Me and my friend figured out god when we were tripping on acid about a week ago. God is a 15 year old kid who is just having fun with all of us and trying to impress his friends, just like we had little ant farms when we were kids. Just my 2 cents.
faith & religion
- Thread starter rahvin
- Start date
Wolfman Von Jones
The trouble with you
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Misanthrope: You are once again making oceans out of a single raindrop - but knowing that you enjoy it, I will let you have your fun without my interference. 
There's just this one thing in your writing that keeps bugging me: it is either rational or irrational - not racional or irracional. Note the spelling, please, for every time you use that word (and you do use it often) I get confused of whether or not you are talking about some race-related things.
To Fueledbymetal: Don't care about Misanthrope's foul language - he is occasionally a nice fellow, after all. But do heed his words, for he has some point in them - just don't get caught in his way of speaking out his mind immediately and without mercy.
-Villain (amen)
There's just this one thing in your writing that keeps bugging me: it is either rational or irrational - not racional or irracional. Note the spelling, please, for every time you use that word (and you do use it often) I get confused of whether or not you are talking about some race-related things.
To Fueledbymetal: Don't care about Misanthrope's foul language - he is occasionally a nice fellow, after all. But do heed his words, for he has some point in them - just don't get caught in his way of speaking out his mind immediately and without mercy.
-Villain (amen)
@misanthrope: hmmm... if i'm not mistaken it was you, mr. god-you-are-the-most-stupid-fucking-idiot-i've-seen, who mentioned that here on the dt board we could bring on a religion thread without fighting.
i agree that on some issues you do have a point (for instance, fueledbymetal's sticking to church because of mental laziness, or the fact that god's manifestation to an elected people might be seen as racist), however fueledbymetal wasn't disrespectful or intolerant, and if you (of all ppl! ) felt disrespected, i'm sure he really didn't mean it.
rational minds, btw, are usually perfectly ok with believing in god. they tend to frown on superstition, but they are as keen on god's existence as any ignorant fool. the reason - as far as i see, not being a rational mind nor a believer - is that no matter how many physical or chaos-based explanations you might find for anything to happen or having happened, the reason, if there is one, stays something utterly different and thus allows room to believe it belongs to a supernatural entity.
rahvin.
i agree that on some issues you do have a point (for instance, fueledbymetal's sticking to church because of mental laziness, or the fact that god's manifestation to an elected people might be seen as racist), however fueledbymetal wasn't disrespectful or intolerant, and if you (of all ppl!
) felt disrespected, i'm sure he really didn't mean it.rational minds, btw, are usually perfectly ok with believing in god. they tend to frown on superstition, but they are as keen on god's existence as any ignorant fool. the reason - as far as i see, not being a rational mind nor a believer - is that no matter how many physical or chaos-based explanations you might find for anything to happen or having happened, the reason, if there is one, stays something utterly different and thus allows room to believe it belongs to a supernatural entity.
rahvin.
@Misanthrope:
"Your entire comment shows deep disrespect and intolerance towards the ideas of others"
I haven't disagreed with anybody's ideas in my post - I simply stated my personal views and experience.
I definitely don't want to get into a pissing match with anybody, but I feel i defintely have to clear a few things up. My intention was only to provide another view on religion and seeing as how this thread is already several pages long I wanted to keep it as short as possible.
"First of all you give us your patetic atempt to look smart saying you are a science man, wich only makes you look more stupid ."
Stating my background was not an attempt to look smart or demonstarte my intelligence. If you'd like to discuss that, PM me and we can discuss it privatley because it is outside the scope of this thread. I was simply trying to demonstrate that I have a backgound of taking a logical approach to probolem solving.
"since no racional mind can believe in god and irracional minds have no place in science"
This is a very broad generaliztion. For example, you should be familiar with John Nash's story form the current popularity of the movie based on his life "Beautiful Mind". His mental state could definitely qualify as being irrational yet he won a Nobel prize for his scientific achievement.
