you mentioned, teach very different things. If you cared to look into it, you can and make a logical judgment based on it. My advice would be to read the Kings James version bible and pick up a Strong's Concordance that will better translate some of the words from their original Hebrew and Greek forms to better understand it. To me, there's a lot of proof there, and I don't expect God to appear before me. After all, if he did, wouldn't you commit yourself and start taking some anti psychosis medication? Same if you "heard" him. I'm sure some people do, and I'm sure they are mentally ill too. I don't claim to be personally prepared to submit concrete evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I don't know that I ever could. Conversely, I don't think anyone could to the contrary, since nothing can easily be proven either way, which is why it's faith.

This reminds me of the movie "Contact" (good movie, I thought), and Jodie Foster's character didn't believe there was a God, so this preacher asks her to prove love. Of course, that's something you feel, not an object or whatever, but it's a good comparison. Prove there's air, prove we're really here, prove your not dreaming. Of course, it would be just as ridiculous to try and use semantics to say that it's reasonable to say there's a God, just because I can say that in theory, we can't prove a lot of obvious things, and I realize it's different. The information is there, it's been out there, it's there for you to look into if you want to. I can't give you reasons for you to believe, that's up to you and your business. Believe me, I'm just in this for the debating aspects, which is a very difficult subject to debate when someone hasn't studied the subject well enough. (I know I need to more).

I would never say for sure such a "god" doesn't exist. I can never be sure. However I am 99% sure, based on the experiences and realities of my life. I find the theories and evidence of darwinism and evolution to be 1000 times more credible than the bible, which is based on tales mixed with some historical background. Maybe there indeed was a person named Jesus who got hanged for preaching a pagan religion (that's what they called it then), but that still doesn't prove god exists.

And if I had to start on a religion I'd go with Buddhism. I just don't like the amway type of tactics of christianity, where people go around trying to colonize everyone else.

Not trying to attack you personally Tim, I'm just always been very passionate about this issue that's all. I don't get why there MUST be a god in order for us to exist.

YES!

And if I had to start on a religion I'd go with Buddhism

prajnaparamita hridaya sutra - 7th century A.D.

Originally posted by cheesysticks
How old is the most accurate text you know? When was it written? 1000, 2000yrs? or OLDER?

The MOST accurate text is not anything man has written, as humans are subject to bias and inaccurate recording, especially from thousands of years ago.

Instead, I'd say the MOST accurate texts are fossils, for there is ABSOLUTELY no bias and no denying of the stories that they tell.

Originally posted by Lawrence


Dead sea scrolls are the oldest I know about. From memory, they were written sometime in the first century AD, or something of the sort. That would have been before much, or any, of the New Testament was written.

This is the informaion I have; The Old Testament was written over a long period of time, ranging from approximately the 15th century B.C. for some of the older books (e.g. Genesis, Exodus) to perhaps as late as the 4th century B.C. for the final forms of some of the most recent books (e.g. Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles.

Because the Bible itself does not date its books, these dates are the results of scholarly dialogues and conclusions. The date range I have provided
includes the most extreme (earliest and latest) dates generally attested by conservative scholars. Liberal scholars tend to set much later dates for many books (into the 2nd century B.C. for some). It is also likely that even the oldest books relied to some degree on prior written sources which have not been preserved through the ages.

Originally posted by Lawrence



I don't think that's quite right. What happened was that the people of Israel at some stage split over the issue of whether the chicken or the egg came first, and the mother/father argument came from there. Somewhere in Exodus perhaps? :D

*LOL*

Originally posted by Lawrence


These religions all have their own perception of what a greater power is. Only a fundamentalist Christian would tell you that God is male. Any other Christian would tell you that God is imaged as a loving father, which is why "he" is often used. There are certainly people who prefer a loving mother analogy, because they can relate to that better. But your questions really miss the point. Creating religions and imagery is about personifying God into something that can be related to more easily. It is symbolism. Some sects of Christianity may even call it idolatry.


I was just trying to go up the logistic ladder that's all. Suppose god does exist. What form is he/she/it/they?

Originally posted by Skeptical


I would never say for sure such a "god" doesn't exist. I can never be sure. However I am 99% sure, based on the experiences and realities of my life. I find the theories and evidence of darwinism and evolution to be 1000 times more credible than the bible, which is based on tales mixed with some historical background. Maybe there indeed was a person named Jesus who got hanged for preaching a pagan religion (that's what they called it then), but that still doesn't prove god exists.

