What religion do you believe in? or non religion.

[Catfish]

The big side of the conveyer belt that has all those traps would be the people living away from God's word would be, true it is bigger and you can do more things, but it isn't better.

who's to say which is better? isnt that up to the individual?

[MadAce]

The big side of the conveyer belt that has all those traps would be the people living away from God's word would be, true it is bigger and you can do more things, but it isn't better. And that big black wall at the end would be death, you cant see past it.

Just mindless propaganda with a very dumb audience.

[JuliusCaesar]

The big side of the conveyer belt that has all those traps would be the people living away from God's word would be, true it is bigger and you can do more things, but it isn't better. And that big black wall at the end would be death, you cant see past it.

Just mindless propaganda with a very dumb audience.

more of madace's patented abrasiveness

but if you can't see past the wall how do you know it's there? Or for that matter which "book" to read when there are tons of diverse belief systems in the world. Do you just stick with the one you were born with? Taking that as a rule seems illogical.

And I could easily point out that your ultimate word of truth has nothing at all backing it up other than the fact it's there. So are rocks. Shall I go worship them?

[MadAce]

Everyones going to hell, what does it matter?

If everyone's going to hell, is it then still hell?

Is suffering absolute or relative?

[kenoneill]

Everyones going to hell, what does it matter?

If everyone's going to hell, is it then still hell?

Is suffering absolute or relative?

If this thread is there its absoultly relative.

[MadAce]

If everyone's going to hell, is it then still hell?

Is suffering absolute or relative?

Hell:
–noun
1. the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits.

2. any place or state of torment or misery.

3. something that causes torment or misery.

Pretty sure if your calling it Hell, it's still Hell.

THe dictionary isn't the alpha and the oemga of truth, you know. It's simply explaining a word for which WE, people, ahev invented the meaning.

If hell was the only place you knew... Would it still be hell? Or is hell only hell compared to something else?

[MadAce]

THe dictionary isn't the alpha and the oemga of truth, you know. It's simply explaining a word for which WE, people, ahev invented the meaning.

If hell was the only place you knew... Would it still be hell? Or is hell only hell compared to something else?

Kill yourself and find out, then tell us.

This has nothing to do with hell specifically, in a practical sense, but everything with the nature and perception of suffering.



It's disheartening you make a fool of yourself even when I don't set you up to do such.

[M2-Destroyer]

people who are atheists have closed minds, they don't want to think outside of their current situation.

I would have to disagree, i am of the opinion that Atheists are actually the most openly minded people, after all, if you can prove it, they will believe it - therefore, not closing their mind to any one particular religion straight off the bat.

[MadAce]

If hell was the only place you knew... Would it still be hell? Or is hell only hell compared to something else?

You asked if it's still hell if its the only place, we don't know until we die, so I suggested you to kill yourself and find out the truth, you will really KNOW what happens when you die when you die XD

You're apparently not able to do something that should be innate to our species. You can not imagine something. I pity you.

I'll rephrase the question.

IF the only form of afterlife were to be hell... Would it still be hell?



I never suggested or asked whether or not hell was the only form of afterlife...

Even if I were to die I still wouldn't have an answer to my question as it isn't a question about what hell is like, but about what we should call "hell" depending on its relation to us.


You're so thick it's not even funny anymore.

It's disheartening you make a fool of yourself even when I don't set you up to do such.

Bring someone who actually cares if I make a fool of myself on the INTERNET!

Whether you're anonymous or not does not change the fact that you are a fool.

In the end you'll still know it to be true.

[ygvbBubblez]

Here's two books, I read the second one, don't have the first one. You could probably get them at a library or something.

http://www.amazon.com/23-Minutes-Hell-B ... t_ep_dpt_1

http://www.amazon.com/90-Minutes-Heaven ... =8-1-spell

[General_Neox]

I changed my views from being an atheist, to a spiritualist

I don't want to believe when we die, we go to a black void.

I want to believe that we become spirit, and talk to our old family members, or even the first human.

This is where a lot of people go wrong.

When arguing religion factually and unbiased i don't think that "what i/u want to believe" or what you "hope" will happen should hold any legitimacy to the actuality of logic and reason.

[ygvbBubblez]

Most atheists are not non-religious, they believe they were created by their God they call evolution, some even seem to give evolution a mind when speaking about it, even mentioning the word 'design' when speaking about evolution, it's not really true when an atheist says he doesn't believe in a creator, we all had to get here somehow, atheists made a non living God called evolution that they don't have to obey.
True Christianity isn't a bunch of rituals, like religion, all you have to do is believe, repent and follow, you can't earn your way into heaven with a bunch of rituals.

