Don't you think religion is tricking you? Don't you see that it is robbing you of your desire to live as it vilifies everything earthly and glorifies only the after life, which by the way most probably doesn't even exist. How can faith by of such wide acclaim?

------------------
Nehmen sie uns den Leib, Gut, Ehr', Kind und Weib: lass fahren dahin - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben! Ja! Ja! Das "Reich"!

Eins! /
Oh Mensch! Gib acht! / Zwei! /
Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht? / Drei! / "Ich schlief, ich schlief -, / Vier! /
"Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: - / F�nf! / "Die Welt ist tief, / Sechs! /
"Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht. / Sieben! / "Tief ist ihr Weh -, / Acht! /
"Lust - tiefer noch als Herzeleid: / Neun! / "Weh spricht: Vergeh! / Zehn! /
"Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit -, / Elf! /
"- will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit! / Zw�lf!

>>Don't you think religion is tricking you?<<

*bangs head against the wall*

Another ignorant atheist that thinks he has the statement that is going to cause the religous to lose faith.

>>Don't you see that it is robbing you of your desire to live as it vilifies everything earthly and glorifies only the after life,<<

You are generalizing.

>>which by the way most probably doesn't even exist.<<

You've been to the afterlife? Tell me, which religion portrays an accurate vision of the fact?

>>How can religion be of such wide acclaim?<<

I dont know, because it is true! Is there really an answer the religous will say that will satisfy you, Messer?



------------------
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
-Groucho Marx

Tell me this, is there scientific proof of the existence of God? What is more realistic then, to think God created the world, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc... or that the world is a product of nature, evolution. What makes more sense? That after life we go to either heaven or hell or that we just die and our consciousness ceases to function. Its probably because so many individuals are too weak to face the fact that they cease existing after their deaths, that they cling onto faith. It sure as hell is the easier and least painful path to take, yet the most deceitful and devious one at that.

Tell me this, is there scientific proof of the existence of God?

is there scientific proof that god does not exist?

What is more realistic then, to think God created the world, Adam and Eve, Jesus, etc... or that the world is a product of nature, evolution. What makes more sense?

actually, it's adam and steve. joke.
emphasis on realistic- you believe in what makes more sense. it's a matter of choice. science is just a way to explain what we do not know how to explain. science is an oxymoron. it provides theories, and given necessary resources, it provides results. yet these results could be a natural consequence, tricking us to believe that we actually have a control over a sequence of results.

That after life we go to either heaven or hell or that we just die and our consciousness ceases to function.

heaven and hell, it's love and hate, in most simplistic explanation. hate is ever consuming, hate is guilt, pain, and those who hate are blind to see a reason; thus you have a concept of hell. love? in layman's term - love feels good. simple, isn't? that's what concept of heaven is derived from. you cannot prove that your conscience ceases to function, or that you go to hell or heaven - you can only theorize, as there is no substantial proof of either.

Its probably because so many individuals are too weak to face the fact that they cease existing after their deaths, that they cling onto faith.

maybe your weakness is the fact that you so blindly adhere to science in order to explain what you cannot understand and experience to tell others?

It sure as hell is the easier and least painful path to take, yet the most deceitful and devious one at that.

so is anything around you or me. true christians killed and maimed; pretty much all of the time side by side with the science. whatever concept of religion you present, it's only a matter of choice. it reflects an individual; people need to believe in something to have the will to go on.

i didn't expect you to be so ludicrous, messer. you don't start a 2000+ year old debate by presenting vague ideas. if you can prove that god does not exists, then you can also prove what happens to human conscience after death. but you can't. that's the point, you can't. you can only assume one side or the other, or be polite to both.

Why would the perfect God create imperfect beings such as ourselves?

what is it that makes us imperfect?

our ability to choose?
our ability to aspire?
our ability to grow beyond limitations?

you look at man and think he is pathetic,

i look at man, and think damn, we've come a long way.

you can't scientifically prove superstring theory at the moment.

does that mean it is wrong?

you couldn't scientificaly prove the existance of dna til the last 60 years.

does that mean it didn't exist til it's discovery?

you couldn't scientifically prove the earth was round til a few hundred years ago, and then it was only speculation til we had a picture from space.

was earth flat until columbus showed otherwise?

some creatures see the infrared spectrum, which we only see the "visible light" spectrum, which is called that because it's what we see.

does that mean those creatures don't see reality.

maybe all that information passing right in front of your eyes doesn't exist because you don't see it.

but you can turn on your television and see it's there.

maybe you think we are at the apex of technology,

whereas i think we are still children.

with unbelievable discoveries just waiting.

even in delving into superstring theory which states as scientific fact that every atom in my body existed at the instant of creation as hydrogen and through stars exploding created heavier elements, that created even more heavier elements under "correct" conditions, amazingly somewhere along the way these same atoms got imprinted with something that should've never existed even at the big bang, and which should never have came into being,

dna,

strengthens my belief in god,

a belief held by many scientists actually, though as michiu kaku and stephen hawking acknowledge,

the god scientists prefer to believe in is not one of miracles that persists in religious texts,

but a god of order whose existance is "evident" in all that is.

and these are people who have broken down all that is to strings vibrating in 10 dimensions, and is even more fascinating than the human mind can imagine or comprehend, the perfection of everything being so simple is not an element of chance.

If you need that to satisfy your pseudo and ersatz faith, then so be it. Chaos is the ultimate component of the Universe, even though we attempt to rationalize it by means of science.

quote:

---

is there scientific proof that god does not exist?

---

There cannot be scientific proof that god doesn't exist. Not just because there isn't any though, it is impossible in this sort of situation. What kind of proof would there be to show that a god doesn't exist? You cannot prove that an invisible faerie isn't sittin' on top of my head.

Messer, how can you say the Universe is chaotic? Theres a massive and intricate order to everything.

>>>>Don't you think religion is tricking you?<<<<<

Dont you think your religion is tricking you. Your atheist religion has taught you apparently that faith = christianity, for example.

>>>>Don't you see that it is robbing you of your desire to live as it vilifies everything earthly and glorifies only the after life<<<<<

Most religions say their Gods want them to drink and be merry. Only Christianity and Judaism say otherwise, and even then, thats only on paper. In practice, most Christians are just pagans who wear crosses.

>>>>which by the way most probably doesn't even exist. How can faith by of such wide acclaim?<<<<<

What?
Dude, youre a kid. Did you ever think once mom stops nursing you that you might think differently? Im not equating faith with weakness or loss, Im just wondering if you realize all of your sad messianic ranting is a product of a nursery protected coddled child.

Defiant, do you mean a religion which is atheistic or do you mean that atheism is a religion?

Atheism is a religion. There are religions that are atheistic.

Well, going by the dictionary definition, a religion is a set of beliefs or practices. Atheism does not have a set of beliefs or practices so it isn't a religion. But back to the original topic or whatever.

You know what, I have proof that god exists. Like Voltaire, I think he exists because the universe is too perfect. If their was not some sort of being who designed the universe and it had been created compleatly at random, science wouldn't exist.

Think about it. Do you really think that basic math like pythagora's theorem or pi are just big coincidences. Or how about the whole realm of physics? Why do all objects on earth are pulled towards earth, on average, by a force of 9.8 m/s^2. To expect it all to happen by huge coincidences would be like throwing a shuffeld pack of cards into the air and expect it to pile up in order at your feet. It's just too improbable. Their has to be a mastermind or something behind it all and that person is god.

"Chaos is the ultimate component of the Universe, even though we attempt to rationalize it by means of science."

if that's what you think, you really need to bone up on your science.

and you'll find that even the most seemingly chaotic event like a thunderstorm, has perfect order and symetry, and a REASON for existing.

there's nothing chaotic about it.

even hurricanes will all originate in the same general area, EVERY TIME, and if it wasn't for the land the earth has our hurricanes would eventually become just like the big red spot on jupiter,

ALWAYS ORIGINATING AT 19.5 DEGREES NORTH OR SOUTH LATITUDE.

it has a little something to do with tetrahedral geometry,

maybe if you get away from what your eyes tell you is happening, you can look beyond for what is occurring to make it happen.

and there's nothing chaotic about it.

Atheism has a set of beliefs. Of course there are different sects of Atheism, like marxism, Nihilism, etc, but it has a code of behavior and ethics. Its a religion.

And what would these beliefs be? Of atheism I mean, not anything else.

Defiant,
I think you are right although calling it a religion might be stretching it. Because there are atheistic religions doesn't necessarily mean atheism is a religion. But the point is neither here nor there. Doctrines are doctrines!

quote:

---

Main Entry: athe�ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French ath�isme, from ath�e atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

---

Fred,
Simply deny that you are an atheist. Go for agnostic. Agnosticism is an easier position to defend.

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1ag�nos�tic
Pronunciation: ag-'n�s-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
- ag�nos�ti�cism /-t&-"si-z&m/ noun

---

Thanx to Merriam-Webster

------------------
Why not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
Don't you think religion is tricking you? Don't you see that it is robbing you of your desire to live as it vilifies everything earthly and glorifies only the after life, which by the way [b]most probably doesn't even exist. How can faith by of such wide acclaim?[/B]

---

Messer,
This argument is very weak indeed in the face of a believer. If you find you simply must reason with those who don't. Try convincing them first that their belief is unfounded.
Personally I wouldn't bother because only a return leap of faith can bring them back to the fold of those who reason.
You are however sowing in fertile soil because these lost sheep have already proven their ability to leap.
Which is more than I can say for those who cling to the material.
This last group are even further from taking the ultimate leap, from which there is no return, into the mystical.

All hail the mystery which lies beyond reason and faith.

Fucked if I know.



------------------
Why not?

oh fun my fav debate.

quote:

---

lostmind says "what is it that makes us imperfect?"

---

We are not GOD.

quote:

---

>>How can religion be of such wide acclaim<?<

I dont know, because it is true! Is there really an answer the religous will say that will satisfy you, Messer?

---

Does this mean all religions of the world are true? And nothing you can say to Messer would probally satisfy him. I can conjecture the same for you.

quote:

---

"Tell me this, is there scientific proof of the existence of God?"

is there scientific proof that god does not exist?

---

I hate this argument because no facts exist for it.

quote:

---

you cannot prove that your conscience ceases to function

---

In the way it is defined conscience is your brain's awareness of it's existance. You can be unconscience but not dead. And IF the consciense is as it is if the brain is dead it can't be aware of itself. You of course might have your own opnions of what conscienceness is but i must use the common meaning for it.

quote:

---

maybe your weakness is the fact that you so blindly adhere to science in order to explain what you cannot understand and experience to tell others?

---

I thought science was used to explain what can be understood rationally, and theorize about ways to explain things we don't know. But until we can explain it logically and with proof it doesn't become a scientific law.

Religion on the otherhand is used to explain what we don't understand in a subjective since. I feel its much easier to understand something on a subjective since. Like "You just have that feeling".

quote:

---

Messer, how can you say the Universe is chaotic? Theres a massive and intricate order to everything.

---

YOur applying your beliefs and generalizing a system. All systems must have both. If choas didn't have order in it, it wouldn't be choas. I say this becuase if choas is always choatic it would have some order in it would it not? The same goes for order in a fucked up way.

quote:

---

Think about it. Do you really think that basic math like pythagora's theorem or pi are just big coincidences.
Or how about the whole realm of physics? Why do all objects on earth are pulled towards earth, on average, by a force of 9.8 m/s^2. To expect it all to happen by huge coincidences would be like throwing a shuffeld pack of cards into the air and expect it to pile up in order at your feet. It's just too improbable. Their has to be a mastermind or something behind it all and that person is god.

---

You are throwing the idea out of proportion... there are billions and billions of planets in existance. Just becuase our planet has a gravity pull of 9.8 m/s^2 doesn't mean our universe is so perfect it must have been created by a divine being. Your card analogy would be more correct if worded like this:
if i throw as many card decks as planets in the universe and one of them landed shuffled in correct order. Given that change of scope i think its more reasonable.

"We are not GOD."

i was talking of man's make-up, no man himself is not perfect.

as biological beings, though, even an evolutionist has to sit back and say damn!


"YOur applying your beliefs and generalizing a system. All systems must have both. If choas didn't have order in it, it wouldn't be choas. I say this becuase if choas is always choatic it would have some order in it would it not? The same goes for order in a fucked up way."

is that what you believe?

radio waves are extremely chaotic, yet with the right instrument, you can discern at certain wavelengths perfect order.

i watch television because of this.

richard c. hoagland speaks of science has looking for the signal in the noise.

and science has pretty much gotten past the "beats me, shit happens" stage.

did random chance make 2+2=4, or does 2+2=4 because it has to.

like i said michiu kaku said religious people follow a god of miracles,

scientists follow a god of order.

i don't like the consciousness reasoning either.

you are conscious, just not "aware", and time has no meaning.

i was knocked out to have my wisdom teeth removed, and i can recall thought while i was out, but being totally surrounded by blackness and not aware of time. it did not feel like i fell back into my body while coming out of it, but more like my body was falling into me.

it was actually a very discomforting but somehow unbelievably cool, almost like driving through a tunnel only standing still.

i also had one other encounter.

while doing a coke foily, i took my hit and stood up really fast hold my breath until i feel myself start to drift. i love doing this for the feeling.

i literally fell out of my consciousness, i could see myself on the floor propped up on my hands and on one knee with the other knee convulsing rapidly,

i saw this i did not feel it, and everybody else in the room said i was out cold because although i held my head up my eyes were rolled back and i was drooling.

but i was totally aware and embarrassed at the fool i was making of myself, but i had no control over it,

then again it was more like i stood up into myself, without falling into myself.

it was then i realized i dislocated my finger in the fall,

didn't feel a thing, aware the whole time.

Nah, I'm stickin' with atheism. I am getting tired of people using their own and incorrect definitions for things though. Theism (by itself) and deism aren't religions either.

I might be an atheist but that is in no way a form of faith. I question my atheism daily and find it to be the most viable possible solution. Do you question your religion, work backwards and try to prove its existence by scientific means? Moreover, there isn't the supposed order in the Universe you claim. Even though particles are arranged in a logical manner, more is uncovered about the breaking of physical laws and generally laws of mathematics and science. It is absurd to assume it is all the work of the creator. For all we know, we are the most complex life organism in the Universe and our life-span does not usually extend beyond that of a century. How imperfect is that? How little intelligence do we possess really? How can be we insignificant beings be the work of a perfect creator?

