Who here is agnostic?

[BlueLancer]

 

but ghost your going on the asumption that it is real surely then (the bible). Lets face it the bible is more than likley never gone to be fully proven or disproven, and that surely leaves it open as to how you would regards the purposes for which it was writen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I am not. The point I am making is that Star Wars - real or not - was not written with the intent to be real stories. The Bible - real or not - was written with the intent to be real. Therefore, one group is taking a self-declared fiction series and treating it as real - and another group is taking a series that is - at least - supposed to be real - and treating it as real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparing the two is completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are people who take the Star Wars story for real, their beliefs are just as rational as any other religions. But hey, at least we can argue, their "probability" of going to a spiritual heaven is much less than 0.1% whereas christians have a fair 30% chance of being the right religion in terms of followers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the future the number will drop though as other religions like hinduism are exploding with already 1 billion+ followers in India and spreading to nearby areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe in the future, when people change, there will be more Jedis. And people (not referring to you) will stop taking religions so damn seriously as if it's a matter of life and death and a vehicle of condemnation, instead of being a part of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bible - real or not - was written with the intent to be real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's the source for this? It's a collection of texts, like the star Star Wars movies (as the modern form of media as opposed to over 2,000 years ago to papyrus and other recording and telling mechanisms) is a collection of stories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anybody can write "it is the word of the God" just as anybody can levitate in a movie. It doesn't add credibility.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Star Wars was written as fiction. Just because people believe it, doesn't take away from the point that it was written as fiction. You seem to be missing that entire point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying there is any chance that Christianity is real (as you suggest with your little 30% statistic) - I am only making the point that one was written as an actual religious text (meant to be thought of as real whether it is or not) and one was written as a fiction series meant to be turned into movies. The intent behind the two pieces is completely different - so when someone believes Christianity and the Bible, they are following the original intent. When someone is believing Star Wars, they are not following its original intent which is to be an entertaining but fictional story.

[BlueLancer]

They are not following its original intent which is to be an entertaining but fictional story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In all rationality, that's true though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if religion was first not 'entertainment', what was it? The egyptian gods were based on legends and stories that were being told about the Sun god and the thousands of other gods, and at some point, thousands of years before any other truly organised religion, they started taking it for real. And killing each other for 'infidelity'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religions contain stories about the origin of the world and how it will end just like movies. All religions have their own theory or story about it. Even if their meaning transformed from 'story' to 'real intent' at some point, it makes them no more valid than any other story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For all you know, really, in the future there could be people who will think Star Wars was not a piece of entertainment but a religion with a strict code of principles called Jedi code. It sounds absurd now, but how many of those people that invented the egyptian Gods and the stories about them, believed that a thousand years later rulers would build temples and worship the creation of their own minds?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P.S. the 30% and less than 0.1% figure was solely based on the number of followers worldwide.

[Guest GhostRanger]

You're stretching for your point. We have no reason to believe that the stories of the Bible were told just as "entertainment" purposes, and were really fiction that have just been misinterpreted thousands of years in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your point is entirely based on "what if" with nothing to indicate that your theory might be accurate. As far as we know, the religious ideas in the Bible (which is all I'm talking about - I am not talking about ancient Egyptian religions) were written and taught as fact - not as fiction. The same is not true for Star Wars - and therefore, as far as we know, the comparison between the two is ridiculous.

[darkmage099]

Relegion explains the natural phenomena around us. That is its purpose. It's the result of seeking a truth. A truth about life.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I'm going to agree with Ghost here, in that comparing something like Star Wars and something like the Bible is sort of silly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's right in that people are beleiving in something that is purported to be real, rather than something that isn't. This doesn't help to prove the Bible's stories are actually real, but rather to argue against the idea that people who beleive in the Bible are completely insane.

[Grisful]

I happen to be eclectic agnostic, if it exists. Taking bits and pieces from many sources, but still not choosing, but classifying the many mainstream entities in a hierchey(though, not necessarily the celestines of solar systems ruling over the planetary celestines.............nevermind, I'm too groggy this morning to go through the finer details of my terms relating to what I call my religion(if you can call it that, it is just a belief system).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A book is a book. If someone wants to take sound ideas from the material and create such and such religion off of it, so be it. From my understanding of the Bible, Old and New Testament, Old being the backround to the system, and the New being a sound way to live up to standards of ethics. In my opinion, that's what the "Order of Jedi's" did, only foward in our technological understandnigs and/or imitating something that has the possibility of existing someplace in the omniverse and manifesting as such rich detail.