"Second of all, after giving us the typical chatolic attitude of "Im better than you but im not allowed to openly say it like that i must hide like the stupid rat i am" "
I don't think I'm better than anybody. My conclusions are based on my experiences and everybody's experiences are different. I think my views are right just like you think your views are right. I haven't disperpected anybody's view's (ie told them they're stupid) and I haven't and won't hide from anybody.
"you proceed to say there must be a god because you are too fucking lazy to think about a better explanation. So much for your science."
What evidence do you have that I'm lazy? I think about this subject everyday. I am constantly re-examing the facts that are known to me. If something were to convice me that I'm wrong, I'd have no problem changing my views and admitting my mistake.
It would be just as easy for me to say people that are agnostic or aetheist are lazy because they don't want to go to church, but I know that's not true. Like I just said above, our experiences are different so we're bound to come to different conclusions - I'm sure many of us struggle equaly trying to figure these issues out.
"Then you proceed onward onto the realms of stupidity saying God presented himself to the jews, thats about the most elitist thing ive ever heard. You are better off saying god created everyone but everyone but the jews was a big mistake cause he had to ask the jews to ilustrate everyone else. Thats just as dumb as saying black people are inferior and it has no place here, you cannot hide behind politically correctness your views claims god is a racist and you better accept it cause is so self evident everyone should see it as you do."
You have defintely taken what I was saying the wrong way. As I stated when I wrote this part I was trying to keep it as brief as possible. My reference to God making his presence know to the Jews was just my effort at paraphrasing (I was hoping it wouldn't be misinterpreted, but it was, so I apologize to any I'ne offeneded). As for God making his presence known to other areas of the world and other groups of people, that's one part of the RC church that I'm not 100% on board with because I think it's certainly possible. I won't refute anybody's claims that God has.
"And last but no least you take your precautions, you know ( whenever you are concious of it or not ) this kind of response was due to happen and you try to take cover and make everyone who flames your stupid fucking commet look like a bitter asshole who is picking a fight, thats a big mistake because im actually AM a bitter asshole who is picking fights so you can go ahead and put the other cheeck so i can knock the rest of your fucking teeth out."
I'm not trying to make anybody look like a bitter asshole and I don't mind if somebody wants to have a discusiion about disagreeable parts of my post. It would have been tough to express all of my ideas while covering all possible arguments in a single post. As stated by others above, there aren't a lot of Christain views stated in these forums, so I'm just trying to provide balance (and hopefully pertinent information) to the discussion.
Cheers!
"Your entire comment shows deep disrespect and intolerance towards the ideas of others"
I haven't disagreed with anybody's ideas in my post - I simply stated my personal views and experience.
I definitely don't want to get into a pissing match with anybody, but I feel i defintely have to clear a few things up. My intention was only to provide another view on religion and seeing as how this thread is already several pages long I wanted to keep it as short as possible.
"First of all you give us your patetic atempt to look smart saying you are a science man, wich only makes you look more stupid ."
Stating my background was not an attempt to look smart or demonstarte my intelligence. If you'd like to discuss that, PM me and we can discuss it privatley because it is outside the scope of this thread. I was simply trying to demonstrate that I have a backgound of taking a logical approach to probolem solving.
"since no racional mind can believe in god and irracional minds have no place in science"
This is a very broad generaliztion. For example, you should be familiar with John Nash's story form the current popularity of the movie based on his life "Beautiful Mind". His mental state could definitely qualify as being irrational yet he won a Nobel prize for his scientific achievement.
"Second of all, after giving us the typical chatolic attitude of "Im better than you but im not allowed to openly say it like that i must hide like the stupid rat i am" "
I don't think I'm better than anybody. My conclusions are based on my experiences and everybody's experiences are different. I think my views are right just like you think your views are right. I haven't disperpected anybody's view's (ie told them they're stupid) and I haven't and won't hide from anybody.
"you proceed to say there must be a god because you are too fucking lazy to think about a better explanation. So much for your science."
What evidence do you have that I'm lazy? I think about this subject everyday. I am constantly re-examing the facts that are known to me. If something were to convice me that I'm wrong, I'd have no problem changing my views and admitting my mistake.