I would just like to put in a small argument here. The universe was created by the big bang, as all you scientists out there believe. The whole of existence was created from nothing. Things blasted into existence. But what created that, if there was nothing, then nothing could have happened. What started that. What created all that we see around us. Maybe he didn't do it in seven days, but it was God! Call him what you like it is always the same force of life that made this place what it is.

Also no unbeliever can understand faith without having tried it. If you have never sat at night and prayed to an entity that you know exists then you can never understand how these people know that there is a God. Try it once, all you atheists, and see how it feels. You will know, there is a God.

Faith trancends reason. I think someone said that once. That is the essence of faith, belief without proof! There is no better way of proving the existance of God than looking around at the thousands of people who believe in him.

And my final argument. Of all the cultures and peoples around the world, each of them seperate and iscolated, every one has a religion. Explain that.

I'll leave it there

quote:

---

Also no unbeliever can understand faith without having tried it. If you have never sat at night and prayed to an entity that you know exists then you can never understand how these people know that there is a God. Try it once, all you atheists, and see how it feels. You will know, there is a God.

---

How would I, an atheist, that does not believe in a god... pray and ask a god? Why would I ask a god, "do you exist, god"? To ask something a question I would have to believe in it. Impossible and nonsensical.

quote:

---

Faith trancends reason. I think someone said that once. That is the essence of faith, belief without proof! There is no better way of proving the existance of God than looking around at the thousands of people who believe in him.

---

In my opinion, belief without evidence is foolish. Thousands of people believing in a god(s) doesn't prove it. Popular can equal stupid.

All cultures having a religion included in them just goes to show that humans are similar. And cultures and religions have always gone away sometime.

How very true, how very true...

>>How would I, an atheist, that does not believe in a god... pray and ask a god? Why would I ask a god, "do you exist, god"? To ask something a question I would have to believe in it. Impossible and nonsensical.<<

I agree that you cannot ask a god if he exists. But what i was saying was that until you have felt faith you cannot understand it. I've an idea. Go into a church, preferably when a service is on, and not a service that you would find funny, such as people waving thier arms and yelling, and see if you feel any emotion other than disgust or ridicule. When, i at least, walk into a church it has an effect. But then i'm just a religious fool, aren't i?

Well, all i ask is that you question your atheism. I question my faith on a daily basis, and yet it remains, can you say the same?

messer, i'm telling you look more into science. not what the schoolbooks tell you either.

look into the works of people that are setting the standard, you'll see some amazing shit.

i'm not asking you to believe, but it's pretty closed minded to call people fools who do,

not only closed minded but ignorant.

unless you have proof to the contrary.

maybe i should quote michiu kaku again co-founder of the superstring theory.

"in principle, if we know the s-matrix, we know everything about particle interactions and how they scatter. in this approach, how particles bump into one another is everything; the individual particle is nothing. s-matrix theory said that the self-consistency of the scattering matrix, and self-consistency alone, was sufficient to determine the s-matrix. thus fundamental particles and fields were banished forever from the EDEN of s-matrix theory. In the final analysis, only the s-matrix had any physical meaning"

what's your degree in science?
won a nobel prize for your contributions?

and grey_run, if superstring theory is correct, 10 dimensional space in perfect symetry existed before the big bang, and the big bang was just a hiccup from a much greater cataclysm.

in the words of michiu kaku again,

superstring theory binds hinduism and judeo-christianity together, in the fact that 10 dimensional space would be nirvana, and the big bang would be the moment of creation in genesis.

and like i said most scientists(the groundbreaking ones anyway, from newton to einstein, from hawking to kaku) believe in a god of order, a deist belief like my own, which does not interfere in the works of man, because it would alter the order of the universe, which like they say is in perfect order, symetry, and perfection to begin with.

man just needs to learn he is not the center of the universe, and in the same vein realize an omnipotent being might not have the least bit of interest in you.

"In my opinion, belief without evidence is foolish"

you know fred you do this every day actually,

you take the word of what people tell you, it all depends on where you place credibility,

and i agree it is hard to place credibility on someone who tells you if you don't behave you're going to hell, but he loves, hence my deist beliefs.

maybe if god gave enough of a shit about this insignificant planet, he'd have appointed better spokespeople.

All good points lostmind.

According to some Quantum theorists, everything that could possibly happen does. We just happen to exist in one of these many possibilities. It's like that show sliders. So in my opinion, chaos is the basic underlying principle of the Universe. Why can't you know the position and the speed of an electron? There is an underlying order to many things, but underneath that more chaos. Not everything can be predicted, classified, divided and neatly tagged.

[This message has been edited by riot_kid (edited 10-16-2001).]

you shouldn't stop your knowledge their riot kid,

you are talking of the wave function theory put forth by hawking,

posted 10-16-2001 17:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
messer, i'm telling you look more into science. not what the schoolbooks tell you either.
look into the works of people that are setting the standard, you'll see some amazing shit.

i'm not asking you to believe, but it's pretty closed minded to call people fools who do,

not only closed minded but ignorant.

unless you have proof to the contrary.

maybe i should quote michiu kaku again co-founder of the superstring theory.

"in principle, if we know the s-matrix, we know everything about particle interactions and how they scatter. in this approach, how particles bump into one another is everything; the individual particle is nothing. s-matrix theory said that the self-consistency of the scattering matrix, and self-consistency alone, was sufficient to determine the s-matrix. thus fundamental particles and fields were banished forever from the EDEN of s-matrix theory. In the final analysis, only the s-matrix had any physical meaning"

again i quote michiu kaku, who theorizes the dimensions above wave function, wave function is basically accepted through the uncertainty principle.

but the self-consistancy theory of the s-matrix gives it perfect order and only one outcome.

chaos will always meet it's end with order.

Lostmind, what riotkid is speaking of, the Uncertainty Principle, the more accurately you know the position of an electron, the less accurately you know its speed and vice versa. It's one of the most accepted physical theorems of today's world, a crucial component of the very developed and modern quantum theory. This does indicate that there is a dominant underlying element of chaos in the Universe, uncertainty as it is referred to here, the uncertainty of a particle's location. Everything isn't as ordered as you make it seem. Ambiguity and anarchy are the Universe's key components. After all, the fundamental particles do in every manner and way follow this principle as riot kid and myself have said.

Messer, youre missing the point. You havent lived yet, who the fuck are you to tell people what they are and arent missing out on.

Who the fuck are you, Defiant Exile, to do the same thing?

And on a second note, the fact that their's a quantum THEORY means that there's some sort of logic and orderliness behind it all.

Superstring theory trumps quantum theory.

All lostmind is saying is don't stop looking for better explainations. The physicists and other academics who do all the hard work for us certainly don't.

------------------
Why not?

I dont recall telling anyone except hardcore Mormon like Christians they were missing out on anything. And I have knocked people out, had sex, and attacked by screaming mobs, so I would think me more an authority on life in the realm of mortals than a German kid who goes to middle school or whatever in Belgium.

BEEN* attacked by screaming mobs, Im sorry

Wow, that's what I call livin'!!!

I hope reincarnation is real, 'cause I'm sure gunna get it right next time.

I'm gunna live it right up. See if I can't get myself mutilated beyond recognition. Then I might try for a coma when I get sick of the quadraplegia.



------------------
Why not indeed?

It is more life than a German prepubescent virgin in Belgium can claim. Again, you missed the point. I was answering Who am I, when he asked why I have room to tell people they are missing life. I said, I usually dont, but at least when i do, its because I have lived a little. Certainly more than Messerschmidt, who began a topic by telling people how much they are missing things hed know nothing about.
I asked him if hes ever put a penis inside a girl, punched someone in the face, been knocked down, and stuck by a friend through the years, and he dodges the question again and again. Its because the answer is no to all of those. He is in no place to tell us what we are missing when hes not yet stepped to the plate himself.

your the man


------------------
Why not indeed!

thanks always wrong,

like i said messer, keep looking.

we don't know the position and the speed,

but s-matrix tells us where it is;

self-consistency brings order to the chaos.

Are your arguments that weak Defiant that you have to descredit me in this way? I am relatively amused. On second thought, of what relevance is that here anyways? Fine, go ahead and say I'm a virgin, that I haven't seriously beaten the crap out of somebody, or that I don't have the right to make comments on the subject. All you're doing is making yourself look even more reactionary and archaic than you already are.

It is very relevant, since, those are things associated with life, and youve not done them. Having not lived then, it seems ridiculous to me and most others for you to tell them what they are missing. You are carrying around your virgin label like its bad, dude, youre a kid. Im not saying you should be rushing to be old, but, until you are, shut the fuck when talking to old people about things youve not experienced.

You live whether you like it or not. You don't have to do any of those things to live. It doesn't matter. Use a real argument and get back to the original topic.

It's kind of hard when any time I make a relevant argument I get diatribed by a Fascist with a self-bloated ego like Defiant. But here goes anyhow.

Religion is by nature irrational. Not only does it call upon you to renounce sound and frequently just judgement by adopting a faithful outlook. You don't see things objectively any longer as you are constantly subject to your own limiting faith. Only your faith's dogma counts, nothing else. Faith doesn't allow for questioning of its motives, that is known as heresy.



------------------
Nehmen sie uns den Leib, Gut, Ehr', Kind und Weib: lass fahren dahin - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben! Ja! Ja! Das "Reich"!

Eins! /
Oh Mensch! Gib acht! / Zwei! /
Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht? / Drei! / "Ich schlief, ich schlief -, / Vier! /
"Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: - / F�nf! / "Die Welt ist tief, / Sechs! /
"Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht. / Sieben! / "Tief ist ihr Weh -, / Acht! /
"Lust - tiefer noch als Herzeleid: / Neun! / "Weh spricht: Vergeh! / Zehn! /
"Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit -, / Elf! /
"- will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit! / Zw�lf!

"Religion is by nature irrational. Not only does it call upon you to renounce sound and frequently just judgement by adopting a faithful outlook"

i wouldn't say that it's irrational, it's interpretation is sometimes irrational, usually by irrational people to begin with.

unless you think "thou shalt not kill" to be irrational, when taken at face value.

Lostmind, I believe this observation is about the nature of religion. Not any particular manifestation.

------------------
Why not indeed!

Lostmind is right. Religion does not inhibit your actions by giving you guidlines, it gives those guidlines to create a society that will work together and benefit everyone. The guidlines, if you think of them, are not for the individual but for thw whole of society.

If everyone did follow these rules then society would be near perfect. No theft, no murder, no lies, no selfishness, respect and love for all people. Think how you would feel living in a society like that. These are reasons to follow a faith even if you do not believe that it will benefit you in the short run. From a non-believers point of view i would think they are perfectly sound.

Added to this, there is the benefit of compfort and security if you truly believe that there is a god up there waiting for you. If you knew there was eternat bliss wating for you when you died and all you had to do was follow rules that will benefit you anyway, what would you do?

And on the subject of the living life bit, there are other ways of living than getting laid, getting drunk and hitting people. Some may not be such fun, but in the long run they may provide as much pleasure.

Then again, i'm just arguing the other side, i like getting drunk personaly!

------------------
who is out there? can you answer? If so give the rest of the world a call; we're dying to know.

0-I===>

Religion is a irrational because there is no other human perspective to interpret it by. You see, if humans were perfect beings, then religion would be a valuable asset. (even though science points to it as being unrealistic) Nonetheless, humans are subject to their own tendency to become fanatics of their own beliefs. Look at all the cases of religious fanaticism throughout the world. Devoted to their own religion, they are dangerous foes to world peace and security as they do not fear dying for their religion as this will provide them a sure place in heaven. Humans can only interpret religion as a vilifying and degrading dogma which in many instances gives them the right to kill and/or hate. Furthermore, those basic commandments such as thou shalt not kill are just basic rational commandments associated to human behavior and survival as a whole. Religion has much more cult associated to it.

When I need comfort and security I'll get them from things that do exist. When you talk about believing in a god up in the sky to reward you it seems verry similar to Santa. They're both basically the same thing.

Santa and God? Well you could think of them as very similar. The difference is that Santa is providing materialistic gifts whereas God is providing far more.

Messer, in another board you called for openmindedness. Maybe the religious fanatics are right, maybe the bombing on the unitedstates was fully deserved. who are you to judge? Who am I to do the same. Granted we both believe what we do, but fanatics are not a danger to peaceful society, only a way to change into a new, and hopefully peacful, society that they think is right.

Thats about it until the next one.

God is the Santa of people in that he provides them with a purpose in life, meaning where there is probably none, whereas Santa is the provider of a gifts to kids. Humans are nothing but naive children who can't seem to get the bigger picture. God provides them with an alternative.

If we have the ability to choose to believe something, primarily because it has positive consequences, then why do we need God at all.
Think about it, why not choose to believe you are god and this is utopia.

------------------
Why not indeed!

Why are people defending Messer's inexperience? Being alive is not the life hes talking about, obviously. Hes talking about Living. He hasnt done it yet. If I was a Christian Id be very insulted.

>>>>Devoted to their own religion, they are dangerous foes to world peace and security<<<

Messer, you are devoted to your own religion and to them are a dangerous foe to peace, dignity, and liberty.

>>>>as they do not fear dying for their religion as this will provide them a sure place in heaven.<<<<

Bravery is a good quality in any religion, be it atheistic, Marxist, Fascist, Christian, wutever. Its one of those things that make better men. But youre a child and a coward, so renounce it further.

>>>>Humans can only interpret religion as a vilifying and degrading dogma which in many instances gives them the right to kill and/or hate<<<<

There are no rights. There is only ability and privilege. I dont interpret my religion as villifying and degrading. You seem to have a terrible spiritual void, to think the soul= oppressive. So sad.
If you can love, you hate. You cant get rid of hatred without getting rid of love. Love is good. Therefore, hate is good.

Messer, how can you say religious people are missing out on life, then imply hatred, perhaps the most human of all emotions, is bad? Hey, stop repressing yourself in the name of religion, youre missing out on being human.

Defiant, I am being human. Religion nonetheless is the most repressive of all terapies as it subjects individual rationality. As to bravery, it is a positive quality but has frequently droven to madness as is the case of numerous wars. In Germany at the end of WWII bravery was required of the 14 and 15 year old youths, and 70 year old men sent to the front while the F�hrer sat cowering in his Reichskanzlei. It however defeats rationality in many instances, bravery does, when there is no alternative but do submit to the adversary or face total demise. I would opt for the second alternative and I don't think anyone can honestly say they would die in such a case if they know their life can be spared.