 

 

 

#-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some other points, just that halfway through, I caught myself ranting about controversial topics, deep topics, too. I stopped because I was going nowhere with what was originally expressed. Read at your own discretion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ah well, I might be able to shed some light on what I can comprehend to be a religion based on trivial ideas. Though, some of my ideas are based upon sound fiction, mind you. And I'd rather make a report, as I'm groggy this morning and don't feel like extracting information I really haven't touched in a while to explain my points. I suppose I could say something about my points, and then elaborate when necessary.....and this is without researching into this "Jedi" religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point One: In chaos magick, an egregore(collective idea manifested as a being) can bring people together for a common cause, thus forming this controversial religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point Two: Since Star Wars was watched by a goodly number of people, and taking in account of what usually happens when any fiction adored or kept in minds of a great amount of people(a common event that happens if any fiction held in the minds of at least t * 10^8(should be enough people at least)), becomes its own umbral realm held in the near umbra. This makes it easier for the egregore to sway select paradigms of people to its cause.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point Zero.....(knew I forgot the crucial piece to this debate):

 

 

 

If you know about Templar Knights, a side-religion off of Catholicisim back in the Middle Ages, one that took ideas from some neighboring religions........... :idea: I'm ranting, and I caught myself spewing out information instead of keeping to the recent subject this topic has evolved to. :wall:

[SLOWSTORM]

What part of "A LONG, LONG time ago, in a galaxy FAR, FAR away," do we not understand? #-o

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

Your point is entirely based on "what if" with nothing to indicate that your theory might be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not my theory, hence I'm unable to comment on that. I'm just trying to look at it from the point of the Jedis. Personally I'm not a jedi even if that sounds awesome. Even though I know most of them take it as a joke/protest, there are *always* some who will believe it's authenticity.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

 

 

 

Your point is entirely based on "what if" with nothing to indicate that your theory might be accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not my theory, hence I'm unable to comment on that. I'm just trying to look at it from the point of the Jedis. Personally I'm not a jedi even if that sounds awesome. Even though I know most of them take it as a joke/protest, there are *always* some who will believe it's authenticity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about your theory concerning what people *could* think in the future. It's entirely made up based on absolutely no line of reasoning. Just a "what if" people in the future though blah blah blah...

[Ash6110]

to tell the truth im not sure i would say im christian borderline agnostic

[Guest AshKaYu]

Someone, I forget who, said agnostics have it best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When talking to a Christian about religion:

 

 

 

C-Unit: Soooo, what are you?

 

 

 

Agnostic: Agnostic

 

 

 

C-Unit: Awww, how cute. A Christian in development!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When talking to an Atheist about religion:

 

 

 

A-Unit: Sooo, what are you?

 

 

 

Agnostic: Agnostic.

 

 

 

A-Unit: An Atheist in training! Mwhaha!

[Guest Armagedon46disabled]

NOT ME :>D:D:D#@!:E

[warri0r45]

I believe in a god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then your not an agnostic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agnosticism is believing that weather a god exists or not cannot be proven either way, and is therefore useless to debate the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i am an agnostic.

[Tigra00]

Relegion explains the natural phenomena around us. That is its purpose. It's the result of seeking a truth. A truth about life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um...No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science does that job. Religion has yet to explain ANY natural phenomena.

[Guest GhostRanger]

 

Relegion explains the natural phenomena around us. That is its purpose. It's the result of seeking a truth. A truth about life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Um...No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science does that job. Religion has yet to explain ANY natural phenomena.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I disagree with the point that religion is here to explain the natural phenomena around us... it is interesting to note the head start Christianity seemed to have over science in a few areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leviticus 17:11 says, ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅFor the life of the body is in its blood. I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the Lord. It is the blood, given in exchange for a life that makes purification possible.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Tigra00]

I find it extremely hard to believe that scientists thought wind blew straight. If I go outside right now, I can witness leaves blowing around in a spiral anywhere I look. It isn't that hard to put two and two together, but whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should really start getting information from an un-biased source, by the way. Everything you post as some kind of "proof" is always obviously from some Christian website bashing scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are the same people who surely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible sas nothing of anything happening before that time. None of them have stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, it says nothing about before that time because people knew nothing of it when they wrote the Bible. They know nothing of space, nothing of Dinosaurs, nothing of a lot of stuff we know now to be fact. I'm sorry, but a passage in the Bible saying something about the "stars in the sky" doesn't mean that God educated them on space. Anyone can look into the sky and see there are plenty of stars to be seen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone writing something can also say that air has weight by use of metaphores and creative writing. When you run your hand through the air, you can feel it flowing over your hand, simulating that is has a resistance, and thus, weight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other 'points' aren't worth touching on, they could mean anything, really. That's the wonderfully lame thing about the Bible, everything is in metaphores. You can make it say whatever you want, practically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I should say, though, that even the statement on Stars is wrong. There are far more than a billion stars, and weither that number was written in the Bible, or by some idiot who knows not what he's talking about, I guess is the point of consideration. :P I find it hard to believe, too, that science thought there were only 1200 stars. If you took the time, you could count far more in a very small patch in the sky.

