Religion! Ye-haw!

  • Thread starter Banach-Tarski Paradox
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
Hiya, Americans!

I'm a heathen Norwegian, and I've been getting the impression that all of you guys over there in the States (with some exceptions) are really, really religious and stuff.

Since I'm an argumentative fellow, I was wondering if anyone here is religious, and interesting in having a civilized (no stoning, no throwing of feces and absolute no copying of absurdly long quotations/videos except as references) discussion with me about the discrepancies in our world-views.

I'm particularly hoping for some creationists, but I'm not picky.

I don't think I'm breaking any rules here, but please let me know (by infracting or banning me, I guess) if I do.

Have a nice day, and may His Noodly Appendage bless you.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
“The problem I have with all this religion stuff is that I can't relate to it. I think most people got into 'cos it gave them something to do on a Sunday, but since all the shops are now open it isn't required as much.”
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Haha, that's a good quote. I'd post my favourite, but I'm pretty sure somebody would take offense. So here's another one instead.

Harry Dresden said:
“But I don't understand God. I don't understand how he could see the way people treat one another, and not chalk up the whole human race as a bad idea.”
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am particially religious. They say smart people often do not believe in God, or at least major books. I think I am smart, (154 IQ) but I believe in those stuff, because it makes sense, it is rational. all the major books are actually common on many things. And if you believe in one f them you simply can't deny the others. I'm talking about Old Testament, Bible and Qu'ran here. Qu'ran is the most rational one. It is way beyond (refering to technology, history of humans, biology, prophets before Muhammed such as Yeshua, Noah, Yosef, Muses and a magnificent literature) the age its with in. It is simply too good if you think of its time written. Well these are important proofs that one God exists. But there is also science. Creating a whole universe just for humans? come on this is just ego. But when you have done enough research like me you come to conclusion that you can never really know if God exists or not. Because science makes time travel possible, this alone can simply be answer to all religions on earth. When you go in to quantum physics you see a universe of infinite possibilities. Until recently we believed atom was made of 3 elements, which are proton neutron and electron, but now we know proton itself is made of over 140 unique particules. These particulates doesn't always act like matter but sometimes they act like waves, in the resulft of that these particules changes its location in universe in no known sense of time, AND right before changing their location in universe they connect with all of the universe to find perfect location Which can be proof that God exist but also can be proof it doesn't. I believe this prooves that God is actually be possible within science As we are to learn his knowledge we will begin to accept his existance . Qur'an has specific similitudes such as "Kul lev kânel bahru midâden li kelimâti rabbî le nefidel bahru kable en tenfede kelimâtu rabbî ve lev ci’nâ bi mislihî mededâ" roughly means, "if oceans were ink, and (if) were added as much, it won't be enough to write His word."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I think I wrote a fluent paragraph that explains my opinion. Please feel free to ask me anything about what I wrote. anythings you didn't understand.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I don't mind this discussion, and I think it should be fine...but if you guys delve too far into religious extremism, or extremism of any kind...or insult each other, I'll step in. Until then I'll just watch and twiddle my thumbs :D.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i'll keep out of this discussion, i know i will step on a lot of toes here....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm not american, nor do I participate in religion. I'm not the type to flame religions though, having done some study on a couple. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, I guess. ;)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am particially religious. They say smart people often do not believe in God, or at least major books. I think I am smart, (154 IQ) but I believe in those stuff, because it makes sense, it is rational. all the major books are actually common on many things. And if you believe in one f them you simply can't deny the others. I'm talking about Old Testament, Bible and Qu'ran here. Qu'ran is the most rational one. It is way beyond (refering to technology, history of humans, biology, prophets before Muhammed such as Yeshua, Noah, Yosef, Muses and a magnificent literature) the age its with in. It is simply too good if you think of its time written. Well these are important proofs that one God exists. But there is also science. Creating a whole universe just for humans? come on this is just ego. But when you have done enough research like me you come to conclusion that you can never really know if God exists or not. Because science makes time travel possible, this alone can simply be answer to all religions on earth. When you go in to quantum physics you see a universe of infinite possibilities. Until recently we believed atom was made of 3 elements, which are proton neutron and electron, but now we know proton itself is made of over 140 unique particules. These particulates doesn't always act like matter but sometimes they act like waves, in the resulft of that these particules changes its location in universe in no known sense of time, AND right before changing their location in universe they connect with all of the universe to find perfect location Which can be proof that God exist but also can be proof it doesn't. I believe this prooves that God is actually be possible within science As we are to learn his knowledge we will begin to accept his existance . Qur'an has specific similitudes such as "Kul lev kânel bahru midâden li kelimâti rabbî le nefidel bahru kable en tenfede kelimâtu rabbî ve lev ci’nâ bi mislihî mededâ" roughly means, "if oceans were ink, and (if) were added as much, it won't be enough to write His word."