Okay I am just going to throw a couple of things in here:

The bible says: Thou shalt not kill right? Why is killing bad? The people who die either go to their afterlife or cease to be right? They feel no remorse for their death after they are dead, no pain. So why are people so scared of death?

Repression on the other hand limits what people can and can't do WHILE THEY ARE ALIVE AND KICKING.

Originally posted by Grey_run:
"Maybe the religious fanatics are right, maybe the bombing on the unitedstates was fully deserved. who are you to judge? Who am I to do the same. Granted we both believe what we do, but fanatics are not a danger to peaceful society, only a way to change into a new, and hopefully peacful, society that they think is right."

I like this way of thinking but it kind of gets you nowhere if you know what I mean?
I'd like to see a debate on what gives us the right to judge anything? Popular belief? Most power? Least selfish?

Messer, why is hate bad? Its definitely a part of being human, and part of love. You should stop repressing yourself because of your religion. Free your mind man LoL

Hate is more limiting that you think Defiant. Look at yourself, you who hates anything that doesn't conform to your dogma, and then speak.

I looked at myself. I dont see hatred. Certainly not of anythign that doesnt "conform" to my "dogma". You do realize you cannot have love without having hate, right? I have spoken

i do hate. i am required to hate. but one thing in particular.

and this hate i MUST have by the word of my God.

if you don't understand this, and if you cannot figure this out, there is no need for further discussion. because if you can't, you have no clue on a BASIC principle of Christianity.

govinda, i believe you must do what is right for yourself.

but you can't impose that upon other people.

now you might be saying that that is contrary to my stance on bin laden right now.

in doing what is right for yourself, you must also protect yourself, or on the governmental side, protect those who allow you to have power.

i don't want to see bin laden killed, it would make him a martyr to his people, i would like nothing more than for him to live the rest of his life in a federal prison.

the problem is, he doesn't want to come willingly.

it's like the girlfriend reference i made in the war topic.

sometimes people need an asskicking.

but overall like i've always said, right and wrong along with truth and beauty depends solely on the eye of the beholder.

Hate is never good, it consumes you. Moving on. Defiant you are the most closed minded dogmatic person I've seen on this board, aside from -. You criticise people who neither want nor need your opinion for things you will never see or experience. I'm not talking about in this forum, it's mostly in sex and affection. You believe that your views are solely the right views. This is arrogance verging on stupidity. No one is always right. Not even me. "Realizing you know nothing is the first step to wisdom." Messer, I don't always agree w/ you. You are an arrogant cynical bastard, I salute you, just remember, you should always be willing to change your views if proven wrong.

As the universe expands energy disperses and order decreases. Entropy is the major force in the universe, and it works for chaos.

well said


------------------
Why not indeed!

For those that use the dented logic of "everything must have been created..." here's a tough one for you. Who created God?

------------------
Brought to you by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

While i understand your entropy point, consider this...

If entropy is a constant then isn't entropy itself an orderly process??

>>>>Hate is never good, it consumes you.<<<<

So does Love. So do most higher emotions. Hate is very good. For example, that I love my girlfriend, I find it natural and completely logical to hate what would harm her. People who might otherwise harm her know I love her, and instinctively know theyd have to deal with my hate in wronging her. It protects.

>>>>>>Moving on. Defiant you are the most closed minded dogmatic person I've seen on this board, aside from -.<<<<

I am single-minded, a virtue when one is right, and testimony to a strong will. Define dogma please.

>>>>You criticise people who neither want nor need your opinion for things you will never see or experience.<<<<<

If I criciticsed them for things I did, how could I cricitise them without being a hypocritical asshole trying to reconcile past wounds? I criticise clearly inferior behavior Ive never had any desire to take part in, correct.

>>>>>I'm not talking about in this forum, it's mostly in sex and affection.<<<<

There is no Affection in that forum, it is only about a group of apes dressed as men and women who believe pleasure to be the sole worthy pursuit in life. Pleasant sensations justify any act of slavery to those sick and defiled minds. It is natural for free people to look down on those who have sold themselves into slavery for no reason other than weakness.

>>>>You believe that your views are solely the right views.<<<<

You believe mine are unquestionably wrong. How are you different?

>>>>No one is always right. Not even me.<<<<<

I only speak if its concerning a matter I understand enough to be right in.

>>>> "Realizing you know nothing is the first step to wisdom." <<<<

I knew nothing at the age of 8. I accepted that then. I realized I knew nothing, and figured, rightly I believe, that obviously nature, in her timeless wisdom, was smarter than me. Since then Ive only collected data from Mom and tried my best to understand it from her eyes.

Riot kid, I have admitted to have been wrong numerous times, just this time I think my arguments are more coherent and organized than that of the opposition, mainly the bigoted and doctrinaire Defiant Exile. And yes I am a cynical bastard.

"but overall like i've always said, right and wrong along with truth and beauty depends solely on the eye of the beholder."

Yes I agree, but it sounds a lot easier than it is in practice.

Messer, how come you never answer any questions, and whenver youre in a corner, try and use 2 adjectives to describe me and think no one will notice your lack of substance?

When you allow emotions to consume you, you lose yourself. Falling in love is great, however when your in that love struck phase you're a blind retard. Fortunately most people realize this and cut you some slack. When you start getting consumed by other emotions they are not positive. You lose cognitive function. They are not higher emotions, you become more base and animalistic. Who are you to judge others defiant? God does not talk to you. If you think he does start taking your medication again and that should fix the problem. I didn't say you criticise people for things you don't do, for things you haven't experienced. i.e. tried once. You are dogmatic in your inability to part from your outdated eye for an eye quasi-judeochristian morality. You are constantly negative. I know it is hypocritical of me to be negative and call you negative I don't really care. Freedom to pursue whatever you want, including pleasure, is a great thing. Also somehow I doubt those people solely pursue pleasure. My views are not unquestionably wrong, I'm willing to change my views if I believe they are outdated or wrong. The sum total of human knowledge is incredible. It boggles the mind. It is impossible for one person know everything. Not only that but the sum total of human knowledge is does nothing to explain the universe around us. There for any claim by a person that they have found ultimate wisdom is bullshit. True wisdom is a realization that one can always expand their knowledge/experience/consciousness/whatever. Defiant I am criticising your constant need to be right and your seeming need to convert others to your viewpoint. I have to go now my friend want to go drink coffee. I will further refute you on a later date.

It's kinda of funny to use someones solidity of position against them. All people think their beliefs are right, if they thought they were wrong they would have changed them to what they think are right.

Emotions are lower proccesses of the brain, meaning they are more raw and powerful. They cause your brain to signal the release of chemicals needed for the particular reaction to the emotion. Most of the powerful chemicals can: impair rational thought, cause lack of coordination, lack of concentration, etc.

While i agree with the fact that these responses are fundamental to humanity; we all need to find out what is acceptable and what are not acceptable responses.

This reminds me of Police in a car chase. It has been observed that police officers (or for that matter any person put into a hunt & chase situation) will get a massive chemical high including adrenaline. This will cause an officer to get tunnel vision and rational parts of the brain will shut down. This is obviously a problem for police officers who need to use their judgement for their jobs. Special training is now given to officers so they can control themselves and kick themselves out of the hunt & chase mode.

While this chemically induced hunt & chase mode might be usefull for a man hunting a wild boar, its not usefull for a modern police officer who needs to worry about the public, other units, etc.

Knowing when to control your emotions or to follow them is what experience is all about. Emotions are either good or bad depending on their context, and hence their perceptive situation.

Lets use the situtation defiant exile gave us with his girlfriend. If some fuck did something to her, he most likely would get really ticked. Lets say this is the case and he goes off the handle. He starts laying to waste on this guy, and by some random fluke he punches the guy in the stomach which causes the guy to impact his head into the corner of a hard metalic object. The guy's skull is cracked and he is bleeding on the floor knocked out from the blow. Later on he finds out that the guy died at the hospital. (Yes I do realise that the chance of this happening is not very likely but let me make my point) Defiant may have been justified in his perspective to fly off the handle and harrass the asshole. I can't even say if i wouldn't do the same. But anyways you have a family who has lost their child, and from their point of view Defiant would be a cold blooded killer.

(And now for the point)
Emotions make us do the right thing from our own perspective, it is up to our rational side to consider other consequences.

[This message has been edited by soullace (edited 10-20-2001).]

Love is not an emotion!

It is the driving force within all emotions!




------------------
Why not indeed!

are you smoking crack??

Love is not an emotion? Its the most important of all emotions.

Emotions (as all human behavior is) are however driven by self-interest. And that includes love, which is just another facet of egotism.

Isn't that self-interest, ensuring the perpetuity of our species? But love in the case of the human has extended well beyond that initial purpose. It now comforts one in one's moments of trouble and serves to complement our desire for almost constant company. Sex, a condiment to love, has also evolved into a practice of pleasure (self-interest again), more so than one procreation, in the Western World that is.

Sorry defiant I still don't have time to argue, but I'll talk more Tues. Entropy may be an organised process, but, it results in chaos!

wrong, it results in heat,

chaos would assume we didn't know what entropy would provide as the final state,

it has been known for a while that continued entropy will result in the purest form of energy,

heat.

i tend to think of the concept of chaos as the kickoff of a football game,

at that precise moment you have no idea of the outcome,

as time progresses you can reflect on all the factors involved that put the game in its current state, everything makes sense and everything has order, if you're on the winning side, if you're going for the losing team though, you can't believe the headcoach has a concept of rationality, and think he calls plays by flipping a quarter.

perspective will often times dictate belief.

Lostmind, could you please explain to me how some energy is "purer" than other energy or how heat is the "purest" energy? Or are you just spouting fary tales?

It's a mystic term, not a scientific one.

Heat is a measure of the change in kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. If you have a heat of zero degress kelvin you have no movement, and hence absolute zero. Anyways back to the point, heat isn't the purest form of energy it is a measure of the change in kinetic energy. Constant entropy leads to the heat death of the universe. This is where there is no heat, none at all, and hence no movement.

If any one has ever looked at physical laws they all balance out. The end result equals zero. Balance is key to mathematics and key to sciences which use math as their universal language.

Now i have forgotten my point its way to late for me the think, night.

And science and maths are nothing but an attempt to rationalize the complex and disorderly Universe. Why does our current knowledge not present us with a clear theory as to the behavior of all sub-atomic particles or space-time? Why doesn't it if our Universe is so rationally fashioned?

>>>>When you start getting consumed by other emotions they are not positive. You lose cognitive function.<<<<<

So what?

>>>>>They are not higher emotions, you become more base and animalistic.<<<<

I dont know of any animals who feel hate. I know of one animal on all the planet who seeks vengeance. Emotions you speak of are rather unique to mankind. Animalistic feelings are apethetic and indifferent.

>>>>Who are you to judge others defiant?<<<

I am older than Messerschmidt, wiser, and have experienced more. I believe that was where this argument started, right? Ive been away a while.

>>>>God does not talk to you. If you think he does start taking your medication again and that should fix the problem.<<<<

There was no medication in the first place. "God" talks to us all, since religion is a manifestation of our unconcious.

>>>>>I didn't say you criticise people for things you don't do, for things you haven't experienced. i.e. tried once. You are dogmatic in your inability to part from your outdated eye for an eye quasi-judeochristian morality.<<<<<

Vengeance is not dogma. It is an emotion. Dogma is cold and lifeless, only paper. Emotions are full of life. Renouncing vengeance is unnatural, cold, and lifeless, and dogmatic.
Last i checked Christians are supposed to roll over like a slut when someone slaps them.

>>>>>You are constantly negative.<<<<

No Im not


>>>>Freedom to pursue whatever you want, including pleasure, is a great thing.<<<<

Most people dont know what they want. They define their desire by crude impulse, and not complex and often incomprehendable unconcious drives.

>>>>I'm willing to change my views if I believe they are outdated or wrong.<<<<

I love when people say an aspect of a man's character is "outdated." LoL. They usually also are the first asses to yell about freedom. Its so funny how they let a dominant culture in a given time reinterpret their instincts.

>>>>The sum total of human knowledge is incredible. It boggles the mind. It is impossible for one person know everything. Not only that but the sum total of human knowledge is does nothing to explain the universe around us.<<<<<

...Thats exactly what it does.

>>>>There for any claim by a person that they have found ultimate wisdom is bullshit.<<<<

I will follow that with...

>>>>>>True wisdom is a realization that one can always expand their knowledge/experience/consciousness/whatever.<<<<<<

Thats bullshit.


>>>>>Defiant I am criticising your constant need to be right and your seeming need to convert others to your viewpoint.<<<<<

That is why everyone here posts. Criticse them too. Its wrong to want people to think like you? Why are you criticising me then?

>>>>>Lets use the situtation defiant exile gave us with his girlfriend. If some fuck did something to her, he most likely would get really ticked. Lets say this is the case and he goes off the handle. He starts laying to waste on this guy, and by some random fluke he punches the guy in the stomach which causes the guy to impact his head into the corner of a hard metalic object. The guy's skull is cracked and he is bleeding on the floor knocked out from the blow. Later on he finds out that the guy died at the hospital. (Yes I do realise that the chance of this happening is not very likely but let me make my point)<<<<

Correct. Im more likely to choke him until his death is confirmed before me.

>>>>>Defiant may have been justified in his perspective to fly off the handle and harrass the asshole. I can't even say if i wouldn't do the same. But anyways you have a family who has lost their child, and from their point of view Defiant would be a cold blooded killer.<<<<

To the man lying dead between my feet, he was just lookin for some fun. What others feel in that scenario is irrelevant obviously. I would be willing to trade my life or freedom for vengeance.

quote:

---

And science and maths are nothing but an attempt to rationalize the complex and disorderly Universe.

---

Is the quest for knowledge wrong?

quote:

---

Why does our current knowledge not present us with a clear theory as to the behavior of all sub-atomic particles or space-time? Why doesn't it if our Universe is so rationally fashioned?

---

Your reading into what im saying way too much. Im not saying or universe is rationally fashioned, in fact i don't believe that is so. Im just saying all laws we have found out have rational thought behind them. And its not hard to see how entropy can lead to a heat death.

quote:

---

I dont know of any animals who feel hate. I know of one animal on all the planet who seeks vengeance. Emotions you speak of are rather unique to mankind. Animalistic feelings are apethetic and indifferent.