And if I had to start on a religion I'd go with Buddhism. I just don't like the amway type of tactics of christianity, where people go around trying to colonize everyone else.

Not trying to attack you personally Tim, I'm just always been very passionate about this issue that's all. I don't get why there MUST be a god in order for us to exist.

I really don't know of too many people that flat out say God doesn't exist, few people completely rule it out -- since, no matter how we got here, most agree that the circumstances pretty much mean that anything is possible. I mean, no matter how you view it, it's pretty epic, you know.

I don't take this as an attack at all, nor do I hope anyone sees that I'm attacking them. I'm completely fine with this and people not agreeing with my views or beliefs.

I don't think you should blame or label Christianity though. After all, assume for a moment there is a God and Jesus is the savior -- war, crusades, etc., that was all the doing of man, God didn't do this. There's plenty of idiots that fight wars and cause problems in the name of religion or a certain type of religion -- Sept. 11, 2001 rings a bell -- but that's not to say that the Muslim faith teaches that's okay or the way to do things. Buddhists have been in battle too, although I'm not as up to speed as I'd need to be on them to make mention of anything that would support that, so I'll revoke that. However, I am aware that a lot of people over the history of this world have done some pretty evil and wrong things in the claim that it's in the name of Christianity or that it okay with that belief -- and it's not, at all, not even close. That's not to say that Christians are or should be passive and let people walk all over them, oppress them or whatever either -- no one should be subjected to that, and to assume that it's a religion at all associated or at fault with it, says you've been mislead.

There was indeed a person living named Jesus, and this is fact. Again, that doesn't mean people will or should believe who he was based on that fact alone. There's points in the bible that teach things in a way, to teach lessons, not to say that these things all happened, even though some are to have happened though, of course. Of course that doesn't prove God exists. I too am passionate about this, as you can see, I don't feel any conflict between us or anyone else here. It's fun, I enjoy it, it's a good debate and gets people thinking.

I better edit this before someone picks on me. :-) I didn't mean that there's been at least one person named Jesus that lived at any point on this Earth -- before someone says that they know a guy named Jesus (Spanish). :-) Historians have proven that Jesus Christ lived at the time documented in the bible, he pissed a lot of people off for his teachings and whatnot and was murdered for it on a cross. Again, that's not to say that means that the other stuff (miracles) he ws said to have performed have been proven or that him living and being real is a reason for people to just blindly believe he truely did these things. That, I would imagine, is something for people to study, if they desire. After all, for so long throughout history, this information has been somehow so widely spread and available for anyone with the desire to study, that it seems sort of.. well...anyway, I also don't mean that "due to the crusades that it's so popular" either.

Originally posted by Skeptical


I was just trying to go up the logistic ladder that's all. Suppose god does exist. What form is he/she/it/they?

Well, the bible says that God made man in "our image" (meaning God and the angles). [ Notice it doesn't say in "my image", but "our", i.e., plural. ]

Hehehe, just remembered I have that handy switch box, just changed from a 14" to a 17" and found my glasses ;-)

I realy can see now!

17"@800*600

now I get my bible, back in a min ok.

Originally posted by cheesysticks
Hehehe, just remembered I have that handy switch box, just changed from a 14" to a 17" and found my glasses ;-)

I realy can see now!

17"@800*600

now I get my bible, back in a min ok.

I was on a 14" monitor for years, it was probably viewable of only 13" or less. My wife picked me up a 18" with 17" viewable. I *had* to change from 800x600 to 1024x768 to even see properly. *L*

Now let me ask you this, what do you know about Srimad Bhagavatam and neuro Lingustic programming using the structures of hypnosis?

One is practicaly the oldest religion on earth, I think it happens to make a lot of sense, neuro lingustic programming also makes a lot of sense.

One relies upon trancendental techniques, the other relies upon us having an established common communication system to work with.

I think there is something very important about this, not the fact that religious programming can be used but the fact that one of the largest religions on earth lends uses techniques as far as I can tell to objectivly step by step program the human mind.

I see it not by accident that our languages have evolved the way they have, everything that is referanced by us has a positive or negative bias, a lot of words have many meanings and seem to be planned exactly to fit in a particular place, does anyone else thinks this?

If we were today to invent a language to socialy engineer a population how could we do it? Well it would be difficult you would have to find a control point, a place to start, a key.