First of all, sorry about my kinda long answer. And I hope you don't take offense at anything - I find this to be a very fascinating subject, and would love to discuss it thoroughly.

That's a bit off a wall of text, but let's see if I can't break it up. If there is something you would like me to comment on that I missed, please let me know.

First of all, I'm not one of those who think that religious people are less intelligent. You'll find morons in pretty much every category (except, I dunno, Mensa members or something), including religious communities, atheist communities, stamp-collectors, non-stamp-collectors, etc.

Now, whether religious beliefs are rational or not is another matter entirely. I think it partly has something to do with availability of knowledge. For instance, if one takes the texts of the big monotheistic religions literally, you are stuck with a 6000 years old Earth, a flood 4000 years ago that killed off all life except that on a boat, and various other less obvious but equally ridiculous things. Which happens to contradict the scientific consensus in, say, cosmology, archeology, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, physics, geophysics, astronomy and probably quite a few other fields as well. Not to mention logic. I mean, seriously, in the Bible, you can't get through Genesis before running into a huge and explicit contradiction in the order of which god supposedly created everything.

So being rational and accepting the religious texts literally just won't work. At all.

Of course, there is still the option of a less than literal reading of the texts. With parables and sort of vague, ethical guidelines (though, please don't take your morals from those religious texts - some of that stuff is nuts). I like to believe that most religious people take their religious texts as somewhat less than literal.

Now, I'm not familiar with the Qu'ran. Though I know that it has a lot of similarities with the Bible and the Tanakh. Obviously, because they all come from the same monotheistic polytheistic foundation. Yes, polytheistic - last I checked, the now common "god" came out of a pantheon of multiple gods.

Anyhow. Back to my point. I don't know about the scientific or prophetic powers of the Qu'ran. But, if it is anything like the Bible (which I'm somewhat more familiar with), its prophecies can generally be classified as a bunch of statements, that can be attached to something after it happened. Explained in another way; If you have a lot of sort of vague statements, you will always be able to fit them to events after those events have occurred. Nothing prophetic about that.

As for the science part, it's pretty much the same. When a scientific breakthrough occurs, someone looks through the Bible for a suitable passage, and goes like "Yes, here! This is what this passage is talking about!" Frankly, that's just silly.

Now, I don't know how this relates to the Qu'ran. But I suspect that it is pretty much the same. Not to mention that lo and behold, any claims in a religious text that contradict current knowledge? Oh. No, those passages are metaphorical or some such.

But as I said, I'm not familiar with the Qu'ran. So I would be very glad if you could provide some specific examples of the Qu'ran's supposed scientific knowledge.

I'm curious if you could elaborate about the time travel thing? As far as I know, traveling forward in time is sort of possible, by exploiting the relationship between speed, matter and time, as described by general relativity. However, traveling backwards? Not so sure about that.

As for the rest, it is very fascinating, but bears a similarity to the "God of the gaps" fallacy, of putting a god into the current gaps of our knowledge. Or something similar, such as describing the universe as complex, and then stating that it's so awesome, that someone must have created it. Which is kinda legitimate, except it then follows that for someone to create and design our universe, that someone kinda has to be even more complex and awesome.

Now, one thing we definitely agree on. We can't disprove a divine being, i.e., a god. But we differ on how to define this god. A god, as literally described in religious texts, can and has been disproved. Thoroughly. But a sort of first mover, someone who initiated the universe? Kinda hard to disprove. But there are currently nowhere in the creation of our universe that requires divine intervention. As far as we know, the universe as we know it can occur simple due to the rules of physics. Or at least quantum theory.

I don't mind this discussion, and I think it should be fine...but if you guys delve too far into religious extremism, or extremism of any kind...or insult each other, I'll step in. Until then I'll just watch and twiddle my thumbs :D.

Is it okay if we insult each other's beliefs? 'Cause that might kind of be hard to avoid.

Also, isn't it awesome how your thumbs have been intelligently designed specifically for twiddling? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

i'll keep out of this discussion, i know i will step on a lot of toes here....