---

Saying you don't know any animals that feel hate is just proof of ignorance.

quote:

---

To the man lying dead between my feet, he was just lookin for some fun. What others feel in that scenario is irrelevant obviously. I would be willing to trade my life or freedom for vengeance.

---

Which just proves my point that emotions are always relative and for the good of the individual. They are selfish and self-serving.

Pride is an irrational emotion and there is no such thing as liberty or prosperity in its absence.
Name more than one animal besides man that shows it hates.

My cat hates having his tail messed with.

That is not hatred. If it was hatred the cat would do things to make sure no one could ever mess with its tail again. I can name one animal besides man that seeks vengeance. Vengeance is not animalistic, its virtually absent in the animal kingdom.

Soullace, I never said the quest for knowledge is wrong, I'm just saying it inexorably concludes with the same error of rationalizing what isn't completely logical. But that's the nature of the overly specific science of today. In the past, science was fused with philosophy in less concrete terms and that was unfortunately a more realistic perspective of things. Don't get me wrong, recent scientific dreaming has brought the human race forward and has also brought progress, but remain sufficiently awake to be able to recognize the reverie of supposedly indubitable science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riot_kid:
Hate is never good, it consumes you. Moving on.

---

riot kid, you fool!

do you not understand that God commands us to hate?! we are supposed to hate righteously!

but you are thinking on a worldy perspective.

God commands us to hate that which is evil! i will find the verse if you so desire.

Didn't you watch Star Wars growing up Bar Room? Seriously though there's no need to hate that which is evil to feel a need to elimate it from this earth. I don't hate Osama Bin Laden, I was tres pissed/saddened when I saw the WTC incident, but having never met Osama Bin Laden I do not hate him personally. I hate what he stands for, but not the mind numbing, soul consuming hate that some seem to be advocating. Emotions are fine, just don't let them run your lives.

Defiant, loss of cognitive function, also known as the ability to think clearly. Why is that bad? If you can't figure that out I'm done talking to you. After people have indicated (in sex and affection) they don't give a fuck what you have to say, you continue to offer you're unsolicited viewpoint. You remind me of the guy w/ the Jesus Saves T-shirt who hands out fliers on a street corner and yells religious slogans at people as they walk by. Also you believe at some point we stop growing mentally, so basically one day you just sat down and said, "From here on out I have learned everything I need to know! I will learn nothing more after this day." That's what I got out of your last post. There is always more to know! Emotions are not the highest form of human behavior, rational thought is. Do chimps build airplanes, no. Do chimps commit genocide, yes. Building airplanes is a complex rational and difficult process, Genocide, requires at most, hatred, a basic understanding of where to hit someone w/ a blunt rock and limited orginazational skills. Defiant you constantly rant about how everyone else is an animal and then through your responses portray yourself as anything but a civilized human being. You are crude, ignorant and offensive.

>>>Defiant, loss of cognitive function, also known as the ability to think clearly. Why is that bad?<<<<

Yes, stopping to rationalize vengeance, for example, only means you miss out on the initial adrenaline surge of strength. A later, logical conclusion will be, I shoulda killed the fuck, but now you have no adrenalive, and might even be afraid.

>>>you continue to offer you're unsolicited viewpoint.<<<

Isnt this a ***message board*** where people pride themselves on an open mind and free discussion of ideas?

>>>>Also you believe at some point we stop growing mentally, so basically one day you just sat down and said, "From here on out I have learned everything I need to know! I will learn nothing more after this day."<<<<

I never said that and can only imagine how sadly youve misinterpreted some other unrelated message of mine to reach that conclusion.

>>>>There is always more to know! Emotions are not the highest form of human behavior, rational thought is.<<<<

I never said they were the highest form, I said they were not animalistic. Dolphins, octopi, actually most mammals think rationally. They do not feel.

>>>>Do chimps build airplanes, no. Do chimps commit genocide, yes. Building airplanes is a complex rational and difficult process,<<<<

Chimps do all the things we do that underlie airplanes. They explore, they seek comfort, they fight. The difference is one of degree.

>>>>Genocide, requires at most, hatred
a basic understanding of where to hit someone w/ a blunt rock and limited orginazational skills.<<<<<

And?


>>>>>Defiant you constantly rant about how everyone else is an animal and then through your responses portray yourself as anything but a civilized human being.<<<<

We are all animals. I say they are all primates. This is very true, usually because their sexuality is closer to ape than man. My sexuality is distinctively human. If by civilized you mean domesticated, you are correct, Ive not been tamed by an American culture bent on making me a mindless honorless consumer of pleasure.

>>>>You are crude<<<<

I am honest.

>>>ignorant<<<<

negative.

>>>>and offensive.<<<<

Am I supposed to acquiesce and curry favor with things that sicken me?

No, shut the fuck up. When people ask for advice and you offer criticism it get's nothing done. If you don't like what you see in sex and affection don't go there. I said you can always expand your mind. You said bullshit. So you basically said at somepoint we stop learning. Am I wrong, what did you mean by that? I hope someday you wind up under the authority of someone as intolerant of your beliefs as you are of the beliefs of others. The whole world should not subscribe to one belief system. The most unstable ecosystems are the most simple ones, monocultures. I advocate people doing what they want. What do you advocate?

[This message has been edited by riot_kid (edited 10-22-2001).]

No one person can ever know everything.

The capacity of the human brain is approximately equivalent to 2 encyclopedia volumes, the mysteries of the universe itself would require more than any human's brain capacity is capable of retaining.

------------------

Humans hate and they don't necessarily always do something to make sure it doesn't happen again. That isn't required for hatred. And if he sees anyone's arm or hand going towards his tail he will bite you. It's pretty obvious he hates it.

quote:

---

I never said they were the highest form, I said they were not animalistic. Dolphins, octopi, actually most mammals think rationally. They do not feel.

---

I think you got that backwards.


There is no science behind this next statement it is my personal belief aka my hypothesis: I believe the ordering of brain function is as follows:

1) Instinct:
Biological hardwiring.

2) Emotion:
The part of my theory which needs the most work.

3) Rational Thought:
The ability to think in an orderly way. The ability to define rules of thought and to think amoung those means.


Anyone care to tear that into shreads be my guest :]

>>>No, shut the fuck up.<<<<

aww, thanks for the civility.

>>>>When people ask for advice and you offer criticism it get's nothing done. If you don't like what you see in sex and affection don't go there.<<<<<

Why should I avoid it? I thought the idea of free discussion was to let other people know when you disagree as well...Are you saying that forum would be better if one person posted something and every asshole after it just agreed and agreed?

>>>>>I said you can always expand your mind. You said bullshit.<<<<

I dont recall this incident, but Im sure youre taking it completely out of context. Was this in reference to the assholes saying being a slut is a higher conciousness?

>>>>>I hope someday you wind up under the authority of someone as intolerant of your beliefs as you are of the beliefs of others.<<<<

LoL. Yesterday was a fine example. Everyday from seven years before that as well. The rest of my life from today

>>>>The whole world should not subscribe to one belief system. The most unstable ecosystems are the most simple ones, monocultures. I advocate people doing what they want. What do you advocate?<<<<

Thats a gay ass question for me to just answer in one lil post. If I began another topic with that question, rather than think about their own answers, people would criticise me for Being Arrogant and beginning topics anew with old quotes. LOL

I said you could always learn more right in this post. You quoted me, then said bullshit right beneath it. That's where it's from. As for everyone agreeing, we don't need that, but you seem to feel the need to fling insults at everyone. Calling people sluts and whatnot for having more than one sexual partner in a lifetime, great. Why don't you try to explain the positive aspects of what you believe rather than tearing everyone down. If what you stand for is really so great paint me a picture of it w/ out resorting to ripping on what I believe in.

ex.

I believe in a world where people are free to do and think as they please. This does not include the right to hurt others physically or to tamper w/ their property. This also means you are not free to sue someone or flout the law because someone hurt your feelings. Speech is not a crime, nor are actions between two consenting adults. People should be free to lead (or fuck up) their lives as they see fit. Purity w/out the chance for temptation is a rather hollow victory for morality.

Defiant that's a rather rough summary of how I feel. Feel free to jump in w/ whatever you want.

I love how Defiant just analyzes little sections of one's posts without seeing the bigger picture. In doing so he more often than not misinterprets arguments out of context.

actually it "purest form of energy" was incorrect,

the final state of energy is heat.

and soullace you should read "end of time" by julian barbour.

there's a pardox to motion,

if you shoot an arrow at a target, after it goes halfways, it still has halfways to go,

when it goes halfways from there it still has halfways to go,

when it goes halfways from there it still has halfways to go.

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Unless it is filled with completely useless rhetoric, I tend to answer entire posts. What the fuck are you talking about?

quote:

---

the final state of energy is heat.

---

Since heat is a measure of energy exchange, I can't see how its the final stage. Thats like saying pounds is the final stage of a mass, it makes no sense.

quote:

---

there's a pardox to motion,

if you shoot an arrow at a target, after it goes halfways, it still has halfways to go,

when it goes halfways from there it still has halfways to go,

when it goes halfways from there it still has halfways to go.

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

---

Yes, every measurement has that problem if you think in recursive fractions. If you construct a series in the form of 1/n that series diverges. The arrow example consturcts a series like this:

lim as n->infinity of the sum(n, k=1, 1/2k^2) which diverges.

You call this a paradox because this thing can go on forever. Thats like trying to destroy a pencil by cutting it in half and then cut the half remaining in half. It will never happen conceptually. But if you don't think about it in fractions of fractions terms its really easy to destory a pencil. And besides heat is a measure of change in kinetic energy which is subtraction NOT division.

And besides I still have no clue what you are getting at.

Infinity?

------------------
The proof is in the pudding but I'm not very hungry and besides I don't like pudding very much except when I'm hungry for pudding and even then I'd rather have pie cause I really like pie though I don't like it very much when I don't feel like eating pie and then pudding is more likely to be appealing to me if there isn't any chocolate to be had cause I really like chocolate a real lot no matter what but there isn't any proof in chocolate unless there is but I wouldn't know cause someone ate my chocy and it wasn't me or I would have the proof if there is any in chocolate that is or is not likely to be the aproppriate chocolate for the given situation

Here is where the confusion in this forum seems to stem from: both sides seem to be trapped in their respective dogma's, content only to repeat the meaningless whinings of their intellectual superiors.
Truly, the athiest must face the idea that those who subscribe to religous beliefs have differing experiences that yourselves, and concequently will not agree with your ideas. Yet those who would have a religous dogma must understand the scorn that athiests possess for the lack of LOGICAL and scientific evidence that they are able to present.
The minds of the participants are, for the most part, already made up. Find topics that can be argued upon that are based on data, rather than topics that revert people to their basest emotions and fears.
A friend of mine once rightly said that, "To steal a man's faith, no matter if he believe in God or lack thereof, is a dangerous course of action."

If its something you cling to without evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence, then that is religious. Thats what Ive been arguing, str8 scientific method. It can be proven or disproven. Rather than argue it with that on serious grounds, people find it easier to write me off out of disagreement with other things and a hatred of me.

riot,

i do not hate osama bin laden. he isn't evil. what drives him is.

there is no such thing as an evil person. Evil is what drives us to do bad things. the only innately evil being is the anti-christ.

ALL PEOPLE ARE REDEEMABLE.

[This message has been edited by Bar room hero (edited 10-25-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Bar room hero (edited 10-25-2001).]

Bin Laden is driven by three things, all of which sound good to me. His hatred of American aid to Israel, and subsequent bullying of his people. The presence of foreign military bases in Islamic holy lands, and his hatred of the blockade against Iraq. Why is that evil?
Why is killing us evil?

that is all subject to opinion.

that isn't all that drives him. he also hates all that is american. civilians are not evil. he hates civilians. THAT type of hate IS evil because it is not a rightous hate. it is a worldly one. hating a brother is not righteous.

actual islamic people see it the same way. they shun 'evil.' they hate evil.

that 'bullying' of his people is legitamate. the 'bullying' we do is to the government in position that OPPRESSES HIS 'OWN PEOPLE.'
he starves his own peopl. i would say that the bullying done is definately legitimate because first, he is not acting as a head of state should. his responsibility is to PROTECT the lives of his people. instead he destroys their lives and oppresses them. his own family have washed their hands of him.

foriegn military bases in islamic holy lands i would say are better than local military bases.

are you meaning to tell me that we should ALLOW the weapon transaction between iraq and afghanistan? not so they can exact their revenge on the U.S., but on the rest of the world?!

just because he holds a particular belief, doesn't give him the right to kill civilians because they are in a country that happens to be economically better off than his.

defiant, one would say that your views on this topic are a tad warped.

And to others, they are objective.

You cannot say that Bin laden is evil because he follows his own beliefs. He probably thinks he is doing what is right in the eyes of his god. His values and interpretations of that God's demands may look warped to us, but to him they make perfect sense.

Just because he does not follow the ideals of western society. We have imposed our ideals upon the whole of the world, equality, democracy, liberty, but who is to say that those values and ideals are the correct ones. It is mere arrogance that causes us to think that.

Also Bin laden could not be evil. If he were he would be the devil, or a devil. In the same strain Mother teresa was not wholly good, if she were she would be an angel. Every person is a mix of Good and Evil.

"Just because he does not follow the ideals of western society. We have imposed our ideals upon the whole of the world, equality, democracy, liberty, but who is to say that those values and ideals are the correct ones. It is mere arrogance that causes us to think that."

SO RIGHT! We think in such a narrow way because we are convinced this is the only way of thinking. The trouble is bin Laden probably thinks the same way.

We are asking a question that has no answer to it: who is RIGHT OR WRONG?

Tanx Govinda.

------------------
who is out there? can you answer? If so give the rest of the world a call; we're dying to know.

0-I===>

you're right govinda we are asking the wrong question.

since this IS the way he likes to do business though,

the question should be,

his death or our death?

really a simple answer isn't it.

You see, there is no genuinely good person and no evil. All that can be asked is if Bin Laden is rational in his judgment. In my mind he isn't, he is driven by religious fanaticism, as are many others in Northern Ireland, Jews in Israel as well as Islamic fundamentalist organizations. The problem lies here that people are not able to separate religion from their daily lives and thus intolerance and bigotry arises. That is a danger of religion, another one of its subjugating elements, which impedes disntiction of rationality amongst its following.

Live a little you fag. Why do you want to be a Vulcan? Humans are so irrational, boo hoo.

