January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant.
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Whoo, way to bring in the flame (ie insult of spelling). We don't need that here. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Er, God would have to precede the Bible. In order for the Bible to be written, someone would have to have initially believed in him.
January 30, 200719 yr i think the athiests are the ones that are treated poorly. Whenever someone I know finds out I am athiest they treat me as if I'm sick and need there help, or that I am a bad and evil person. The religious orders get too much respect, at least here in the South. It's a highly religious society in general down here. Your post, in a way, is biased. You say if the athiests are wrong they will burn in hell. Sounds a little rude to me :wall: .
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Er, God would have to precede the Bible. In order for the Bible to be written, someone would have to have initially believed in him. Perhaps he means in terms of perception breeds existance. If we never knew a god existed, or we never percieved that he did/does, then he wouldn't exist. It's a metaphysical argument I subscibe to, but you may think that things exist irrespective of our perception of them. Well seeing as we created the definition for existance and the reality in which we exist, existance comes down to what we percieve, in a very basic sense. Anyway perhaps you don't think the same way. No big deal. :oops: :P
January 30, 200719 yr The only thing I can agree with is that evolution happened, I mean look at all the evidence of it and compair it to the amount of evidence there is of creationism(Which I have not seen or heard of any evidence toward), and creationists actually think they have room to complain about the "Flaws" of the theory? I don't deny that anything else could have happened, god(If there is a god) could be a 12 legged, 1 eyed rabbit for all I know, I'm agnostic, meaning I think anything is possible when it comes to the unknown. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~
January 30, 200719 yr Perhaps he means in terms of perception breeds existance. If we never knew a god existed, or we never percieved that he did/does, then he wouldn't exist. It's a metaphysical argument I subscibe to, but you may think that things exist irrespective of our perception of them. Well seeing as we created the definition for existance and the reality in which we exist, existance comes down to what we percieve, in a very basic sense. Anyway perhaps you don't think the same way. No big deal. :oops: :P I think the word you're looking for is metaphysical. If you are serious about submitting the argument that "existence" comes down to our perception then I'll respond. If existence is nothing more than our perception of it, does existence change for someone who cannot see? Is "existence" actually different for a blind man, because his perception is different, or is existence an absolute and he only perceives it differently? I believe strongly that existence is absolute. Therefore, God either exists or he does not. Humans thinking about him, or perceiving him, does not force Him into existence. Writing a book about God did not create Him (if He exists); He existed first, and then someone wrote a book about Him OR He did not exist first and someone wrote an fiction story about him. If existence is absolute, His existence would have to precede perceiving Him.
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Actually it makes no sense. Writing about something doesn't bring it into existence. Next time look at an argument from an objective point of view please.
January 30, 200719 yr The only thing I can agree with is that evolution happened, I mean look at all the evidence of it and compair it to the amount of evidence there is of creationism(Which I have not seen or heard of any evidence toward), and creationists actually think they have room to complain about the "Flaws" of the theory? I don't deny that anything else could have happened, god(If there is a god) could be a 12 legged, 1 eyed rabbit for all I know, I'm agnostic, meaning I think anything is possible when it comes to the unknown. I used to be agnostic (and athiest, for that matter), but honestly, being agnostic in my opinion really just means you havn't found your own answers and/or religion yet :P . i think the athiests are the ones that are treated poorly. Whenever someone I know finds out I am athiest they treat me as if I'm sick and need there help, or that I am a bad and evil person. The religious orders get too much respect, at least here in the South. It's a highly religious society in general down here. Your post, in a way, is biased. You say if the athiests are wrong they will burn in hell. Sounds a little rude to me :wall: . It's not so much that athiests are mistreated, but they get pounded on by a lot of religions sometimes to have the athiest join their order. Well, that's what it's like from my perspective :-$ . But yes, those Christians that still subscribe to the theory that everyone but them are going to Hell are getting pretty annoying. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
January 30, 200719 yr Perhaps he means in terms of perception breeds existance. If we never knew a god existed, or we never percieved that he did/does, then he wouldn't exist. It's a metaphysical argument I subscibe to, but you may think that things exist irrespective of our perception of them. Well seeing as we created the definition for existance and the reality in which we exist, existance comes down to what we percieve, in a very basic sense. Anyway perhaps you don't think the same way. No big deal. :oops: :P I think the word you're looking for is metaphysical. If you are serious about submitting the argument that "existence" comes down to our perception then I'll respond. If existence is nothing more than our perception of it, does existence change for someone who cannot see? Is "existence" actually different for a blind man, because his perception is different, or is existence an absolute and he only perceives it differently? I believe strongly that existence is absolute. Therefore, God either exists or he does not. Humans thinking about him, or perceiving him, does not force Him into existence. Writing a book about God did not create Him (if He exists); He existed first, and then someone wrote a book about Him OR He did not exist first and someone wrote an fiction story about him. If existence is absolute, His existence would have to precede perceiving Him. :-s . And no, I dont care for argument on this issue, I just thought it is an interesting perspective to take on reality and the nature of existance.