The key would have to be an alien (uninvented) symbolic key that referanced sub keys and so on to encompas all things in our universe, of course this is impossible for us to do because we no not how, but I am sure God would help us on our way if we needed it. Kind of like writing another bible language, or a cult if you want to call it that for want of a more obvious word.

We have all felt that tingle when you realize you can program the same action in php/asp/cgi but have you ever realized that we are creating these points of referance in our minds where these different languages meet? We describe the objectivity of a particular ecvent we code in our common lanaguage - say english, stop, go, or 1, 0, black, white, on, off, yes, no. They are all the same, so I think this is why the root of god is 1,0 and thats it. It expands in every direction known outwards wrom there on wheater it be digital or not, a word or thought.

Now let me make it clear that this does not demonstrate my inability to grasp the idealisim of God but only re-enforces it, and yes I do believe in God but I do so this way because I think God can be completely answered and understood in this form theologicaly and scientificaly.

What do you think of that then? crap?
I do not mind if you say so.

I started to think this when learning about how the internet works, yeah I know im a bit mad, but hey! it works and if you can proove it does not well then it does not. ;-)

Oh, another realy coincidental thing is a lot of words that are siad backwards (changing the bias) actualy fit not the reverse of ther own meaning but sit a root key above or a sub key nbelow, not so obvious then and people would never ever pick up then, now I find that very very strange indeed.

Surprise me next post : "hes lost it"

Further to that I think the internet may evolve to allow this to happen natuarly in future with no one being able to control it as we all seek a common based programming language worldwide, hopefully. Or maybe I am dreaming.... ;-) I know I probbibly will never see it if it does. :-(

There's a great movie for you to check out called "PI". Seriously, it's a good movie and it is basically that idea that's supposed to break the code of the bible, if you believe there's a code to break. I really liked that movie -- it was so different (no, it's not a religeous movie either).

I would think that any languages are rudimentary in essense and I don't think we need to develop any "best" language to try and better our understanding or communication -- not to that ideal anyway. I think there are weak people and strong people, I don't think it would make much of a difference to society at all. I'm not familiar with this theory, but it surely gives a whole new meaning to the term "hack the world". :-)

I agree with you that we do not have to do it, what I was saying is my own thoery from my own observations, I never get a chance to watch tv, so I ahve not seen the film, also, I think it would be incredibly dangerous for a human to attempt to actualy do anything like that, lots of reasons why, the biggest being eternal damnation if you did it wrong, the smallest being govenments getting peeved of at some lamer finding a way to stop there heroin and arms dealings... but I do think the structure of the Internet could shift that way eventualy, just like our own language has already. I live in hope that this thoery may stop wars world wide. I have been noticing recently however that it seems to be the medias (joke) of using these systems then making films about them so people never think seriously about doing anything like that, over and over again right in the publics face thay push it.

I was at a web site, because I was trying to find some information to dorect people to that I didn't know offhand. I was not satisfied and I'll paste in below what I sent to the web site and (I assume the preacher of this web site's church), as it illustrates how easily simple things can be taken the wrong way, due to many reasons, do I don't wonder why people think some of this is contradictive or baseless.

Hello,

I have a few corrections (or at least disagreements from what I have learned and looks to be well documented in the bible -- I speak of the King James Version, by the way) for your information in regards to "Old Testament Questions" on your web site, at the URL of http://website-edited-out/qaot.asp. I want to be clear, some of this stuff you might be aware of, and I think it should be made clear and accurate if you do. However, some things you don't seem to be well aware of and I hope this helps you out on your journey of seeking knowledge. I also urge you to check this out, as it's documented in the bible itself and I definitely don't expect or want you to take my word for it and ask that you use your best judgment of what seems most accurate and why. Just be careful, please.

Firstly, and more specifically at http://website-edited-out/qaot_answer.asp?file=qna193.qna

You said that there was incest and that it's to be expected. However, there were more than two people originally, and the lineage was not a product of incest. A lot of people are confused by this and if you just look a little closer, you will see that it's clearly not the case. Check out the 6th day creation (this is when God created man and woman). Those two, Adam and Eve were clearly not created until the 8th day (as God rested on the 7th day), and God created Adam to tend to the Garden of Eden (this is on the 8th day, the following day after God rested):

Genesis 1:26-31 (6th day creation; it speaks for itself)

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[Now the mention of rest and then the creation of Adam]:

Genesis 2:1-8 (God created Adam and then Eve after the day of rest)

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

[Hence, he created Adman]

2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.