------------------
"You force many to relearn about you: they charge it bitterly against you. You come close to them and yet passed by: that they will never forgive. You pass over and beyond them: but the higher you ascend, the smaller you appear to the eye of envy. But most of all, they hate those who fly."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Hmmmmmmmmmmm........

defiant,

why must you flame those who support different ideals and not actually discuss your opinions like an educated person with better priorities than to start stupid little arguments on a bulletin board?

I have discussed the topic of emotion on other threads. He can go there. My point is clear, he is being like a whiny childish Vulcan.

but you know bar room, when you think about a conversation at it's very root.

it's nothing more than an argument with a tone of civility.

"I do not use petty insults, I use genuine labels, never anything as ignorant as Nihil calling me gay, or insulting someones mother. That is what i was referring to."


"Live a little you fag."

Defiant... that was a petty attempted insult. And it wasn't a genuine label. Even IF Messer hasn't lived like you have, that doesn't make him a fag. It has nothing to do with being a fag. This petty insult of yours is pretty much the same as what Nihil said to you. No genuine label here.

defiant,

this isn't a book club where everyone reads the same thing you do. sometimes things need to be restated. you can't just expect people to look at every single post you have made to look for one insignificant rant on a generalized topic. i wouldn't say that you're that popular. hey, i may be wrong, but thats just my take.


lostmind,

while that may be true, lostmind, the taste lingers in its presentation. there is a kind way of doing things, and there is a dick way.

being negative is a wasted emotion, i'd say anyway, although ironically hard to remember when one is being negative.

Calling Messer a fag out of frustration at the end of a sentence is different than devoting topics to a baseless insult, or just repeating over again, GOD YOURE SO IGNORANT> GOD HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT!?!?! YOURE STUPID! DIE! SHUT UP! LEAVE YOU ASSHOLE!

Defiant Exile,

Insulting isn't cool.

iamyourgodnow,

Your belief is based on a rational thought. With conjecture and guessing. How do you know all of the peoples minds are made up? What if someone changes their belief viewing this topic? Not that its highly probable, it is of course possible. This is by no means a reason to post to this topic, its seems more of an outlet for discussion/ranting. Don't sell yourself short and try to catergorize our little thread. I use this thread to try to understand the other points of view. Each person has their own twist on the subject. They provide interesting thoughts about the subject I wouldn't think of becuase i don't think the way other people do.

Doesn't matter one bit. You didn't say "I do not devote topics to baseless insults." No no no... you contradicted yourself badly. Other people devoting a topic to insult you is just out of frustration also. Not really a difference. You ain't got no creditability, jack.

Defiant, you only prove to everyone what an intolerant person you are by relentlessly insulting me instead of attaining to rationally present your arguments. Fine, go ahead and call me a gay fag, but you know what? Life doesn't look very bright for those who perpetually indulge in bias.

In case you didn't know; "skeptic" is a Greek word that means "to examine". We need to examine all the evidence and make up our minds what the truth is. I think that a lot of people get college degrees but devote themselves to one particular school of thought. They follow those thoughts without question and enjoy the mutual companionship of their closed group of peers. Most never realize that their grand theories are founded on mere presuppositions that have little to do with the facts.
I think that a lot of people would believe in God right now if He personally appeared to them. If God appeared to anyone, in any form, it would be enough to convince them it was really Him! But then we wouldn't have a choice; no opportunity to grasp love's concepts. God does not want to force us to follow Him; just be willing to make that choice for ourselves!

Think about it; all the ancient religions taught that the universe had no beginning,... but one. Some taught that gods came out of sort of a watery substance and that the earth was made through great upheavals and violence between the gods. A religion is worthless unless it is grounded in scientific facts! If there is such a religion today, then we better find out what the truth is in all this! Your very life may be at stake! Should you be mistaken!

I believe the God of the Bible is the most logical explanation for our universe as we know it today. Consider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!
Second, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.
Third, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!
Fourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, mood gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location. (1)
Fifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.
Sixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." (2)
Last, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. Rather, the universe was created out of pleasure! It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Bible is the best explanation there is!

THE OTHER SOLUTIONS...

There are only three possible theories as to the reason the universe is eternal. Some religions teach that the cause and effect are equal; "God and the universe are one". This contradicts what I stated earlier that for every cause there must be an effect. "Duality" is not logical! Astrophysicist Steven Hawking stated, "People go overboard on eastern mysticism simply because it is something different that they haven't met before. But as a natural description of reality; it fails abysmally to produce results." (3)

The Steady State Cosmology Theory is the scientific equal to eastern religious thinking. The scientific version had three originators: Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It suggests that a "creation field" be added to Einstein's general relativity equations to demonstrate that matter was being created at a rate precisely counterbalanced by the universe's expansion; so that the average density of the universe remains constant.
Einstein initially agreed with this explanation and added his "cosmological constant" in order to alter his computations and preserve the idea of a universe without a beginning. However in 1931, Einstein was forced to admit his "mistake" due to the observations of Edwin Hubble. (4)
In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that all distant galaxies are retreating from us at a speed that is directly proportional to their distances from us. This means that if a galaxy is twice as far from the Milky Way, it is moving twice as fast from us. This discovery is now known as "Hubble's Law". Robert Jastrow; founder of NASA's Goddard Institute and is current director of Mount Wilson Observatory; where Hubble made his discoveries stated, "The Hubble Law is one of the greatest discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." (5) Keep in mind; Jastrow is a self proclaimed agnostic. (6) Today, the Hubble Telescope has discovered that the universe's expansion is now decelerating from an initial surge. The universe is exploding rather than expanding! This theory was soon discarded.

The second theory was called "Plasma Cosmology". It suggested that most of the universe is composed of electrically conducting gasses. Hannes Alfv'en, the originator, suggested that plasma indirectly creates a repelling effect between galaxy superstructures, casuing the expansion of the universe. Unlike the Big Bang Theory that suggests an explosion started at a single point; Alfv'en believed it was a series of "mini-bangs". He suggested that the universe expands and contracts to one percent of it's present size. Yet, for some unknown reason, the plasma blows the universe apart again, thus maintaining eternal equilibrium. (7)

The "Quasi-Steady State Cosmology" theory is a spin-off of Plasma Cosmology. Originated in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Burbridge, and Narlikar. The theory suggests that the "creation field" (from which matter is born) only exists in certain areas of high mass density. The fields alternately increase and decrease during the history of the universe. This results in slow and fast expansion. They claim that the universe is one trillion years old and that we are living in the middle of a short term slowdown in it's expansion rate. This gives the appearance of an equillibrium between collapse and accelerated expansion that would be too rapid for galaxies to form.
Both of these theories do not account for the composition of the spectrographic studies or for how the universe came out of nothing. These theories also haven't been able to explain the smooth background radiation now observed coming from every point in the sky. (More on this later)
The last theory is much like the previous one and the refutation of them both is to be equally regarded. The "Cyclic Cosmological Theory" is the belief that the density of the universe will expand to the point of a critical anti-matter amount and then reverse itself into a big squeeze. At this point, it will "re-bang" itself into a new universe again.

One can't take either of these views seriously; Einstein's theory of relativity states that once matter crunches itself into a ball, (like a black hole) nothing, not even light can escape. This is due to the magnetic pull. It takes a projectile to reach the speed of 25,000 miles per hour to leave the earth's gravity. For a body to be massive enough; like a star, it collapses under it's own gravity. Incidently black holes exist. An example of that would be Cygnus X-1; it turned out to be a collapsed supergiant whirling around an invisable object every five days.
If matter can not re-bang itself from a black hole, it can not do it if the universe was a black hole either! "Even if someday such a theory could developit won't be in regular cycles of expansions and contractions; rather it will be even greator and more chaotic ones!" (8) And this still does not explain how something could come out of nothing. George Smoot; team leader of the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite System of NASA, stated that all these theories will die out when the orginators die out. Science simply doesn't support them any longer. (9)

It is perfectly alright for someone to state his metaphysical opinions about what caused or didn't cause the universe, but it is wrong to state that science provided the information. Astrophysicist Barry Parker states "We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there is no creation, and that the universe has always been there. But this is more difficult to accept than creation! (10) All the other options point to a biblical God and natural science ends where the Bible begins!". (11)

The Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism but harmonizes with the Bible. It is the only theory that observational evidence does support. It wasn't till recently that anyone had reason to believe that there was a biblical beginning.
In 1933, George Lemaitre' became the father of the Big Bang theory. Back in 1927, Lemaitre' predicted that a premeval atom, otherwise known as a singularity, might still be detected in a form of remnant radiation. Other Big Bang theorists such as George Gamov, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman; have stated that the heat radiating from the explosion might still exist. Unlike a volcano or a microwave oven; in which heat can escape into the atmosphere, there is nowhere outside of the universe where heat can escape.
In 1965, two astrophysicists; Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey found the radiation while attempting to refine one of the world's most sensitive radio recieving devices to measure a true temperature of absolute zero. It was their hypothesis that absolute zero could be determined by directing the radio antenna towards the sky and measuring the temperature within space. No matter where they pointed the reciever, the level of radiation remained at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. They found this to be very frustrating because no matter what day or night, nor what season it was, the temperature of the radiation remained unchanged. In 1978, Arno and Robert, each, recieved the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering this amazing fact! This later became known as Cosmic (which means the entire universe) Microwave (which means radiowaves measuring less than one meter) Background Radiation (which means radiation measured everywhere).
In 1990, NASA spent $200 million dollars producing the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite. It gave a comologist a chance to make more accurate measurements of the radiation. The Microwaves matched perfectly the characteristics that the universe was once a great fireball that detonated all over the vast empty regions of what is now our universe. It is now a scientific fact that no onter theory other than the creation event could have created the universe! The results were 99.97% accurate! (12) Astrophysicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk stated that there are no known sources that can account for the source of this radiation other than the cosmic background at a constant observed level. (13)
In 1979, Dr. Alan Guth determined that the size of the universe doubles and at given intervals as the result of the initial speeds of the universe from the time that the universe began; have slowed down due to the decrease of heat in subatomic particles. (14) At the time of the explosion the temperature was too hot for particles to form and in less than a trillionth of a second later, the temperature cooled below one hundred thousand degrees Kelvin to form quarks and electrons. As the temperatures continued to fall, the quarks clumped together to form protons and neutrons, producing hydrogen our first element. At the time of the explosion, the entire universe consisted of a region a trillionth of the size of a proton. It expanded in velocity of about one fourth the speed of light. Any uneven radiation could have been smoothed out by the rapid force of expansion! The evidence is found in COBE satellite data. (15) The universe could have come from nothing, but that does not explain where the thermonuclear reactions came from, or the fact that this explosion was not random, but rather a finely tuned explosion that produced the elements necessary to create intelligent life! George Smoot wrote; "The Beginning is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians." (16) Robert Jastrow wrote; "The essentrial element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man, commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (17)
The evidence of design by a creator is discovered more clearly as we understand how the universe works. Scientists understand how the universe's laws are set within extremely narrow and critical parameters. Physicist Freeman Dyson stated; "The more I examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." (18)

Where did all the natural laws of design come from? It is superstitious to believe the laws of nature govern themselves and the universe without cause! I have a supernatural explanation, do you have a natural one?

The observational evidence listed in the next few pages will prove that the laws of astrophysics were designed by a highly intelligent creator; God. First, the carbon atomshould not exist or be exceedingly rare. In order for the carbon atom to form, it needs to be at a precise level of resonance. Resonance is the nuclear behavior of excitement within the nucleus of an atom. Nuclei is normally configured for stability and minimum energy. It can be excited as the result of colliding with other nuclei. When this happens, the proton moves into a higher orbit. A helium nuclei will collide with another to form beryllium. Then another helium nuclei collides with the short lived beryllium to form carbon. If the resonance was just a bit lower, carbon could not form. If the resonance was just a bit higher the energy level would destroy the carbon atom instantly. (19) When Hoyle calculated the odds that such resonances could occure by chance, he stated that his faith in agnosticism was greatly shaken. (20) Princeton's physicist Freeman Dyson stated that lucky accidents such as chains of carbon atoms, still could not form water, organic molecules, and the hydrogen to bridge between the molecules. (21) Even Carl Sagan admits that the laws of nature can not occur at random; "It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with the galaxies, stars, planets, life and intelligence." (22)
Second, if the ratio between the proton (which is 1836 times heavier than the electron), and the electron slightly different; there would be no chemistry, or life, or any physicists to wonder about it all! Stephen Hawking says; "The remarkable fact is that the values of their numbers seems to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (23)
Third, if the four fundamental nuclear forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak atomic structures) had been a slightly different strength; life would not be possible. The sun would cease to burn or explode like a fission bomb. (24,25)
Fourth, the natural processes alone can not explain the specified complexities of the encoded information in DNA. Hoyle, Gold, Orgel, and Arrhenius calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life that might form in one place at ten to the fourty thousandth power. (That's 1 with 40,000 zero's after it) Since there are only ten to the eightith atoms in the entire universe; this suggestion was an outrageously small probability!
Fifth, the odds that the relative strengths that two forces could balance each other (gravity: which holds a star together and electromagnetic force: which allows a star to radiate energy) in every star were altered by a mere ten to the fourtith power, we'd have a world in which all stars were either red dwarfs or blue supergiants; making it impossible for planets to support human life. (26)
Sixth, we have no modern theory why, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, our universe got into such an orderly state. The odds are ten to the tenth power times ten to the ten to the thirtieth power! (27)
Seventh, astrophysicist Richard Morris stated; "If our universe had been expanding at a rate that was slower than one part per million, then the expansion would have stopped when the universe was only thirty thousand years old, and when the temperature was still ten thousand degrees." (28) If expanding at a slightly faster rate, the universe would be devoid of stars and galaxies, and hence, the building blocks of which life is made. (29)
Eighth, there is a slight excess of matter over anti-matter. In 1932, Carl Anderson discovered anti-matter in a lab at Caltech. Emilio Segri and Owen Chamberlain generated their own anti-matter and demonstrated that when energy is converted into matter, anti-matter is equally created. Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg explained how rare this small excess of matter must have been; "If there had not been a small excess of electrons over anti-electrons, and quarks over anti-quarks, then ordinary particles like electrons and quarks would be virtually absent in the universe today. It is this early excess; estimated at one part per ten billion, that survived to form light atomic nuclei three minutes after the explosion, and after a million years, formed atoms which later was cooked into heavier elements found in stars, which ultimately provided the material of which life would arise." (30)
Ninth, the centrifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational forces of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the earth's gravity had been too weak, the moon would leave the earth's gravitational pull. If the gravity was too great, the moon would have crashed into the earth! This is also true of the earth's rotation around the sun and that of all the planets in our solar system, as well as all the galaxies to the farthest ends of our universe!