It would be just as easy for me to say people that are agnostic or aetheist are lazy because they don't want to go to church, but I know that's not true. Like I just said above, our experiences are different so we're bound to come to different conclusions - I'm sure many of us struggle equaly trying to figure these issues out.
"Then you proceed onward onto the realms of stupidity saying God presented himself to the jews, thats about the most elitist thing ive ever heard. You are better off saying god created everyone but everyone but the jews was a big mistake cause he had to ask the jews to ilustrate everyone else. Thats just as dumb as saying black people are inferior and it has no place here, you cannot hide behind politically correctness your views claims god is a racist and you better accept it cause is so self evident everyone should see it as you do."
You have defintely taken what I was saying the wrong way. As I stated when I wrote this part I was trying to keep it as brief as possible. My reference to God making his presence know to the Jews was just my effort at paraphrasing (I was hoping it wouldn't be misinterpreted, but it was, so I apologize to any I'ne offeneded). As for God making his presence known to other areas of the world and other groups of people, that's one part of the RC church that I'm not 100% on board with because I think it's certainly possible. I won't refute anybody's claims that God has.
"And last but no least you take your precautions, you know ( whenever you are concious of it or not ) this kind of response was due to happen and you try to take cover and make everyone who flames your stupid fucking commet look like a bitter asshole who is picking a fight, thats a big mistake because im actually AM a bitter asshole who is picking fights so you can go ahead and put the other cheeck so i can knock the rest of your fucking teeth out."
I'm not trying to make anybody look like a bitter asshole and I don't mind if somebody wants to have a discusiion about disagreeable parts of my post. It would have been tough to express all of my ideas while covering all possible arguments in a single post. As stated by others above, there aren't a lot of Christain views stated in these forums, so I'm just trying to provide balance (and hopefully pertinent information) to the discussion.
Cheers!
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
*rahvin brings flowers to misanthrope*
cheer up, the sun is shining!
how weird, you're not one for dropping out of discussions. insults, yes. bad words, surely. completely uncalled for attacks, a dime a dozen. but not letting matters fall this way.
are we still worthy, btw? i kinda liked your verve, most of the times.
rahvin.
cheer up, the sun is shining!
how weird, you're not one for dropping out of discussions. insults, yes. bad words, surely. completely uncalled for attacks, a dime a dozen. but not letting matters fall this way.
are we still worthy, btw? i kinda liked your verve, most of the times.
rahvin.
@siren:
again, it seems to me both sides (the chaos followers and the order disciples) are missing a step of the whole rules issue. i'll try and clarify my idea, even though i'm sure you all will fall asleep round about line two.
the way i see it, no one can tell for sure, through an exercise of reason, whether there are objective rules in the world. i mean the kind of rules that stays the same forever and has been imposed on reality by someone/something.
there are differences between seeing something happen repeatedly under the same circumstances and deciding it has to be a rule. this latter reasoning is - in my opinion - quite arrogant and beside the point. it starts exactly from the thing it wants to prove: that god does exist. we actually give cold facts a meaning that goes way beyond their happening: the sun setting in the west is therefore a rule - let's not even mention the word "perfect": i daresay this is so very personal and irrational no two ppl would agree on the same thing being "perfect" - and so is the glass falling to the ground because of gravity. observation does not tell us that these are more than facts repeating themselves. do they have any meaning apart from the god-manifestation one we are giving to them? are they objectively a hint of something working smoothly and purposefully? i can't see why. we base our definition of "smoothly and purposefully" solely on what we imagine to be smooth and purposeful, that is, cold hard facts (we like) again.
it really only eats itself up: the sun setting in the west seems quite a clever idea and a "perfect" rule because we're all used to things being this way. should we experience sundowns every which way, we'd probably find repeated settings in the west terribly dull and a curse for breeding plants.
so my take is that we're all making that 'order' stuff up. it's true that ppl need guidelines in their lives, but imagining such guidelines to be especially made to match our own idea of "making sense" seems to me really inconsistent.