Toes were made to be stepped on. Please do join in :)

I'm not american, nor do I participate in religion. I'm not the type to flame religions though, having done some study on a couple. Everyone's entitled to their own beliefs, I guess. ;)

There's a difference between flaming and an open discourse. Also, not entirely relevant to this thread, once somebody makes statements to the effect that anything should be done purely on religious grounds, then they are IMNSHO open to being verbally slaughtered.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'll just correct one quick thing: the theory that monotheism did not precede polytheism is unfounded. We not only have no idea which preceded the other, but as best we can tell multiple arose throughout a period of a few hundred years that came from civilizations separated. For the most part, it appears that some areas went straight to a spiritual sense of polytheism, but the first senses of organized religion come from Proto-Semitic people around 3300 B.C. Prior to that any indications of what we might consider religious activity (ie. burials) appear to have been more done out of empathy than any religious belief. The Proto-Semitic people were monotheistic from what I can tell, and influenced the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, etc.). While some civilizations may have developed polytheism a few hundred years before the Proto-Semites developed their organized religion, there is no evidence to suggest they intermingled, or share any sorts of stemming in religion of one from the other.

Carry on.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
as i see Anton Szandor LaVey as a great man, i feel all religions are made for people too week to take responsibillity for their own actions. and don't tell me i don't know anything of religion, i have read the bible, the Qu'ran, and other religious books. Their are not ment to be taken for real. First of all, who wrote this books? who edited them? not the people they are about. but people from other countries, several centuries after it happened. of course they made up stuff to make it cooler. and everything was edited by the high council of every religion before it was put together in a book, making sure the high council with get more power to control people. everything that made their god and prophets look human, was cut out and destroyed. even today, these high priest and mullahs keep trying to destroy historical evidence that proves that they are wrong.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@u6s5l.:

That is incredibly fascinating. Do you have any (reliable, vaguely neutral) sources where I can read more about that stuff? I can't recall quite where I got the idea that Judaism and it's spin-offs were originally from a polytheistic foundation, so I'll withdraw that statement and bow to your apparent expertise.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
U6s5l is just so archaïc that he vaguely remembers that time.

Being the "I don't care one bit about religion/atheism" kind of person. I don't have any notable additions to make yet.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@Marcus: I guess that'd make you an apatheist. It's seriously awesome how people make up words for everything!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@u6s5l.:

That is incredibly fascinating. Do you have any (reliable, vaguely neutral) sources where I can read more about that stuff? I can't recall quite where I got the idea that Judaism and it's spin-offs were originally from a polytheistic foundation, so I'll withdraw that statement and bow to your apparent expertise.

I was around when they figured it out.

But more seriously, I'm having trouble finding the article I read it on. I'll keep trying to find it, but a quick internet search will verify that most call either animism or Hinduism the oldest religion in the world. Animism however, relies entirely on the assumption that sculptures or architecture of animals implies worship to them as deities. Furthermore, Hinduism is not necessarily polytheistic (as many assume as well) and actually relies on monotheism as well in the sense that all deities are merely subsets of a single "Brahman" supreme spirit (at least according to the Rig Veda, the oldest of their texts).
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm sorry, I wasn't here to argue about it. I just shared my opinion that even though books are corrupted, they might really be coming from God, and Qur'an is nothing like bible. And the second focus of my opinion is you can never really know if god exists or not with the current knowledge of science. Qur'an says, learn me, learn my knowledge, so I believe we will find god through science at some point.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
@u6s5l.

Cheers :p Don't break your back on my behalf. I found where I had my reference from - This rather amusing article by Christopher Hitchens. But as it's just a quick mention, and not entirely the same as the statement I made.

The thing about Hinduism is fascinating. I wonder to what extent the other polytheistic religions, such as the Norse, Greek og Egyptian pantheons were really aspects of the divine. Or personifications, I guess I should say.

@TSFS:

Fair enough :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Am adus o tuica batrana de pruna de la Nea Marynika , de pe serverul romanesc . Ati baut vreodata tuica de pruna facuta in Romania? Un pic mai slaba ca palinca de Ardeal dar daca beti putin din ea, va schimbati religia :D
3478oht.jpg



Acum 2000 de ani Isus a spus : Zilele lui Satan sunt numarate . Cine a stat 2000 de ani sa numere atata zile o sa vada ca nu este adevarat . Religia a fost creata pentru manipulare . Daca gustati din tuica de pruna a lui Nea Mrynyka o sa discutam despre toate religiile .



I brought a plum brandy old Nea Marynika , the Romanian server . Have you ever drank plum brandy made ​​in Romania ? A little weak brandy Transylvania but if you drink less of it will change religion : D
2000 years ago Jesus said, Satan 's days are numbered. Who stood 2,000 years to count many days will see that is not true. Religion was created for handling. If you taste the plum brandy of Nea Mrynyka a talk about all religions .
 
Top