(These are only nine of twenty five total. For more information, see reference #31 in bibliography)

Our universe was born as the result of natural laws that do not seem to change. For those who think science needs more time to evaluate this situation, is not 15 to 20 billion light years enough time? (The universe is approximately thirty billion lightyears across. With the doubling effect of expansion at given time intervals, it is estimated that the age of the universe is approximately 15 billion years.)

Some people believe Hollywood's suggestion that multiple universes exist and converge upon one another like branches of a tree. Given the facts that we know to be true, if other universes do exist, (in finite numbers) there is a high probability they would not support life. Physicist/mathematician Paul Davies stated; "One may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation." (32)

Some people actually believe that life must have been sent here on a spaceship from a dying civilization and that perhaps the astronaut's bacteria survived the journey. Others have suggested that genetic material was sent to this perfect planet for some sort of lab experiment. Of course these excuses only begs the question: How did life begin in the first place? If natural laws can not explain how life began on this "ideal" planet, how can it be so at any location?

Some people believe in the ultimate game of chance; Quantum Mechanics. This is the belief that there is no reality until someone observes it. If this idea were true then looking through a telescope could alter events billions of years into the past! This suggestion gives it's enthusiast's a chance to speculate that through man's act of observation, he caused his own creation along with the conditions necessary for life!
Of course, this theory creates a which came first; the chicken or the egg problem that can go on forever! This idea still does not address the need for a first cause. Incidently, physicists have never observed any effects in our visible world and very few scientists take seriously the notion that the universe, so perfectly designed, changed because someone looked at it! Perhaps the whole universe had no existance till it was observed? But who would be outside the universe to observe it? Does this not sound like the transcendent God? Soon as these folks realize that they are wrestling with the supernatural explanation that they have strived to avoid!

Some people believe that life must exist till the end of time, in a closed universe. In order for life to survive in that hot, dense time, when the universe will contract once again; our descendents must evolve to a very different and advanced civilization. Before the end of time, our super computer-like society will achive the ability to process an infinate amount of information. At that point, which will be called the "Origin Point", we will assume the role of gods. We will process and infinite amount of thoughts, at infinite speed, our evolved supreme civilization will redefine time; ensuring an eternity for ourselves and for every living being that existed in the past. Our future descendents will view the human soul as a program that can be replicated. They will propose that this infinite intelligence will resurrect each of us, so that we might be appropriately rewarded or reformed. (33) People that are willing to consider such wild explanations can only demonstrate how impossible it is for them to avoid the evidence for design. We all must decide whether to credit the design of intelligence to God or to ourselves.

For some, the thought that humans might be the only form of intelligent life in the universe, strikes most with being extremely unscientific. Many scientists have suggested that the universe must be teeming with extraterrestrials by now, (34) in order to conform with the assumption about biological evolution. Robert Jastrow stated; "If life is common, we'll be hearing from those guys soon, because we are in a very conspicuous part of the universe right now. Our televison and radio waves are spread all around us. It is reasonable to assume that advanced technological civilizations will be aware of radio physics. There is only one radio spectrum, and it's the same everywhere in the universe." (35,36) So why have we not picked up any signals yet? If there are so many civilizations, more advanced than ours, certainly they would want to explore and colonize other planets in the galaxy! Ours would be ideal! We have the right conditions for life. So where are they?

Some people ask that if the universe is so vast; why would God make the universe so huge? With all the billions of stars and galaxies like our own, why are we so special? Astrophyicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk states that no one could exist if the universe were any smaller. They point out that life's building blocks: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and silicon; were not formed until after the first generation of stars have slowly cooked the hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements which planets are made out of. (37) Given the fact that the universe has been stable throughout it's expansion, more time results in a larger universe. Further they stated; "Hence, we realize that for there to be time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be more than a billion years old and consequently, more than a billion light years in size. The universe would have to be just as large as it is to support even one lonely outpost of life." (38)

We have only three choices. Either we decide that the universe, or mankind, or God is running the universe. Those willing to choose an alternative other than God, defies logic. The other two choices have no explanation or theory on which they can stand. Please understand that all the quotes, except one are from scientists who are not bible believing Christians. This report has not been prejudiced by a Christian viewpoint. Those who have rejected the God of the Bible have to base their conclusions inspite of the evidence and not because of it!

Some people believe that God is one with the universe. This idea is not consistent with science becuase the universe had a beginning. Belief in blind chance requires considerable faith. Taken to it's logical end; it's so pathetic that it's almost funny! Logic dictates that we should devote our short lives to finding the means to know the one outside of time and space. Although the world is filled with suffering and violence; if people seek the answer, they would find out that God has done something about it all. There is good logic in trusting the one cosmic history that fits what we know of God.

Many state that if the Big Bang were true, then it is in direst conflict with the Bible's six day account in Genesis. Yet in Hebrew, "day" means "yom", which has been translated to mean a specific period of time and not to be confused with a solor day.(39) Christian tradition also agree's with this concept, as pointed out by the first century writers; Philo and Josephus. (40) Other writers include: Augustine (41), second century apologist and martyr; Irenaeus, third century apologist; Origen, fourth century bishop of Caesarea; Basil, thirteenth century; Thomas Aquinas. (42) In the twentith century, this position was held by C.T. Scofield, A.H. Strong, and Gleason Archer.

There are also scripture references that gives a general sense of a time consuming process; including ages:

Psalm 104
Proverbs 8:22-31
Ecclesiastes 3:11a
Micah 6:3
Habakkuk 3:6

Genesis was not written specifically about when and how the universe was created, but who created it! Psalms 111:2 states "Great are the works of the Lord; they are studied by all who delight in them!"
It would be deceptive of God's character to create a universe that would appear to be billions of years old and yet be only six solar days. Starlight can only travel so fast. For the span of the universe to be thirty billion light years across; the universe must be pretty old! This suggestion does not necessarily mean that the biblical concept of Genesis would agree with Darwin's evolutionary dogmas either. However, science and the Bible agree that planets and animals were created first and that man and mammals were created last.

God created the entire universe plus self-conscious beings like Himself. Having been given a freedom of choice, these persons eventually declared their independence from God and broke His laws; which were necessary for the good life that God planned for them. The situation became very unpleasant for God and so He had two choices. He could have exterminated them; the end, the plan failed. Or, out of His caring concern and love for them; provide a solution. He could not simply forgive anyone because He had to do something about all the injustice in the world. God pronounced a just sentence (Romans 8:1); but also provided a full pardon to all who would take it. He had to be mortal because God can not die and He had to be God because only a sinless person could pay for the sins of another. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then it is not unreasonable for God to be bound by death! Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that He should have the power and the purpose to rise from the dead! In fact; it would be unreasonable for God to be bound by death!
If the infinite Creator wanted to communicate to all of us earthlings what He was like; how could He show us more clearly than becoming one of us? If He wanted to show us how serious the offense is, to break His moral law, how better than to forfeit His own life? And if He wanted to tell us how much He loves us, how could He do it more dramatic than dying for us?

Biblical faith is more than intellectual reasoning. It is the logical choice! Other religions have teachings about an historical person, but it is Christianity that's based on what a person did. Of all the religions, no other has left such lucid evidence of God's involvement with humanity. We can either appreciate God's way more deeply or we can stubbornly and foolishly decide to go our own way and see where the outcome will lead. Anyone wishing to make sure that he has taken the first step of faith, should confess his moral failings to God and then in his own words, thank God for sending His own Son Jesus to die for him! From that point on, trust Christ to lead and develop his worth in a way that would never had been known without Him.

Should anyone wish to contact me with any questions or opinions, I can be reached at OneFineFeller@msn.com. You may also write me at:

Jonathan Ante
P.O. Box 8041
Columbus, Ohio 43201-0041


------------------
If you will the rat race, your still a rat!

Bibliography


1. John Romer; PBS television series; "Testament", Jan. 1991
2. Albert Einstein, "Ideas and Opinions - The World as I See It", (New York:
Bonanza Books, 1974), p. 40
3. Steven Hawking, "Quest for the Secret of the Universe" (New York: Harper
Collins, 1991), p. 120
4. Vibert Douglas, "Forty Minutes with Einstein" (Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society of Canada, 1956) Vol. 50, p. 100
5. Robert Jastrow, "God and the Astronomers" 2nd Edition, (New York & London:
W.W. Norton & Co., 1992), p. 53
6. Robert Jastrow, interview with Fred Heeren, "Show Me God - What the Message
from Space is Telling Us about God" (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight
publications, 1995), p. 123
7. Eric Lerner, "The Big Bang Never Happened - The Startling Refutation of the
Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe" (New York: Random House,
1991), pp. 217-218
8. John Barrow and Joseph Smith, "The Left Hand of Creation - The Origin and
Evolution of the Expanding Universe" (New York: Basic Books, 1983), pp. 71-72
9. Fred Heeren, pp. 89-90
10. Barry Parker, "Creation- The Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe"
(New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988), p.10
11. Isaiah 40:26, 28
12. Ron Cowen, "COBE: A Match Made in Heaven" (Science News, Vol. 143, #3,
January 16th, 1993
13. Barrow & Silk, p.17
14. Alan Guth; interview with Fred Heeren; June 7th, 1994; p.147
15. Andre Linde, "The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe" (Scientific American,
November 1994) p.55
16. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, "Wrinkles in Time" (New York: William
Morrow & Co., 1993) p. 189
17. Robert Jastrow; p.14
18. Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe" (New York: Harper & Row, 1979)
p.250
19. Robert Kirshner; chairman of Harvard's astronomy department; "The Earth's
Elements" (Scientific American, October 1994) p. 61
20. Fred Hoyle; cited by Owen Gingerich (Engineering & Science; November 1981) p.
392
21. Freeman Dyson, p.251
22. Carl Sagan, "Cosmos" (New York: Random House, 1980) p. 260
23. Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time- From the Big Bang to Black Holes"
(New York: Bantam Books, 1988) p. 125
24. Richard Morris, "The Fate of the Universe" (New York: Playboy Press, 1982)
p. 153
25. Steven Hawking; p. 125
26. Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983)
p. 188
27. Ibid., pp. 164,168,178-179
28. Richard Morris; p. 152
29. John Barrow & Joseph Silk; p. 206
30. Steven Weinberg, "Life in the Universe" (Scientific American, October 1994) p. 45
31. Hugh Ross, "The Creator and the Cosmos" (NavPress: Colorado Springs, Color-
ado, 1994) pp. 111-114
32. Paul Davies; p. 174
33. Fred Heeren; p. 218
34. Robert T. Rood & James S. Trefil, "Are We Alone? The Possibility of
Extraterrestrial Civilizations" (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons 1981) p. 247
35. Fred Heeren; (interview with Robert Jastrow, December 15th, 1994) p. 219
36. Ibid.
37. John D. Barrow & Joseph A. Silk; p. 205
38. Ibid.
39. Henry Morris, "Scientific Creationism" (El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1991)
pp. 16-17
40. Hugh Ross, "The Fingerprint of God" Second Edition, (Orange, California:
Promise Publishing Co. 1989, 1991) pp. 16-17
41. Bernard Ramm, The Christian Voice of Science and Scripture" (London: The
Paternoster Press; 1965) p. 165

quote:

---

Originally posted by Onefinefeller:
First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Onefinefeller:
The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!

---

So there has to be a cause for every effect, yet God always existed!
WHO MADE GOD?????

It's a very well put together research paper but people would still require a leap of faith to come to the same conclusions.

[This message has been edited by govinda (edited 10-29-2001).]

Kierkegaard has an interesting view on the subject. He considers the leap of faith to be the only means of intellectual salvation for the individual. However irrational it may have seemed, Kierkegaard thought faith was the only means of gaining true happiness. I don't agree with him but it just shows you that even the most fervent of believers (and Kierkegaard was indeed a devout Christian) consider their religion to be illogical.

"Faith requires no data."- One of the Pope Piuseseses. Messer, why is logic so good? Does logic kiss you goodnight and rub your penis in the morning?

I am well and truly on Defiant's side here. Kierkegaard's argument to a "leap of faith" however, need in no way entail a religious belief system.

Your comments Messer show an incredible amount of ignorance for one who has read such masterful work (if you have in fact read it). Remember when you read philosophic classics that they remain classics because, while they may seem outdated, having to be read in the context of the time they were written, they nonetheless maintain relevance, if one attempts to reach back through the temporal distortion, to attempt to know what his words would mean if read in his time.

Who the hell are you Messer to call Kierkegaard's ideas irrational. In the very work you ctriticise, he considers the irrational in the most possible rational fashion. It seems you have fallen into the trap of confusing the subject with the message. This happens around here all the time with authors like Nietzsche but this time it has gone too far. I consider Kierkegaard to be an enormous influence on my life. He is indeed a major influence in several of my posts here I think. Right or Wrong he was a brilliant thinker.

Kierkegaard, as any existentialist, thought that the world itself was condemned to irrationality. The senselessness of life was emphasized by Kierkegaard through the different stages of human existence itself, through the epochs of pleasure, suffering and reflection a human experienced throughout this subsistence.

The leap or bound of faith was in an existentialist context, one that transmitted the futility of human life. The simple purpose of religion and that last step of spiritual conviction was to come and understand the previous illogical life one has endured. From the aesthetic, to the ethical and finally the religious individual Kierkegaard has portrayed what he considers the intellectual evolution of a man to his most perfect state. From the man who seeks the pursuit of pleasure followed by the individual who assumes his duty to society obedience to a Creator and his irrational world is seen by the thinker as the most noble of all ways of life.

I think you're trying to tell me that I misunderstood you when, I read you as saying that his ideas were irrational.

If this is what you are saying, then I apologise for my part in the misunderstanding, and for subsequently taking to my high-horse.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with his ideas or thier unstated primises or conclusions. But to say that they were irrational is another thing entirely.

BTW
I'm not sure about your saying his ideas were in an existentialist context. This to me is to suggest that existentialism is a condition which is greater than his ideas. A greaterness which precedes the idea, and in which the ideas themselves exist. The possibilities which underlie this understanting however, are themselves contrary to existential possibility. Moreover his ideas give birth to existentialism, not the other way round.