Further, another point I'd like to bring up:

Under "Man Punished for Seeking Knowledge?" at http://website-edited-out/qaot_answer.asp?file=qna184.qna

You say "knowledge". Notice what this "knowledge" is. Knowledge isn't just wisdom and/or knowing things, but to "know them" in a "biblical sense", i.e., "For a woman to know a man", I don't think it's "textbook" knowledge or mechanical knowledge, etc. or how things function in the world.

To further illustrate this and another point of disagreement about your articles; You don't believe that it was truly an apple, do you? There's no mention of an apple there. This is speaking of them in their nakedness -- nakedness meaning sex. This is why Noah cursed his son for seeing him in his nakedness later on in Genesis -- I.e., to see his father in his nakedness means that his son had sex with his mother (Noah's wife). This is why he cursed him, not because he was unclothed. This further goes to say why this comment on your site about incest being expected, would be nonsense.

For example, on your site at http://website-edited-out/qaot_answer.asp?file=qna184.qna, under "Man Punished for Seeking Knowledge?", you said that they were punished for seeking knowledge. This knowledge, was, if you see, Eve being seeing her nakedness after she ate of the forbidden fruit. What that plainly means, if that the serpent (Satan) had sex with her. Adam "knew her" and saw their nakedness as well and this is why Eve made an "apron" of fig leaves -- to hide that she was pregnant -- Eve was "in bed" with Satan and this is how Cain came to be, and Able was the son of Adam. This is why God did not bless Cain -- it was Satan's seed, yet he blessed Able. You can reference versus in the New Testament where it was literally stated that Eve was carrying Satan's child as well as Adam's. Adam and Eve later born another son, after Cain slew Able. You can see that his wife was from the land of Nod -- not his sister. You will notice the mentioning of these things, or not, and to assume insest was expected and okay, is unresonable and inaccurate. There's more to this, but it's all pretty clear if you know this and read it.

As you can see, by reading the bible and referring back to the Greek and Hebrew meanings of the words, as some are poor translations, it will be more clear. The King James Version of the bible, along with help from Strong's Concordance, will help you be able to see what some of these things truly mean, and will dispel any wonder or doubt. This goes for any other parts. I didn't read any other articles of yours, so I don't know if I'd have anything else that I'd then want to point out, but the information is there, and I suggest you check it out. I'm sure you want to teach the most accurate word of God and the meaning, if you're going to attempt to elaborate on it in an FAQ section. I hope you don't take this in offense or an attack, because it's not, I'm simply trying to offer what I know, if it'll help you and anyone that comes upon your site. Thank you for reading this.

[I'm such a trouble maker ;-0]

I've never heard that take on the creation story before, actually. I was just going to say that from what I've heard (priests and sermons :D), the start of Genesis is in fact two creation stories. Apparently at the time of writing their were two stories going around, and both were included in the book.

One is the seven day one, the other is where he fashions humans from the dust of the earth and breathes into their nostrils.

I actually found a web site that I don't think is complete hooey when it comes to proving the rapture is false prophecy (I think it does, in regards to the bible, I just couldn't say it any better, even if it isn't holding your hand when this guy words it), and why I don't believe it will happen either. Just since we're on the subject, if anyone believs in the rapture theory, here's some good reason (check it out yourself in the bible and what the Greek and Hebrew words mean).

http://lambsheart.topcities.com/rapture.html

eek!

Originally posted by Tim_Greer


Well, the bible says that God made man in "our image" (meaning God and the angles). [ Notice it doesn't say in "my image", but "our", i.e., plural. ]

How about buddhism? So are there different gods for different people or is the bible the only real religion?

Originally posted by Skeptical
How about buddhism? So are there different gods for different people or is the bible the only real religion?


Buddhists don't worship a god as such. It is a rather different religion to most.

There are five great religions in the world (great in terms of size). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. There are obviously many others also. Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths are very similiar as things go. Christianity was obviously derived from Judaism. Islam has many similarities with the two, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus making appearances in the Qur'an. Still very different, in that they do not believe Jesus to be the sone of God, for example, but there are obviously some parallels there nonetheless.

Hinduism and Buddhism are completely different. In a basic sense, Hinduism is polytheistic. In a deeper sense, it is even considered monotheistic. I'm not a Hindu scholar though.