[MadAce]

Atheists are not non-religious, they believe they were created by their God they call evolution, some even seem to give evolution a mind when speaking about it, even mentioning the word 'design' when speaking about evolution, it's not really true when an atheist says he doesn't believe in a creator, we all had to get here somehow, atheists made a non living God called evolution that they don't have to obey.
True Christianity isn't a bunch of rituals, like religion, all you have to do is believe, repent and follow, you can't earn your way into heaven with a bunch of rituals.

Your opinion on the nature of atheism is complete bullcrap.

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist while not believing in evolution.

[M2-Destroyer]

Your opinion on the nature of atheism is complete bullcrap.

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist while not believing in evolution.

MadAce - I think i love you.

[MadAce]

Your opinion on the nature of atheism is complete bullcrap.

It's perfectly possible to be an atheist while not believing in evolution.

MadAce - I think i love you.

You should, you should.

[M2-Destroyer]

Wild thing - i think i love you! BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE!

[M2-Destroyer]

Oh yeah - Stop feeing the hugging troll!

[General_Neox]

in my opinion there is a difference between atheism and non-religion

As I specify myself as non-religious, meaning i do not believe any organized religion, as they all appear, to me to be utterly unreasonable and have no base in logic and reality which is what i prefer to base my belief on because I don't feel I need someone to pray to when I have quarrels as I am a strong enough individual to reflect and process on my own without looking to some omnipotent voyeur for guidance. On the aspect of organized religion it is essentially a glorified cult and anyone who wishes to dispute this fact needs to simply look up the definition for cult in the dictionary, and a cult is for gullible fools who can't think for themselves and end up being manipulated in to following some false god and being promised ridiculous evangelical glories that will never be bestowed upon them because all they are is manipulated pawns in a greater mob.

In my conclusion, if you are religious, whether u like or not, You were manipulated, whether it was by your family from birth, or just by exposure, plain and simple. You are part of a mob-like hive-mind of ignorance and intolerance.

Religion is 3 things

A way to pacify; So the weak-willed find comfort when bad BBQ happens to them. We go from sucking on a fake titty when we're grumpy to praying to an invisible man in the sky.

A way to explain; How did BBQ go down? everything we don't know about the universe. (AKA Dieing, Creation, Coincidences) but now it's kind of contradicting itself because we are starting to use science to disprove everything that outdated religious texts have previously stated. Don't believe me? Research it. The bibles been changing it's facts ever since modern science has taken over and people like Galileo were subdued and hushed when they made discoveries that contradicted the bible back in the day. For hug sakes the bible said the world was flat that it's only 5000 years old and that it was created in 7 days. Give me a hugging break. and just previously they've admitted that they made a mistake in translation, Jesus didn't walk on water, he walked on ice.

A way to control; it's been Forcing codes on society with extortion and fear of hell-fire for millenia. Don't believe me, pick up a book. (Roman Catholicism, Mormans, Jehova Witnesses, just to name a few)

In my opinion, Atheism is the belief of fact and what has been proven THUS FAR by science and reason.

There is plenty of things we do not know about in this galaxy plenty of mystery and discoveries that have yet to be made and to not believe anything beyond what we already know is completely ludicrous and ignorant. It is okay to believe in what has been proven by scientific method but make sure to keep an open/free mind to things that have yet to be explained or you're just as ignorant as a religious bigot.

[ygvbBubblez]

True science and reason will back up the Bible, and the Bible will back up true science and reason, the Bible has been proven over and over again by scientific fact and archeological evidence when with any other theory there has been flaw after flaw.
The Bible is always right, take for instance the return of Israel as a nation, which happened not that long ago and was predicted in the Bible.

[General_Neox]

True science and reason will back up the Bible, and the Bible will back up true science and reason, the Bible has been proven over and over again by scientific fact and archeological evidence

Source?
Also please describe to me how science and reason to which states the earth is millions of years old is "backing" the bible that states the earth is 5000 years old.
Or why Galileo was trialed for herecy for proving the Earth was round, which contradicted the bible.
Or why don't you give the seven days of creation a shot, when it is a well known fact that planets take millions of years to form and develop life.
Hell, explain to me how two of every single species on the planet could fit in to one wooden ark constructed by a single family.