January 30, 200719 yr The only thing I can agree with is that evolution happened, I mean look at all the evidence of it and compair it to the amount of evidence there is of creationism(Which I have not seen or heard of any evidence toward), and creationists actually think they have room to complain about the "Flaws" of the theory? I don't deny that anything else could have happened, god(If there is a god) could be a 12 legged, 1 eyed rabbit for all I know, I'm agnostic, meaning I think anything is possible when it comes to the unknown. I used to be agnostic (and athiest, for that matter), but honestly, being agnostic in my opinion really just means you havn't found your own answers and/or religion yet :P . i think the athiests are the ones that are treated poorly. Whenever someone I know finds out I am athiest they treat me as if I'm sick and need there help, or that I am a bad and evil person. The religious orders get too much respect, at least here in the South. It's a highly religious society in general down here. Your post, in a way, is biased. You say if the athiests are wrong they will burn in hell. Sounds a little rude to me :wall: . It's not so much that athiests are mistreated, but they get pounded on by a lot of religions sometimes to have the athiest join their order. Well, that's what it's like from my perspective :-$ . But yes, those Christians that still subscribe to the theory that everyone but them are going to Hell are getting pretty annoying.Maybe Matt Stone and Trey Parker have the right idea. Everyone but Mormons go to **** :shock: :lol:
January 30, 200719 yr I ponder... If humans were not intelligent enough to write, would God still 'exsist'? Irrelevant. Actully it makes perfect sence. If humans never wrote the Bible, people wouldn't believe in God. People just dont believe in a God then use a book to support it, the read the book first and then believe in God. Actually it makes no sense. Writing about something doesn't bring it into existence. Next time look at an argument from an objective point of view please. Maybe he means exist for the people that beleive. Like he is asking the question would they even know of his existance without writing? Which depends if you beleive God is an innate idea or not, although cultural religion probably proves that no God(s) is innate, and is culturally determined. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
January 30, 200719 yr Maybe he means exist for the people that beleive. Like he is asking the question would they even know of his existance without writing? Which depends if you beleive God is an innate idea or not, although cultural religion probably proves that no God(s) is innate, and is culturally determined. I believe that insane's point is more along the lines of the Law of Non-Contradiction. If God exists, he exists. If he does not exist, He does not exist. If God only exists because people believe he exists, He is merely an idea. The idea of God then would exist, but not God Himself. To say that God only exists because people are intelligent to write about him is contradictory to the belief in God. When religious people write about God, they are presupposing that God exists and they are writing about him. They are not writing "in order to create" God, because they do not believe their ability to write is what is creating God. It could create an idea of God, but not God. Therefore, to argue that God only exists because people are intelligent enough to write about him is to presuppose the existence of God before people write about him, and to suppose that God exists only because (and therefore after) people have written about him. Your logical formula would then say that "Before people were smart enough to write about Him, God exists and God does not exist," aka, (P and -P). That's a contradiction.
January 30, 200719 yr Yes, i thought thats what he meant i just wanted to give a different input. In a way we do create God regardless of existance or not. We assign qualities too the essance of God which may not be true. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
January 30, 200719 yr why are u even bothering to debate the existance of god? this is a topic about whether christians r pursecuted - and we surely are on this board. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.
January 30, 200719 yr why are u even bothering to debate the existance of god? this is a topic about whether christians r pursecuted - and we surely are on this board. We are not debating Gods existance, we are debating if humans would beleive in him if they did not have the ability to write. You are not persectuted because your christian you are persecuted for being narrow minded. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
January 30, 200719 yr no u just call us narrow minded cus u cant see the light. i am sick of it. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.