------------------
The proof is in the pudding but I'm not very hungry and besides I don't like pudding very much except when I'm hungry for pudding and even then I'd rather have pie cause I really like pie though I don't like it very much when I don't feel like eating pie and then pudding is more likely to be appealing to me if there isn't any chocolate to be had cause I really like chocolate a real lot no matter what but there isn't any proof in chocolate unless there is but I wouldn't know cause someone ate my chocy and it wasn't me or I would have the proof if there is any in chocolate that is or is not likely to be the aproppriate chocolate for the given situation

Sorry for posting 3 in a row but what I've said still doesn't say it.
This religious (spiritual is probably a better word these days) state is not to be seen as viewing the logic in your previous life as illogical. That would be irrational because logic is what it is and can only ever be logical. What you must do is suppose that logic might possibly be different to what you now know it to be. I mean isn't it even possible that logic isn't the one and only route to truth or whatever it is you seek?
What he is saying cannot be conveyed directly, nor can the experience be pursued directly. He speaks of Knights of Faith who can no more identify themselves to even each other than they can be recognised by even each other, let alone the rest of us. The experience is absolutely personal.

------------------
The proof is in the pudding but I'm not very hungry and besides I don't like pudding very much except when I'm hungry for pudding and even then I'd rather have pie cause I really like pie though I don't like it very much when I don't feel like eating pie and then pudding is more likely to be appealing to me if there isn't any chocolate to be had cause I really like chocolate a real lot no matter what but there isn't any proof in chocolate unless there is but I wouldn't know cause someone ate my chocy and it wasn't me or I would have the proof if there is any in chocolate that is or is not likely to be the aproppriate chocolate for the given situation

[This message has been edited by alwayswrong (edited 10-30-2001).]

Messer, where did you paste that from?
Existentialism is sad and I recently on AIM trounced an existentialist and got her to admit its only

This lap top is quite the fruit, I dont know why it did that. Anway, I got her to admit that existentialism is only a valid and wonderful choice if you are fond of the idea of children suffering and screaming. Since thats nowhere near healthy or natural, I think I did a good job exposing it for what it is, a gay excuse to lie to people. After all, there is no truth is there. Haha, fuckin cowardly snivelling shills.

If there is no truth and I assert that this is indeed the case. Is what I say truth or not?

Your right Defiant, This paradox must surely result from a perversion of the mind.
The more I read your words Defiant, the more I am convinced that you are right. Indeed it seems that you are always right. You are the only person, at least whom I have met, who is in fact all ways right. Is there no thing of which you are unsure? You truly astound me with your brilliance!

I just picked my nose. that is true. It can be proven false. if I had sex with a woman other than my girlfriend, then told her I didnt, that would not be true. The truth would be, I had sex with a woman other than my girlfriend. Existentialism is an excuse for people with no discipline to lie a lot to themselves and those foolish enough to associate with them.

?

Ironic to think that Nietzsche was an existentialist then. Just to clarify as well, I'm not pointing out I'm an existentialist, all I am saying is that Kierkegaard was one with certainty. To be more concrete, he was the initiator of the trend.

I've never seen any evidence of existentialist decay in Nietzsche's writings. you also claim he is against war and tribalism though, so I will not be fast to worry about your new claim.

Are you sure about that Defiant?? http://encarta.msn.com/index/conciseindex/0f/00fd4000.htm

Most philosophers since Plato have held that the highest ethical good is the same for everyone; insofar as one approaches moral perfection, one resembles other morally perfect individuals. The 19th-century Danish philosopher S�ren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against this tradition by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, "I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die." Other existentialist writers have echoed Kierkegaard's belief that one must choose one's own way without the aid of universal, objective standards. Against the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgment of right and wrong, existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be found for moral decisions. The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche further contended that the individual must decide which situations are to count as moral situations."

Maybe you should read some more of his books and stop just picking what you like out of them like a typical nazi...

I'm just playing about the nazi thing but Hitler has been accused of the same things.


------------------
you are just a copy of an imitation

Nietzsche did say all people who wish to create a new morality must first serve the old. He also said people are responsible to a greater Truth, not popular approval. He spoke of this Truth as a universal one, and mentions it explicitly many times as the service and worship of life. He did not like morality that denied life. He thought it was not true...

Somebody throw in the towel. Quite a spectacle but, this unchecked bloody slaughter is making me cringe.

That little paragraph you choose for you signature and the one I posted at http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/000266-3.html
on the bottom of the page. Both describe Nietzche turning away from ANY kind of morality other than his own and how free from the ties of the world it let him feel.

Yes, I have to agree with Govinda here. Nietzsche's writings were existentialist at the core, as were Kierkegaard's. That's what anyone versed in philosophy will tell you.

I reject everyone's morality but mine too, Im not an existentialist. He just thought he was righter than everyone else. He was not an existentialist. He believed in the existence of a Universal truth. He still believed he and anyone capable had a duty to serve life and truth. That is not existentialist.

That is your personal interpretation of "Geneology of Morals" but his other works, namely "The Gay Science" and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", emphasized the significance of the individual over the collective. They are in essence existentialist.

http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/nietzsche http://jollyroger.com/zz/yphilo1d/Nietzsche%2CFriedrichhall/cas/15.html http://members.aol.com/KatharenaE/private/generalpop.html

Everyone of these pages contain both Nietszche and existentialism, I was going to put more for you but I can't be asked. It's like talking to a brick wall.

>>>That is your personal interpretation of "Geneology of Morals" but his other works, namely "The Gay Science" and "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", emphasized the significance of the individual over the collective. They are in essence existentialist. <<<

Actually I was referring most to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It is the only Nietzsche I brought with me to school, the rest are still at home. The collective vs the individual is an irrelevant conflict. The fact still remains he believes those capable of knowing truth have a responsibility to cultivate it. Existentialists do not believe in obligation. They do not believe in a truth. Existentialists do not believe in life, or evolution. Zorothustra does.

*walks into a wall out of carelessness*

*kicks wall, wall doesn't budge*

*sees futility of enterprise and desists*

You met all existentialists have you Defiant?



------------------
Climb up here yourself. Experience the depth of my lofty position. Know the profundity of these heights. Then, my ambrosia you may taste.

What a sheepish comeback. Ive not cataloged every living creature, but I know with certainty they were all born of some parents.
Fact remains, Nietzsche is not one of you, who glorifies the individual as an automatic God and arbiter of morality. There are steps. There are steps because there is a greater truth to be learned. That is not existentialist. Quote all the assholes you want, that doesnt change this.

I have no aspiration to be one of what he is anymore than he to what I am. That's the point. Existentialism isn't the lable of definition you seem to think it is. It is a state of being, not a fucking description or list of rules or something. Describing someone as Existentialist doesn't describe their personality,likes & dislikes, wider system of beliefs or whatever. Existentialism is an experience not a fucking religion. Step out of the play-pen of your mind and even you can experience it.



------------------
Climb up here yourself. Experience the depth of my lofty position. Know the profundity of these heights. Then, my ambrosia you may taste.

Another knock out blow it seems.

This time, stay down you pathetic bigot!

Hmmmmm....bad blow to Defiant's infallible doctrine.

I was taught that Existentialism summed up existence, truth, and reality by one's conciousness and perception. Nietzsche didnt do that.

Don't panic, the babbling is normal. It means he is coming round.

Probably.

HMMM?
I smell intoleranceb and hate.


I love it. This is the shit that needs to go down round here. If we all had religion would it be religion? I certainly don't believe in any religion at the moment, but fuck do I know? Much less, fuck do you know?
To all of you out there: fuck your views, fuck your opinions, and skull fuck your way of life!
All of you need to take 10 minutes and think, yeah I know it may hurt some of you but try, on those comments I posted. Superiority is inferiority. And until I get fragged by any form of a guiding force, then I can be athiest. Likewise, until someone proves its inexistance you can be religious.

Now I want to see some fighting, 1 2 3 go!

------------------
���< If only more people fragged each other online, there would be more peace and understanding out there.>

And read the works of Lao Tzu you bastrads!!!

Agent, you dont need a god to have a religion.
>>>Don't panic, the babbling is normal. It means he is coming round.<<<

Is that wrongspeak for, "Shit hes right. Lets throw another stupid insult at him so we can foam with hatred in our rational glory," ?

Yeah It's me.

Defiant, go away! You have managed to discredit yourself around here to the max.
Even if you do somehow guess something relevant for once. It probably won't even be recognised as anything more than rubbish. You're probably right about others not giving you a fair go because of thier prejudice against you. You've reaped what you have sown. There is nothing left here for you to make a fool of yourself about. We now expect your worst at all times. Your worst I must say, is as tame as the lamb I had for dinner tonight.




------------------
You tried and I cried - I pried and you were shy.
I shied and you cried - I tried and you had to hide.

What the fuck are you talking about? Its not my fault people foam at the mouth like Pavlov's dogs when I speak. That speaks nothing of my stances. Why is anything you say relevant, you never, ever use any information, just stupid wording.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
For those that use the dented logic of "everything must have been created..." here's a tough one for you. Who created God?

---

Why has about 4 pages of posts been made with none of them making views on this rather excellent question?

didn't i post something to that effect.

why does everything have to have a beginning and an end?

time is only a product of this universe, and there are some who debate it's very existance in the universe www.julianbarbour.com

can't something just be?

if ten dimensional superstring is correct, the universe wasn't created, it always existed, with 4 dimensions expanding outward to "create" our universe and six dimensions collapsing towards infinity.

how about my profound question, if everything is here came a hydrogen gas cloud at the instant of the big bang,

where did dna come from?

or does hydrogen gas have a genetic imprint?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
or does hydrogen gas have a genetic imprint?

---

It does have a genetic imprint in a way. If you put an element in a spectrometer (i think its this device) then you see different color patterns for every element no?

Lost Mind: I only use the 'who made God' question when someone starts telling me that every cause has an effect and starts giving me the 'who created the universe' speeches.

A spectrometer analyzes chemical composition Moose. Not a genetical imprint. Something has to be alive to have that. Is hydrogen gas alive? No.

Hydrogen might not be alive but the chemical composition of every element is unique to that element alone. I'm saying that the chemical composition is LIKE a genetic imprint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
what is it that makes us imperfect?
... the perfection of everything being so simple is not an element of chance.

---

Something that is, what it is, is perfect. I think, then maybe if humans were created by god to be imperfect, then maybe only humans that are imperfect are in fact perfect in the eyes of god.

Don�t that string stuff help tie up all those crazy quanta pieces into a nice unified bundle? Okay, well maybe not ....

Jadi

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
Tell me this, is there scientific proof of the existence of God? It sure as hell is the easier and least painful path to take, yet the most deceitful and devious one at that.

---

That weren't a very smart question. Also, who the hell cares, if there is any scientific proof for god (now do you understand that humor), this question ain't got no real value right ... you just hav'en fun.

I may just be a little more authentic then you, but it is due to experience not intelligence. Many time intelligent folks are just regurgitating your learn�en ain�t I right.

I know some pseudo savants that could trip-up some of this anti-god logic, but if someone loves someone then I say; �let�em get married ....� So, if the god concept makes you happy, then god-dang who am I to say someone may be a fool for being happy. Many of these kind of folks are stronger and better then the most educated fools. Sometimes, when I day-dream, I wish I could be like those peace loving, caring humans that like the god concept.

You strength is not their weakness and their strength is not your weakness. Let us all find something of consequence before we die.

Jadi

quote:

---

Originally posted by jadiba:

Your strength is not their weakness and their strength is not your weakness. Let us all find something of consequence before we die.

Jadi

---

Mama Theresa of Calcutta � She found something of consequence and (I think) it weren�t the religion or god thing. Be ....


Jadi

Apart from grammar, spelling and syntax in your responses, which I will ignore for now and set myself to the task of deciphering what you mean, here is what I reply:

There is nothing of consequence in life, hence why pursue it? Religion, morality, all that deceives you and before you are able to halt yourself you dedicate your life to the pursuit of something that doesn't even exist.

>>>>There is nothing of consequence in life, hence why pursue it?<<<<

Do you have a penis? I have a penis. We wouldnt have penises if nothign we did was of consequence.

>>>>Religion, morality, all that deceives you and before you are able to halt yourself you dedicate your life to the pursuit of something that doesn't even exist.<<<<

Morality and religion dont have to decieve, again Messer, just the ones you dont like do that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
grammar (maybe intentional), ...
There is nothing of consequence in life, hence why pursue it? ... something that doesn't even exist.

---

Mr. Knife,

Your cutting edge would leave some one as timid as myself depressed and suicidal. With nothing of consequence in life, hence why not pursue death. Regretfully, I must acquiesce to reality or fantasy, but if your accepted reality is less fulfilling than my currant fantasy, well then, I must choose to sustains myself. I agree my sustenance is not real, but I consider your reality logical, suspect, and undesirable.

I am happy that you think, because my whole self/faith/religion is based on thinking. With out delusions and what-ifs� I would be nothing. Without dreams and vision we would not see the other.

I agree nothing is of consequence until I decide it is of consequence to me. Then due to my reality (in which humans [which may or may not exist] are of consequence, �TO ME�) I consider that; what I have deemed of consequence, may not be of consequence to others, and avoid reality conflicts (also of consequence) as best I can.

In a beer induced conversation with an old theoretical mathematician (I knew back years ago) we decided that the greatest artist and worst philosophers were theoretical mathematician. Theoretical mathematician have the artistic ability to create a virtual/alternate reality in their mind and then externally express (equations on canvas) the beauty/perception of what they create to others. Philosophers, we decided, would never waste their time on such frivolous pursuits like proofs for Fermat's Last Theorem (1630) or the Shimura-Taniyama-Weil�s Conjecture (1986), or Andrew Wiles� Proof (1993). I am not a mathematician ( I am maybe just a simple pseudo-savant) that remembered conversations about Fermat and recognized the aesthetic significance (without the artistic ability) of the others when they painted their picture. The untouchable beauty .... I hope that one day you will sit down with a theoretical mathematician who will describe Shimura and Taniyama curved space or at least see an animated computer graphic of their curved space.

Thought/Beliefs/Guesses, in my reality, are of great consequence and substance. It is regrettable that the substance part is not measurable (in many cases not even noticeable) in our limited 3D environment.

Nuf said; �Reality is a self-induced hallucination.�

Jadi

how can you say religion and morality deceive you?

let's use two words that are exactly the same and you will see you are driven by them too,

which means what you think is,

isn't?

which means their is a purpose to life,

if your beliefs and ideals are decieving you that is.