Oh and also science and fact has dis-proven the possibility of a "great flood" as well, even if u melted all the ice-caps on the planet the coastline would only rise a few hundred feet.

And also that depends if these facts and proof we're being "proven" by a biased source, someone who was looking for a specific answer before asking the question so to speak. If someone with a religious eye looks at a coincidence they call it an act of god or a miracle, if someone with an atheistic eye looks at a coincidence they call it a coincidence..

[ygvbBubblez]

There isn't really "proof" the earth is millions of years old, the only proof being carbon dating, which isn't even proof considering scientists use a scale/formula to judge the age based on the amount of a type of carbon, change the scale and you can make it say any age you want.
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.(Wkipedia)
If you wanna know how the earth was made so fast, it says so in the Bible.

There's alot of numbers involved in the ark question, the answer is here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html

The great flood is very probable, check out all the sea creature fossils where they shouldn't be, and the Grand Canyon.
The Bible says that fountains of the deep opened up, providing the extra water, the water probably went into clouds or back in the earth when it was over.

[JuliusCaesar]

There isn't really "proof" the earth is millions of years old, the only proof being carbon dating, which isn't even proof considering scientists use a scale/formula to judge the age based on the amount of a type of carbon, change the scale and you can make it say any age you want.
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.(Wkipedia)
If you wanna know how the earth was made so fast, it says so in the Bible.

There's alot of numbers involved in the ark question, the answer is here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html

The great flood is very probable, check out all the sea creature fossils where they shouldn't be, and the Grand Canyon.
The Bible says that fountains of the deep opened up, providing the extra water, the water probably went into clouds or back in the earth when it was over.

no. Noah's ark is not possible and no set of Internet numbers is going to prove otherwise. Check out Penn and teller's take on the bible. Yes they are assholes, but they are right.

Fossils underwater is due to continental drift.
And do you even know what the carbon dating scale is based on?

[General_Neox]

There isn't really "proof" the earth is millions of years old, the only proof being carbon dating, which isn't even proof considering scientists use a scale/formula to judge the age based on the amount of a type of carbon, change the scale and you can make it say any age you want.
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history. The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.(Wkipedia)
If you wanna know how the earth was made so fast, it says so in the Bible.

There's alot of numbers involved in the ark question, the answer is here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html

The great flood is very probable, check out all the sea creature fossils where they shouldn't be, and the Grand Canyon.
The Bible says that fountains of the deep opened up, providing the extra water, the water probably went into clouds or back in the earth when it was over.

"There isn't really "proof" the earth is millions of years old, the only proof being carbon dating, which isn't even proof considering scientists use a scale/formula to judge the age based on the amount of a type of carbon, change the scale and you can make it say any age you want."

Scales and formulas are created from scientific method and logical analyzation and experimentation. Not just something science makes up cause they're bored or changes to suit their opinions and needs (like the bible and the religous)

And on the contrary sir. Unless you're going to sit there and tell me dinosaurs existed in the last 5000 years or explain to me that the similarities between us and apes are coincidental or maybe how homo-sapiens went from crouched hairier ancestors to the erect-walking tool maker we are today in the past 5000 years or perhaps you'd like to take a shot at the ice in the antarctic. While your at it explain ice-ages and how 6.7 billion people could sprout from 2 in the span of 5 millenia.


Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine's position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history.


Galileo withdrew a majority of his original beliefs because he was threatened by the church, who controlled the government and pretty much everything in Rome at the time, fact.
And shouldn't it be based on instruction and history if people base their entire life-force values and put basically every single drop of belief in to it, blindly believing everything that is written and then try to press those illogical beliefs unto others.

You basically just contradicted yourself there, in the first statement you're trying to defend the 5000 year old Earth myth and in this statement you're turning around and saying that stories in the bible aren't literal. Which one is it my friend? So I know whether or not to make my argument about logic and the legitimacy of the bible or the negative impact on culture and the out-dated morale ideology of the stories it tells.

The writers of the Scripture wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world, and from that vantage point the sun does rise and set.
If you wanna know how the earth was made so fast, it says so in the Bible.

I'm not going to go read the bible, give me an or an exert of how it explains how the world was made so fast. If you're talking about breathing life in to clay and BBQ. Thats about as plausible as the saturday morning cartoons and disney movies i used to watch as a kid.

There's alot of numbers involved in the ark question, the answer is here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Noahs-ark-animals.html

That is a biased religious website and they had an answer before they went looking for explanation.