on the other hand, there is a real need to infer consequences from facts, hence my previous examples about relying on laws of physics and so on. it is quite useful to be able to predict the weather, even though maybe no higher hand ever concocted the whole sea-clouds-rain plan. we have a certain ability to control and dissipate chaos and we're surely better off using it instead of ranting about total randomness (not that anybody did that here, mind you, i wouldn't want to be flamed without a good reason ). however, the connections between such patterns and god's existence look to me quite more loose than most of the believers here seem to imply.
rahvin.
again, it seems to me both sides (the chaos followers and the order disciples) are missing a step of the whole rules issue. i'll try and clarify my idea, even though i'm sure you all will fall asleep round about line two.
the way i see it, no one can tell for sure, through an exercise of reason, whether there are objective rules in the world. i mean the kind of rules that stays the same forever and has been imposed on reality by someone/something.
there are differences between seeing something happen repeatedly under the same circumstances and deciding it has to be a rule. this latter reasoning is - in my opinion - quite arrogant and beside the point. it starts exactly from the thing it wants to prove: that god does exist. we actually give cold facts a meaning that goes way beyond their happening: the sun setting in the west is therefore a rule - let's not even mention the word "perfect": i daresay this is so very personal and irrational no two ppl would agree on the same thing being "perfect" - and so is the glass falling to the ground because of gravity. observation does not tell us that these are more than facts repeating themselves. do they have any meaning apart from the god-manifestation one we are giving to them? are they objectively a hint of something working smoothly and purposefully? i can't see why. we base our definition of "smoothly and purposefully" solely on what we imagine to be smooth and purposeful, that is, cold hard facts (we like) again.
it really only eats itself up: the sun setting in the west seems quite a clever idea and a "perfect" rule because we're all used to things being this way. should we experience sundowns every which way, we'd probably find repeated settings in the west terribly dull and a curse for breeding plants.
so my take is that we're all making that 'order' stuff up. it's true that ppl need guidelines in their lives, but imagining such guidelines to be especially made to match our own idea of "making sense" seems to me really inconsistent.
on the other hand, there is a real need to infer consequences from facts, hence my previous examples about relying on laws of physics and so on. it is quite useful to be able to predict the weather, even though maybe no higher hand ever concocted the whole sea-clouds-rain plan. we have a certain ability to control and dissipate chaos and we're surely better off using it instead of ranting about total randomness (not that anybody did that here, mind you, i wouldn't want to be flamed without a good reason
). however, the connections between such patterns and god's existence look to me quite more loose than most of the believers here seem to imply.rahvin.
Originally posted by rahvin
@siren:
again, it seems to me both sides (the chaos followers and the order disciples) are missing a step of the whole rules issue. i'll try and clarify my idea, even though i'm sure you all will fall asleep round about line two.
the way i see it, no one can tell for sure, through an exercise of reason, whether there are objective rules in the world. i mean the kind of rules that stays the same forever and has been imposed on reality by someone/something.
there are differences between seeing something happen repeatedly under the same circumstances and deciding it has to be a rule. this latter reasoning is - in my opinion - quite arrogant and beside the point. it starts exactly from the thing it wants to prove: that god does exist. we actually give cold facts a meaning that goes way beyond their happening: the sun setting in the west is therefore a rule - let's not even mention the word "perfect": i daresay this is so very personal and irrational no two ppl would agree on the same thing being "perfect" - and so is the glass falling to the ground because of gravity. observation does not tell us that these are more than facts repeating themselves. do they have any meaning apart from the god-manifestation one we are giving to them? are they objectively a hint of something working smoothly and purposefully? i can't see why. we base our definition of "smoothly and purposefully" solely on what we imagine to be smooth and purposeful, that is, cold hard facts (we like) again.
it really only eats itself up: the sun setting in the west seems quite a clever idea and a "perfect" rule because we're all used to things being this way. should we experience sundowns every which way, we'd probably find repeated settings in the west terribly dull and a curse for breeding plants.
so my take is that we're all making that 'order' stuff up. it's true that ppl need guidelines in their lives, but imagining such guidelines to be especially made to match our own idea of "making sense" seems to me really inconsistent.
on the other hand, there is a real need to infer consequences from facts, hence my previous examples about relying on laws of physics and so on. it is quite useful to be able to predict the weather, even though maybe no higher hand ever concocted the whole sea-clouds-rain plan. we have a certain ability to control and dissipate chaos and we're surely better off using it instead of ranting about total randomness (not that anybody did that here, mind you, i wouldn't want to be flamed without a good reason
rahvin.