From a ecunemical standpoint, the religions all have similar ideals and similar principles. Their interpretation of a greater being, their idea of an afterlife or lack of an afterlife are all very different, and heavily influenced by the culture and perhaps pagan religions from whence they came. Most world religions are accepting of other religions, and consider them all to be good (at least in word!). So questions such as that are really unanswerable. Some may argue that they all worship the same god in different forms, others that there is only one true religion and the others are false, others that none of them are true.

But whatever the case, you can't look at it so simplistically. Religions have formed over hundreds, in some cases thousands of years. They are deeply engrained in culture and they are influenced by the people who practice them. They are not there to be compared, because being the common beliefs of groups of people, they are really incomparable.

Originally posted by Lawrence
There are five great religions in the world (great in terms of size). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

There are *six* great religions in the world, in terms of size: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Atheism.

Believing in a lack of god is just as much an act of faith as believing in the existence of god(s).

Originally posted by cperciva


There are *six* great religions in the world, in terms of size: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Atheism.

Believing in a lack of god is just as much an act of faith as believing in the existence of god(s).

Yes, that's a good point. Some people consider Atheism a religion and others do not. I'm still working off the definition in one of my previous posts that a religion requires an institution, which Atheism does not have. But fair enough.

Sometimes Sikhism is considered up there with those other five or six also.

Some would argue that constitutional separation of church and state provides for an institutionalization of Atheism.

The reason for the separation of church and state, is not to remove or control religion. It's so the government can't create a religion, nor can they control a religion (provided it doesn't break any laws). The reason, is in England, before this nation was formed, was that at the time they had created a religion and were forcing it upon people and for people to even attend. This aspect for the constitution guarantees that can not happen. People are free to be involved in any religion they want, or none at all and the state can't force it or create one -- this is a good thing from a religious standpoint and not indicative of Atheism. As for the other comments and questions, I can not contribute, since I do not have the knowledge of these other beliefs. I do, however, feel that Jesus is the son of God and of course I feel that Christianity is the perfect religion [i.e., it doesn't need anymore or any less an covers all aspects on life and history]. (But not to be confused with organizations that claim to be Christian or what people do in the name of it, of course). So, of course I would feel this is the more correct religion. The answer though, depends on whom you ask, I'm sure. I'm also sure God knows what he's doing and the chips will fall in the right place. I don't expect people to agree with that though. :-)

Originally posted by cperciva
Some would argue that constitutional separation of church and state provides for an institutionalization of Atheism.

If the constitution separates religion from the state, how could the state become an institute for atheism, which is itself supposedly a religion? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by cperciva


There are *six* great religions in the world, in terms of size: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Atheism.

Believing in a lack of god is just as much an act of faith as believing in the existence of god(s).

LOL great point!

Might I point out though, that "believing in a lack of god" is NOT just as much an act of faith, because it's based more on evidence that there is no such thing (or lack of evidence that he exists).

We see fire, we touch it and get burned. Next time we know not to get near it again. That's not based on faith, but rather, on experience.

Somebody tells us god exists and that he performs miraculous things. In my life I have never ever seen one spec of evidence that tells me such a being exists. It is therefore logical for me to say that he does not exist. I'm not saying 100% he doesn't exist, just 99.9% (now why does this number seem familiar? :D). Religious people, on the other hand, won't even concede this point. It's always 100% to them that god does exist.

Originally posted by Skeptical
Might I point out though, that "believing in a lack of god" is NOT just as much an act of faith, because it's based more on evidence that there is no such thing (or lack of evidence that he exists).

A lack of evidence that God(s) exist is not the same as evidence that God(s) do not exist. You have no evidence that God exists, but you also have no evidence that he/she/it/them does not exist.

If you believe that God does not exist, you're making a leap of faith. If you simply do not believe that God exists (ie are uncertain) then you're agnostic, not atheistic.

I would agree with cperciva here, it takes just as much faith to believe that God does not exist as it does to believe that God does exist. An atheist can still have faith, whether it be in science or humanity or something else, it is faith nonetheless. Belief and the idea of a God are no inseparable.

Just one analogy, and then I'll eek out of here again.

So since I don't believe in the easter bunny, I have faith that he doesn't exist?

:eek:

Originally posted by bitserve
So since I don't believe in the easter bunny, I have faith that he doesn't exist?

NO!