[Futurama]

 

I believe in a god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then your not an agnostic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

agnosticism is believing that weather a god exists or not cannot be proven either way, and is therefore useless to debate the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i am an agnostic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what would be believing that current human intelligence/technology can't prove it, but one day with advances we might?

 

 

 

cor this is getting scientific now.

[Guest GhostRanger]

I prefaced the post by saying that the point of religion is not explain natural phenomena. All your post did was highlight your lack of knowledge concerning the history of science. Do I think we should use the Bible as a source for scientific knowledge? Of course not. But it's interesting to know what people who had insight from the God who created the scientific laws knew before those who attempted science without any insight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not responding to your points because my goal was not to use the Bible to prove science - just to show some points in the Bible where it was spot on about science before science was. If you don't believe that scientists thought the things that were referenced, then look it up yourself. I don't care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I had to add this in because it is kind of funny to show how you don't know what you're talking about. The circular pattern of the wind isn't the cause of "leaves blowing in circles." Turn a fan on in front of a pile of leaves and watch the leaves float around in circles when they get blown - yet that wind is moving straight. The circular pattern of the leaves being referred to is how the winds make big looping circles - not tiny little circles. Hehe.

[FuBai]

I would probably say I was agnostic, but not in the terms that you describe. I do not beleive in life after death or God, but I do not activley deny these are possible, I simply do not see the need for them in my life, or that my beleief in them or not would change anything fundamentaly that I could not change myself without converting.

[BlueTear]

Ghost, you're making such open ended interpretations of those pieces of the scripture that they could mean just about anything. Using them "as signs of Biblical knowledge" by taking distinct sections grossly out of context and having an interpration is conjecture, nothing more.

[Tigra00]

Ghost, you're making such open ended interpretations of those pieces of the scripture that they could mean just about anything. Using them "as signs of Biblical knowledge" by taking distinct sections grossly out of context and having an interpration is conjecture, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point 'sactly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said, you can make the Bible say anything you want to, and people OFTEN do.

[masterdez]

I prefaced the post by saying that the point of religion is not explain natural phenomena. All your post did was highlight your lack of knowledge concerning the history of science. Do I think we should use the Bible as a source for scientific knowledge? Of course not. But it's interesting to know what people who had insight from the God who created the scientific laws knew before those who attempted science without any insight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not responding to your points because my goal was not to use the Bible to prove science - just to show some points in the Bible where it was spot on about science before science was. If you don't believe that scientists thought the things that were referenced, then look it up yourself. I don't care either way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I had to add this in because it is kind of funny to show how you don't know what you're talking about. The circular pattern of the wind isn't the cause of "leaves blowing in circles." Turn a fan on in front of a pile of leaves and watch the leaves float around in circles when they get blown - yet that wind is moving straight. The circular pattern of the leaves being referred to is how the winds make big looping circles - not tiny little circles. Hehe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? its obviously you who doesnt know how wind and turbulance work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and wasnt it only in 1996 that christianity decided to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe?

[BlueLancer]

it's interesting to know what people who had insight from the God who created the scientific laws knew before those who attempted science without any insight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming they had 'insight' from a God. Many other religions believe so too. That's not a valid scientific nor a historic argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and wasnt it only in 1996 that christianity decided to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The catholic church pardoned Copernicus for his therories, nearly 300 hundreds after he died, around in the 1990's.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Ghost, you're making such open ended interpretations of those pieces of the scripture that they could mean just about anything. Using them "as signs of Biblical knowledge" by taking distinct sections grossly out of context and having an interpration is conjecture, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you're apparently a Biblical scholar, please explain to me how those verses in context would mean something else. Let's start with the one that mentions the "winds blowing south then turning north." What, with you expertise in Biblical studies, do you suppose that means in context?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@BlueLancer: Of course it's an assumption that it was insight from God. I figured that was obvious since not everyone believes in God.