January 30, 200719 yr Carlin, the only person Satenza called narow-minded on this thread is you. Many other people claiming to be Christian have posted in this thread. Perhaps you need to backpedal, and attempt to see what he and many others have said. When someone is described as narrow-minded, that means someone considers that person incapable of seeing the world through someone else's eyes. What do I mean by this? Lean back, and consider someone you know a lot about. Take for example your best friend on Earth. You know how that person acts in many given situations, and to some extent, even how they think. From that, you can consider how they will react if, say, their dog got run over. Would your friend cry, or stoically accept it as the reality of life? If you can successfully complete this exercise in everyday events with someone you know, then try to expand it to someone you do not. What DO you know about this person? For example, an evolutionist might believe that the universe is billions of years old. Knowing that, you can build an argument which will prove to that person why you believe the universe is not billions of years old. He, in turn, if open-minded, will probably come back with an arguement as to why he believes God did not create the universe, but will listen to your arguments. This is the manner in which people are convinced, and the way a respectful, considerate Christian should approach conversation. When you are learning, you are growing. If you stop learning, you stop growing. If you stop growing, you die. Train hard, eat fried chicken, and take a one-a-day. (And cook that broccoli 'til it's yella and pour cheese all over it)
January 30, 200719 yr no u just call us narrow minded cus u cant see the light. i am sick of it. What light would that be? Sorry to say this but you are exactly the kind of person who makes athiests and whoever else persecute Christians - if, actually, they're unfairly persecuted at all. The kind of religious person (and I have nothing against religious people per se) who tries to get others to believe things they don't want to believe. In that process you and the others who argue against you create a tense and negative atmosphere. You have no proof for God's existence, and we have no proof for God's unexistence. (sp lol?) You have no grounds for attempting to force us to believe in your religion. As far as I'm concerned that's extremely immature and you can't see past the end of your own nose. No offence.
January 30, 200719 yr Ok here we go *draws deep breath* I proudly bring you the spectrum offfff religionnnnnnn *drum roll* Here we can clearly see the majority of theists/atheists who hold their own beliefs and keep them to themselves this is a good thing :) We can also see the extremes of the spectrum, who whilst smaller in number, do nothing but shout and scream about their side and refuse to accept any other argument (ref.carlin) Now I'm a Christian, but i manage to keep my beliefs to myself, if other people don't wish to believe then it is their choice and none of my concern. Now to my main argument... What DOES get me angry is Atheists who constantly try to disprove my beliefs or shout them down, those who make reasoned points fine but to just scream and shout is nothing but idiocy - please realise some have beliefs that will not be changed. On the flip-side the "Bible/Koran/other" bashers also irritate me beyond belief. Realise that Atheists also have their beliefs if they are "going to go to hell" or wherever it is no skin off of your nose, leave them to it. I believe that all the tension on these boards are caused by these two groups, who both refuse to acknowledge either sides arguments, be they the theory of Evolution or Paley's Watch reasoning. Finally, I would like to apologise for Carlin, not all Christians are such and he seems to have a poor understanding of our religion, The Pope has acknowledged Evolution as a sound theory - to the average Theist it is simply God's way of getting things done - we aren't all blind to progress. Sorry for the occasional flame or misspell, I just wanted to put the views of what I percieve as the average, vaguely intelligent Theist
January 30, 200719 yr no u just call us narrow minded cus u cant see the light. i am sick of it. What light would that be? Sorry to say this but you are exactly the kind of person who makes athiests and whoever else persecute Christians - if, actually, they're unfairly persecuted at all. The kind of religious person (and I have nothing against religious people per se) who tries to get others to believe things they don't want to believe. In that process you and the others who argue against you create a tense and negative atmosphere. You have no proof for God's existence, and we have no proof for God's unexistence. (sp lol?) You have no grounds for attempting to force us to believe in your religion. As far as I'm concerned that's extremely immature and you can't see past the end of your own nose. No offence. im only doing it for ur own good since the way ur all headed is straight to hell. besides, we are so complex its clear we were designed. i did not evolve from a monkey. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.
Create an account or sign in to comment