"Not believing in the easter bunny" != "Believing that the easter bunny does not exist".

It is quite logically consistant to throw up your hands and say "I have no proof of either the easter bunny's existance nor of the easter bunny's lack of existance".

Originally posted by cperciva


A lack of evidence that God(s) exist is not the same as evidence that God(s) do not exist. You have no evidence that God exists, but you also have no evidence that he/she/it/them does not exist.

If you believe that God does not exist, you're making a leap of faith. If you simply do not believe that God exists (ie are uncertain) then you're agnostic, not atheistic.

Not necessarily. I do not believe god exists. This is my hypothesis. I have seen people explain this omnipotent being in many ways, and not once have these explanations proven to be credible. It is therefore logical for me to say god in the way humans explain it does not exist.

Nobody has evidence that my foot isn't ordained, that aliens are not our creators, that the heaven's gate cult was crazy, that david coresh was not right, that there isn't a bunny living on the moon, that nobody on this planet can walk on water, that the hobbits don't exist, that jumping off the sears tower at exactly 11am tomorrow morning won't kill you, etc...

The lack of evidence does suggest something. It's not 100% but can be very close to it. I think it's more logical to assume something is not true unless proven otherwise than to assume everything is true unless proven false. Otherwise this world will be filled with lots of magical illusions.

Originally posted by Skeptical
The lack of evidence does suggest something. It's not 100% but can be very close to it. I think it's more logical to assume something is not true unless proven otherwise than to assume everything is true unless proven false. Otherwise this world will be filled with lots of magical illusions.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A better way to put it is to say whether you actively believe (or not) in something, or if you are passive/indifferent. To actively disbelieve something without evidence is irrational, hens simply a belief, aka faith.

There are no degrees of logic. It's either logical or illogical.

Logic: "The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought"

Without facts/evidence, there is nothing to base a logical argument, hens the conclusion *has* to be subjective, instead of objective.

Logic and belief cross over eachother, they are not exclusive of one another. You can believe in something illogical, or not believ in something logical.

gtg,
Douglas

Originally posted by Skeptical
I think it's more logical to assume something is not true unless proven otherwise than to assume everything is true unless proven false.

And so do I. But that is *faith*. Faith in the scientific process, faith in relativism, faith in Occam's razor.

Originally posted by Skeptical
I think it's more logical to assume something is not true unless proven otherwise than to assume everything is true unless proven false. Otherwise this world will be filled with lots of magical illusions.

I would think it is more logical to assume that you don't know unless something is proven to be true or false. You need evidence to logically conclude that something is true or false. In the absence of evidence, you cannot come to a firm conclusion, and so the only logical conclusion can be uncertainty.

If you do conclude that something is true or false without the evidence to back it up, then you've just discovered faith.

You people are starting to melt my brain with this new turn on the debate. Cool. :-)

Originally posted by Lawrence


I would think it is more logical to assume that you don't know unless something is proven to be true or false. You need evidence to logically conclude that something is true or false. In the absence of evidence, you cannot come to a firm conclusion, and so the only logical conclusion can be uncertainty.

If you do conclude that something is true or false without the evidence to back it up, then you've just discovered faith.

If the burden of proof is required before saying something is certain, then should the same not apply to those who assert that god MUST and DOES exist?

As for concluding something is false without evidence to back it up first. It is just a theoretical assumption, not an absolute belief that it is false. I want to be convinced something is true before believing in it. If you don't convince me first I am going to assume it's not real. Not 100% sure it's not real or true, just assumed that it's not. That is NOT faith. Faith is when you believe in something 100% without doubt, much as many regligious people do.

Originally posted by Skeptical
If the burden of proof is required before saying something is certain, then should the same not apply to those who assert that god MUST and DOES exist?


Yes, but not to those who believe God exists, just those who assert that he must and does exist.

Originally posted by Skeptical
As for concluding something is false without evidence to back it up first. It is just a theoretical assumption, not an absolute belief that it is false. I want to be convinced something is true before believing in it. If you don't convince me first I am going to assume it's not real. Not 100% sure it's not real or true, just assumed that it's not. That is NOT faith. Faith is when you believe in something 100% without doubt, much as many regligious people do.


I think we're describing the same thing with different words here. If you are not 100% sure, then you do not know, by my definitions. So you don't know, you're just treating it as if it is false, which is fair enough.

I can't believe this thread has gone on so long. Healthy debate though ;)