Dont ask Messer to make sense dude.

Do I sense some hypocrisy here Defiant?

Probably. Im sure theres a mirror somewhere near you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
how can you say ...
if your beliefs and ideals are decieving you that is.

---

As the Knight of the Holy Sepulchral (Indiana Jones� friend) said; �carefull how you choose and choose wisely�.

Mr. Messer is very understandable .... Y�all just got to read some more stuff on the internet

Jean-Paul Sartre, 1905�80, French philosopher and author, a leading exponent of EXISTENTIALISM. His writings examine the individual as a responsible but lonely being, adrift in a meaningless universe with a terrifying freedom to choose. He as a self-declared existentialist stated, existence precedes essence: there is no God and no fixed human nature; thus, each person is totally free and entirely responsible for what he or she becomes and does.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, 1844-1900, German philosopher who reasoned that Christianity's emphasis on the afterlife makes its believers less able to cope with earthly life. He argued that the ideal human being, the Ubermensch, would be able to channel passions creatively instead of suppressing them.

Existentialism - A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of the individual experience in a hostile or indifferent universe, regards human existence as unexplainable, and stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Nope, Mr. Messer and folks, I ain�t an existentialist and if I said I were I�d dang sure be a pseudo-intellectual.

Jadi Ba

I'm glad that at least someone doesn't misinterpret me.

He didnt interpret anything. Im not sure what the hell the point of his post was, but if you took it as him saying Nietzsche was an existentialist, you are slow. All he did was list three definitions. The only thing they have in common is that they are on the same list.

The fact that he placed the three in the same post does show that there is a relationship between them, that link being the fact that they were all followers of the same philosophical trend: existentialism.

Friedrich Nietzsche- German philospher who stressed the morality of strength and right of might ("Strength is the morality of the higher man, and it is mine.")

Horatio Hornblower- British navy guy on some A&E Series and star of popular novels Im guessing.

Michael Jackson- Late twentieth and early 21st century entertainer notorious for his racially ambiguous changing appearance and fondness of pre-pubescent boys.

Messerschmidt- Virginal school boy of the low countries with no life experience who likes to paste the writing of philosophers to posture himself as learned, but who falls for transparent and simple rhetorical tricks.


Those are all in a list. Must have some commonality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Defiant Exile:
Friedrich Nietzsche- German philospher who stressed the morality of strength and right of might

Those are all in a list. Must have some commonality.

---

Yoooo! Deaf,

Mr. Messer may at times seam naive, but he is thinking and well educated; However, you are well educated, parochial, and ill tempered for a thinking person. The list does go together. Sartre, Nietzsche, and existentialism have far more in common concepts then opposing positions. I suggest you return to your studies, because both Sartre and Nietzsche are existentialist. They may have expressed different views/perspectives, but the overall concepts of both are very much existentialist, of course ... with the expected personality tint/flavor. Nietzsche never knew Sartre, and Sartre attempted to be a bit more nebulous and authentic than Nietzsche ... it all still ends up on the same plate.

Jadi Ba

Existentialists say perception defines reality. They believe there is no reality without the individual. They believe there is no truth or motivation to anything other than what individuals assign. None of that is true of Nietzsche. I have read, but see, I have this habit of actually reading nietzsche, not some poser professors comments on it. When you do that, you get a closer, realer look.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Defiant Exile:
Existentialists believe there is no truth or motivation to anything other than what individuals assign. Some of that is true of Nietzsche.

---

All you need to do is flavor it with some Nietzsche taint.

Jadi

What? Why did you just manipulate my quote?

To make it true Defiant.

He made it less right. Some is technically right because ALL of it was right. Regardless, even SOME of those points not ringing true makes him something other than an existentialist.

If some of it its true Defiant, than Nietzsche exhibits certain existentialist themes in his writing, making him partly existentialist. You do notice how contradictory it is to affirm that because someone is not completely something he is not that specifif something at all.

damnit. i WONT let this post reach the size of DYI religon!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Defiant Exile:
He made it less right. Some is technically right because ALL of it was right. Regardless, even SOME of those points not ringing true makes him something other than an existentialist.

---

I agree, to be truely an existentialist you must be something other than just an existentialist. Self must never be limited by definintion. Also, self can never be more than what really exist.

Theology and mythology are interesting subjects, but really have no definable existance beyond discussion.

Then again, I ain't looked at the books in years on these topics ..., so what da-heck do I know for sure.

HAVE FUN (sort of Nietzsche) ....

Jadi Ba

That's precisely why Nietzsche is also existentialist, because his philosophy is very individualistically based, a quality found among Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Sartre.

It does not define reality as individual perception. That is what it means to be an existentialist. That is what Nietzsche does not do. He is not an existentialist.
But some kid put him in a list with another one, it MUST be true.

Give us one solid reference to something someone at least half learned wrote in support of the theory that: Nietzsche was not an existentialist.
We have seen plenty to the contrary. It seems amazing to me that you are still arguing this otherwise irrelevant point.




------------------
Climb up here yourself. Experience the depth of my lofty position. Know the profundity of these heights. Then, my ambrosia you may taste.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
How can faith by of such wide acclaim?

---

It is really quite simple. I can explain it in a few sentences.

Stupid ignorant people find stupid ignorant ideas and latch onto them. Stupid ideas will find you wherever you go. You have to look yourself to be educated of the ideas of men with great ken, because these ideas are usually suppressed /discouraged/ unpopular / misinterpreted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by grey_run:



Faith trancends reason.

---

One of the few arguements made by theists that has truth to it!

Religious faith takes reason and murders it in the most vile, horrid way possible, by depriving men of the ability to reason. That is how it transcends it.

[This message has been edited by Peter_Kropotkin (edited 11-19-2001).]

Faith is an aberration for the rational individual.

Rational individuals all have faith. Faith is how knowledge is passed down from generation to generation, we all have faith in the body of scientific knowledge and we assimiliate it.

You have to be more specific. There is faith, as in trust, and there is religious faith which I agree is a demacration line for rational thought and absurdity.

any one for sunday shcool?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


------------------

That really helped, those satanic images. I really appreciate it.

Faith isn't absurd. It's just interpretation of the world, and is just as credible as Darwin's theory. I'd have nothing against it if it wasn't responsable for society's perils, such as war, and the backward elements of culture that have woven their way into politics and are detrimental to maintaining the free world.

------------------
Brought to you by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Faith is absurd because it has no rational, credible, scientific basis. It springs from the inability to explain certain phenomena, ignorance basically.

I just wanted to add my name to this large topic

I'm sorry but I haven't read the entire thread but when I was reading the bit I read I saw the one hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong theory repeated many times. This has been disproved theoretically and in reality so many times it's not worth talking about.

Remember that the vast majority of people have a great deal of trouble with any complex idea. This does not lend its self to a society where the majority view is correct or even accurate. This it must be pointed out is also at the root of every religion as it started out but a small band of people kicking a system (Romans in the case of Christianity). However as time goes on the ideals become dumbed down to the point where the idea is no longer a good generalistic way to live your life.

This compares to a situation where children are brought up to think for them selves form which solid foundations they could make non-generalised moralistic values that would lead without any ten commandments crap to a better society. And guess what this isn't a new idea, it's based on the rules of Solon, a leader who truly followed the ultimate idea of only those who do not want to lead can be allowed to.

------------------
~Kameron
Carpe Aptenodytes!

quote:

---

Originally posted by MesserschmidtBf109:
Faith is absurd because it has no rational, credible, scientific basis. It springs from the inability to explain certain phenomena, ignorance basically.

---

I could say the same thing about scientific theories, superstring theory and evolution are but just theory. Just because you can't prove or disprove something doesn't make it non-existant or existant, either it exists or it doesn't, our opinions have nothing to do with that condition.

Alot of science is based on previous findings and common sense. Common sense said the earth was flat and the center of the universe, so as you can evidently see, how you interperet something and what the actuality of the situation is are two different things entirely. either one could be right or wrong.

------------------

Well said!

Props big dark man



------------------
You can hold yourself back from the sufferings of the world, this is something you are free to do and is in accord with your nature, but perhaps precisely this holding back is the only suffering that you might be able to avoid. ~Franz Kafka

Since I don't feel like rephrasing all the arguments I stated before in Jadiba's thread I'll just past them here.

"Belief in God is unrealistic as there is no proof of his existence. Don't try to argue that there is no proof of the opposite, because the question here is if He exists. You have created an argument based on the existence of God, now you must justify his existence with concrete proof. Take the example of a court case. To prove the guiltiness of a prisoner you must corroborate that he is guilty by presenting evidence to support your argument. You can't simply claim he is guilty because there is no evidence to demonstrate his innocence.
Furthermore, you can't simply claim that he exists because the Universe is orderly and you cannot explain this by any other means. A rational conclusion can never be deduced from the ignorance surrounding a question. You ignore why the Universe is structured, hence you attribute its existence to a supreme being. That isn't logical as you are jumping to the conclusion that something you do not understand must be work of a greater self. By using that argument, science would not have progressed as all would have been attributed to God in the first place, when nothing concerning the laws of nature was known.

Moreover, the adequacy of the God explanation in some instances isn't evidence of its veracity. A scientific explanation must indeed be adequate to be correct, however an adequate explanation is not automatically a proven theory. You theists seem to skip over these rational arguments quite often."

Messer,
in your last paragraph here you, seem to be saying that both, "God explainations" and "scientific explainations" can have a quality you refer to as "adequacy". Further that this "adequacy" makes them "correct" but, not necessarily proven theories.

I have to ask.

What the fuck are you trying to say man?

Dude, you cannot comprehend that which is beyond all rational thought.

There is science so baffling that if you combined every intellegent brain in the world and encompassed all present-day knowledge it would drive them insane trying to figure it out.

I could take science to court and disprove all scientific theories on creation based on scientific facts. I think ill do so right now.

Cause and effect, you must have a cause to generate an effect.

Point of origin, everything and I mean everything has a point of origin, nothing is "self creating".

So I can now deduce that if the state of absolute nothingness ever existed, which it must have in some point because all matter must have origin, then the conditions for the creation of the universe can never be met.

You can't make gold out of thin air and if there was ever nothing, then there is no medium by which to create. Lets say aliens created us, ok, what created them , and what created that, and so on and so forth.

Science tries to say all of the universe was a direct result of spontaneous generation which is the most absurd superstition in the world. All matter originated from a big bang that came from nothing, or if your a superstring-ist a larger big bang that stemmed off to create separate dimensions.

BUT YOU CAN NOT GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING! And ALL THINGS MUST HAVE ORIGIN! So science is an infinite loser in the point of creation, it couldn't, can not, and never will be able to explain how we came to be without blatantly contradicting itself.

Will the defendant please rise.

We, the jury, by analysing science and discovering that we cannot be here today based on its principles, and reguarding the creation of all things, in the case of "Science vs. religion"; find the plantiff; "Science"; guilty on 2 counts of self-contradiction.

Ruling goes in favor of "religion", the defendent. Case closed, *wham!*

------------------


[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 11-26-2001).]

You read Thomas Aquinas shitty "proof" that God exists or you read some idiot who heard his weak proof and parroted it. This proof has been refuted, I would imagine millions of times before I was born, but it seems we must infinitely repeat this refutation for the benefit of theists.

>>Dark Magneto: "Cause and effect, you must have a cause to generate an effect.

Point of origin, everything and I mean everything has a point of origin, nothing is "self creating"."

So what is the point of origin of God? What caused God? The theists maintain he has always existed. We can just as easily say that the universe has just always existed.

Also I am no expert on the Big Bang Theory but that theory has never makes mention of the universe appearing out of nothing. I will give a laconical summation:

The universe as we know it billions of years ago was a macroscopic, finite point in the void of space. There was hot plasma all over the place which fueled an explosion the effects of which continue as we speak, for the universe is still expanding. Now the universe is not infinetly dense and finite in size, the converse is true; it is infinite in size and finitely dense. For every action there is an equal, opposite reaction. This theory fits with what all the scientific knowledge we have accumulated.

the universe is infinite in size?

i suppose flying a plane around the earth and never reaching a border where one is stopped makes the earth infinite in size as well?

point of origin exists within the universe alone.

time is an element which ORIGINATED with the creation of the universe.

and newer theories have arisen that question the legitimacy of time AND motion. since both have to be measured exclusively by the change from one now to the next. but i won't get into that here.

just try to imagine that peter.

there is no time. there is only now.
there is no motion. there is only a position in now.

both of which require energy to change the face of now.

so which do you believe?

the scientists who say there is ten dimensional space-time?

or the scientists who say there is only a three dimensional now?

which is right?
which is wrong?
when neither can be proven or disproven at this point in time?

kind of like god.

will it be the majority of scientists who support 10 dimensional space time asking you to blindly accept the existance of 6 dimensions which cannot be seen, measured, or examined?

or will it be the minority of scientists who take the simplest explanation of everything existing within a single moment called right now?

kind of funny how the majority of SCIENTISTS are pushing the belief of dimensions which cannot be seen, measured, or examined, and you ridicule people who believe in a being which cannot be seen, measured, or examined.

at least RIGHT NOW, anyways.

Messer...

Have ever tried LSD?

What did you think?

Im not saying it's proof that some sort of "God" exists, I', just saying that it contradicts itself.

Where did all these big bang "gases" come from? Did they, ohh, I dunno, create themselves? If the universes point of origin lies within itself then that sounds like spontaneous generation to me.

------------------

Magneto, 5000 years ago people thought lightning was a product of the fury of the gods. Today we know it is due to the accumulation of charges in the ground and in clouds. My point is that you can't just assume religion is correct just because there is no explanation for the origin of the Universe. You can't deduce something is correct when you actually ignore the truth. You can't say God created the Universe just from the fact that nothing else reasonable seems to point to the Big Bang. So for the time it is unrealistic to assume God even exists and created the Universe because there is no CONCRETE proof of that. Just because we don't doesn't mean it was God, and since his existence hasn't even been proven faith as a whole seems irrational.

Well I was just showing that religion has 1 up on science in creation theory since scientific terms of creation have shown to be impossible due to the laws.

I'm trying to point out the fact that we will never know, I may not be right, you may not be right, but there is an absolute truth reguarding the matter, the question is as to what it is.

Over 2,000 prophecies in the Bible have come true since it's inception, now thats saying something. You don't just happen to get 2k "coincidences", I find that a more believable source than scientific contradictions.

~Dark_Magneto

------------------