The great flood is very probable, check out all the sea creature fossils where they shouldn't be, and the Grand Canyon.

Sea fossils inland is due to continental drift and the rising and lowering of tides due to the constant of temperature and climate change. Another thing the religious have failed to acknowledge in the rational world.

The Bible says that fountains of the deep opened up, providing the extra water, the water probably went into clouds or back in the earth when it was over.

You're going to try and tell me that, inside the Earth, which is VERY hot. there is enough water to cover 148 million square kilometres of land? and that all this water water mystically absorbed back in to the clouds or earth by some evangelical force afterwards?

@Neox: The whole purpose of religion is to create a sense of being in the universe, and stating the "inconsistencies" in the bible is meaningless. Thats how I see it anyways.

Irrelevant when arguing the legitimacy, rationality, and plausibility of the matter.

And yes I agree with you, one of the things religion is, is a futile, egotistical attempt for us to try and explain why we're here and what we're meant to be doing. As I had already explained in my previous post>>>

A way to explain; How did BBQ go down? everything we don't know about the universe. (AKA Dieing, Creation, Coincidences) but now it's kind of contradicting itself because we are starting to use science to disprove everything that outdated religious texts have previously stated. Don't believe me? Research it. The bibles been changing it's facts ever since modern science has taken over and people like Galileo were subdued and hushed when they made discoveries that contradicted the bible back in the day. For hug sakes the bible said the world was flat that it's only 5000 years old and that it was created in 7 days. Give me a hugging break. and just previously they've admitted that they made a mistake in translation, Jesus didn't walk on water, he walked on ice.

[General_Neox]

Gravity is physics. And can be explained by science.

The bible, and religion cannot.

Where you're making your mistake is you think I am arguing the existence of a greater force other then ourselves, No, I think that is entirely possible. What I DO NOT believe, is the stories, rules, codes, and names humanity has fabricated to explain such a thing. Like we could actually conceive the motivations and actions of such an advance omnipotent being/energy/force is completely arrogant and simple minded.

[General_Neox]

Haha

[ygvbBubblez]

I find it hard to believe it's all coincidence that we are all here, It's more plausible to believe a computer is an accidental geological formation than a human, which is way more complex than any computer.

How is it when people see a computer they think it was designed, and when they see a human they think it is a freak of nature.

[JuliusCaesar]

, why does gravity exist?

gravity is time distortion. Objects travel faster without any gravity (space-time distortion) than they do next to massive bodies, thus giving the appearance of gravitation. Einstein explained it all with general relativity.

And bubbles people didn't just pop into existance. The whole of evolution is reliant on probability. First we may have been bubbles of fatty membranes being heated and expanded and split by the heat of a nearby volcano, growing using the fatty acids present in our pools of goo.

Eventually, entirely by chance, a bubble would have gained the ability to create a stronger membrane by way of a lucky protein being swallowed up (which could have been reproduced by proteins within the pool), and then these kinds of bubbles would assemble and stay coherent more than the previous and replace them.
(I read a theory on the creation of life a long time ago, these first paragraphs are my attempts at paraphrasing)

then new lucky advancements would make the bubbles more complicated to the point where they develop a basic
metabolism and can create their own energy, DNA would help this out later (protein based DNA is considered most probable), and these developments would stack on to the point where you get cells and bacteria and eventually multicellular organisms and vertebrates and boom primates, all in a quick span of only 5 billion years.

The whole basis of evolution is slow change. Lucky advancements make things more resilient and
progressively more complicated until things like eyes and livers are developed. This is hard to grasp in eventually creating people, but over FIVE BILLION years? Sure why not.

Also, i'd be willing to bet there are silicon based forms of
life, or electro-magnetic life forms out there somewhere. It's all a matter of what sets of conditions allow for something to be self replicating.

[MadAce]

It's not because something can't be explained that god did it. It's not because something can't yet be explained that it never will.

It's not because you can explain everything that god doesn't exist.

[JuliusCaesar]

It's not because something can't be explained that god did it. It's not because something can't yet be explained that it never will.

It's not because you can explain everything that god doesn't exist.

This^^

[General_Neox]

I find it hard to believe it's all coincidence that we are all here, It's more plausible to believe a computer is an accidental geological formation than a human, which is way more complex than any computer.

How is it when people see a computer they think it was designed, and when they see a human they think it is a freak of nature.

You are proposing the existence of a higher force.

Where you make your mistake is sticking all these names and stories to something you can't understand.

That's pure and potent human ignorance.