I have to agree with you on your points. There are many things in the world that work so well, it's easy to believe that they were planned by a higher power, but that doesn't mean it's_the_only_way they could have turned out. A lrage factor, like you stated, is that we're so used to the way things are, we don't see the possible other ways they could be as well.
As far as the rules go, I agree with that as well. An example of my personal experience with this is my background in physics. I first learned classical physics (the rules and laws of physics developed mostly prior to the 20th century). Classical physics predicts and explains the action/reaction occurances in nature fairly accurately. But when you look at nature at the sub atomic level, classical physics gives way to quantum physics. Quantum physics work for now, but nobody can say that holes won't be poked in it and that a new and improved rule set will be developed. A set of rules may be useful in the mean time, but that doesn't mean it's the be all end all.
The point I was trying to make in my first post is that everything (meaning sub atomic particles that the universe is made up of, evolution or not) had to have come from somewhere. In this case, I don't think anybody can conlude with 100% certainty from the data available that God is or isn't resopnsible - it becomes a matter of personal choice and faith. I am personally comfortable in believing that this source of creation is God.
Without scientific proof one way or the other, it's wrong to say people are weak or irrational regardless of their choice in this matter.
Cheers!
[ Edit: My last sentence is just a general statement. I'm directing towrads you Rahvin!
]
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
Originally posted by fueledbymetal
How have I lied and how am I closed minded?
Very well an in DEPTH respones...
I cannot be bothered with inferior beings such as yourself, and i tell you why: I dont have to.
I dont have to listen to your excuses, after all you reacted exactly the way i predicted: giving me a short stupid excuse saying you didnt want to get into in depth responses yourself and saying it was a mere confusion that you pretty much stated god is a racist asshole ( like yourself ) that the jews were the chosen people. The following answers you gave are obiously not honest because you seem to try to stay in everyone's good side but still managed to trow your garbage that you call "opinions" ( it is NOT an opinion cause you are not willing to change it even with the overwhelming evidence that god is a fucking phantasy of the mind that comes straight out from man's fears and insecurities, its a product of the mands mind you stupid asshole and no one in the entire fucking world can prove me otherwise, if your god existed i would gladly accept a challenge to beat his fucking ass thats how shure i am, thats how evident it is, thats how stupid the entire human race is for beliving on them and thats why any non atheist/agnostics are inferior ).
Your scientific knowledge might be wide and your knowledge of the different religions might have some degree of investigation too, it matters not, for you are weak person who lets his fears take over his mind and soul and looses all objetivity.
So ill give what i get and i tell you straight out that you are a stupid scared liar who cant admit the fucking truth even if its up his ass with all the science he knows, since you loose all objetivity i will lower myself to give you the same and ignore you as the complete dumbass son of a bitch you are.
Misanthrope ( who prejudges the prejudgers and straight out fucks with everyone who fucks with him ).
"I dont have to listen to your excuses, after all you reacted exactly the way i predicted: giving me a short stupid excuse saying you didnt want to get into in depth responses yourself"
I never said anything about my not wanting to make in depth responses. What I said was (In refernece to my initial post) "You have defintely taken what I was saying the wrong way. As I stated when I wrote this part I was trying to keep it as brief as possible." It's not an excuse, it's a reason. Any topic that you would like to discuss at length I'd more than willing to.
"and saying it was a mere confusion that you pretty much stated god is a racist asshole ( like yourself ) that the jews were the chosen people. "
I have NEVER said Jews were the chosen people. As I saide in my second post: "My reference to God making his presence know to the Jews was just my effort at paraphrasing (I was hoping it wouldn't be misinterpreted, but it was, so I apologize to any I'ne offeneded). As for God making his presence known to other areas of the world and other groups of people, that's one part of the RC church that I'm not 100% on board with because I think it's certainly possible. I won't refute anybody's claims that God has ." I clearly stated that God could very well have made his presence known to others as well.
"The following answers you gave are obiously not honest because you seem to try to stay in everyone's good side but still managed to trow your garbage that you call "opinions" ( it is NOT an opinion cause you are not willing to change it "
Staying on people's good side isn't important to me (if it was I would just roll over and accept everything you've said!
). What IS imporatant to me, and what I've been trying to do, is be respectful of other people's beliefs. I haven't once said what anybody else should believe, I've only said what I myself believe."even with the overwhelming evidence that god is a fucking phantasy of the mind that comes straight out from man's fears and insecurities, its a product of the mands mind you stupid asshole and no one in the entire fucking world can prove me otherwise, if your god existed i would gladly accept a challenge to beat his fucking ass thats how shure i am, thats how evident it is,"
Show me one piece of overwhelming evidence and I guaruntee I would change my mind.
"thats how stupid the entire human race is for beliving on them" & "you are weak person who lets his fears take over his mind and soul and looses all objetivity"
As I stated in my last post: "everything (meaning sub atomic particles that the universe is made up of, evolution or not) had to have come from somewhere. In this case, I don't think anybody can conlude with 100% certainty from the data available that God is or isn't resopnsible - it becomes a matter of personal choice and faith. I am personally comfortable in believing that this source of creation is God. Without scientific proof one way or the other, it's wrong to say people are weak or irrational regardless of their choice in this matter." Not recognizing that there is no definite answer on this for everybody is what I would consider to be "stupid" and having lost "all objectivity".
"and thats why any non atheist/agnostics are inferior )." & "I cannot be bothered with inferior beings such as yourself"
Your's are the only racist statements I've read on this entire thread.
And I'd just like to add one more note about "objectivity". You opened your first post in response to mine with "you are the most stupid fucking idiot ive seen" - that's hardly objective.
I'd like to continue this discussion, but it would be a lot easier if we could just remain civil and keep it on topic.
Cheers!
Misanthrope
Latin, NOT Mexican.
Your logic is faulty, its human to believe things have a beginning or and end, somethings dont have like energy and matter. Its just too hard for you ( and most humans ) to understand, this rants into the realms of philosophy ( stupid, but not so annoying ) and it has to do with what you can understand as reality. Far too complicated for me to explain, not because i dont want to ( i find the topic very interesting ) just because im tired of over explaining myself.
Misanthrope ( who will keep it on topic
...damn you can all be so boring at times )Originally posted by Misanthrope
Your logic is faulty, its human to believe things have a beginning or and end, somethings dont have like energy and matter. Its just too hard for you ( and most humans ) to understand, this rants into the realms of philosophy ( stupid, but not so annoying ) and it has to do with what you can understand as reality. Far too complicated for me to explain, not because i dont want to ( i find the topic very interesting ) just because im tired of over explaining myself.
Misanthrope ( who will keep it on topic
You've made a very good point about the limits of human ability to understand concepts like energy and matter. I believe you could put time in this category as well. These are all things that are usually percieved as constants, yet there is evidence that suggests this isn't the case. Take energy for example. In Classical physics you learn about the conservation of energy. But then when you delve deeper into it, you learn about entropy, which is a measure of disorder in a system. Entropy is increasing all around us when energy expendetures, such as chemical reactions, are made. This is evidenced on a larger scale by the Universe and the way it is spreading out. This makes it appear that energy is in fact running down, a theory which many scientests support.
To me, this is similar to the reason I justify the rationality in believing in God. There are theories that point both ways, but there's just not enough evidence to prove or disporve somebody's beliefs in matters like these. We as humans can keep trying to figure these things out with 100% certainty, but for now, we just have to make our own desicions with the limited data before us.
So at this point, from a perspective of logic, we're both right.
Cheers!
Soulscar
God in Denial
Originally posted by Soulscar
Ding, ding, ding - get in the ring for next round......
LOL!
I'm glad to see somebody is keeping up besides Misanthrope
and I. Hopefully we'll all take at least something new away from all of this!
@rahve: this post is proof that i actually read your entire post (yeah, i read the whole thread too but anyway..)
Siren (not proof enough)
Siren (not proof enough)
