Because it makes one hell of a story.

quote=jvjim]Jaroge, what is the real point of this thread? Do you simply wish to prove that God doesn't exist? If such is the case, then congratulations, you've succeeded. How? By placing the testing measure in a manner that guarantees it. No, I cannot prove that there is an infallible, all knowing being that created the universe for a benevolent purpose. I cannot prove that Joshua Ben Joseph, after being crucified by the Romans at the request of Jewish religious leaders, descended to hell for a period of three days, returned to Earth for forty days, and then ascended to Heaven. I can only profess my belief in this. This assertion, being the only ethical course of action given my religion, is yours to attack, and such attacks are something a Christian must become used to in an increasingly secular world

The real point of this thread is as follows. There have been a number of threads that have been dancing around this issue, essentially all boiling down to the arguement for or against the existance of God. Since I don't like to **** about I figured that we could get down to business. I do not feel that anybody or their beleif is being "attacked", rather I feel it is an oppourtunity to explain why you believe what to me, seems unbelievable.
My arguement goes like this: Ihave never in my life seen or heard any evidence that would in any way support belief in the supernatural, in fact all the evidence leads me to believe that it is a ridiculous assertion. Obviously there are many people who feel differently, I am just curious if it is because of the evidence, or in spite of it. Such is the nature of this site, at least, that is what I thought.



But one question lingers: is the belief in God and rationality mutually exclusive? Or phrased differently, do you expect me to say that I am unrelenting in my belief? Again, I must confess that I constantly question it. Does that make me a poor Christian? Undoubtedly.

The answer to that question is simple, it depends on the reasons for your belief. If you believe because you have been spoon fed Christianity your whole life and hence your life would be empty without it, then that is fine, but just don't pretend otherwise. If on the other hand you have some belief based on evidence, Reason or even a somewhat solid arguement, than I'd love to hear it, as well, I'm sure, as many others. It is my assertion that the God Hypothesis does not hold up to any scrutiny (this is especially so when the God is confined to that of Christianity or islam which make so many absurd claims as to be EASILY disproved), and therefore, I am curious how any critical thinker could believe, once the facts are known.
[So, why do I believe? Well, I have a very personal reason, but luckily I don’t have to divulge it because any reason is as good as any other within in the confines of this argument since they are all, by the given restraints, fallacious. However, I don’t think that questioning God’s existence is totally discordant with God’s will, because though I am breaking his divine law, I am also exercising the divine gift of intelligence, though admittedly even my meager gifts could be put to better use.

I don't know what your personal experience was, but even if it was that you personally were visited by god who told you that you must believe, isn't there a more rational explanation for what may have occured? There are thousands who are convinced that they have been visited by angels, ghosts, aliens all sorts of things, but isn't it more likely that they are a little nuts, than to say that all those things therefore exist?

In a little side note, can someone please tell me how to cut text from a previous poster and put it in boxes. I am a little useless with this magic picture box.

On redemption, from here (http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/dtr/dtr_13.gif):


http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/dtr/dtr_13.gif

On how to quote other people's posts in your replies:

Click the button at the bottom of each post labelled "Quote". The rest should follow.

I'm assuming you mean time is not a human invention in the same way that temperature, mass, etc. are not human inventions. I must respectfully disagree. How do we measure time? How fast does it move? One day per day?

Assigning time a unit of measurement is a human invention but the dimension of time is not a human invention.



To the theists:

Why Don't you believe in this ************ up in the hizzle? Please state your reasons.

http://griffinminiatures.com/catalog/images/thor.jpg

I'll answer it for you. "All gods that people came up with are just different interpretations of the true god. (which is the Judaic/Christian one)." Admit it. You were gonna say that weren't you?

How do we measure time? How fast does it move? One day per day?
One second per 9,192,631,770 periods of of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of a caesium-133 atom at rest at a temperature of 0 Kelvin. Duh.

Well, I admit, I tend to just think of it as "In terms of periods of the behaviour of caeisum atoms", but then I'm not a physicist.

We arbitrarily decided that time "goes forward" in the direction that entropy increases. But it's fundamentally tied to entropy and light. In a lot of ways light gives time its entire meaning, whereas entropy is just the arrow pointing which direction it's going in.

Vague explanation you say? It's infinitely better than the bullshit "god" is trying to spew. "A thousand years is a day and vice versa my lad!"

"...so what is time...?"

"YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!"

We arbitrarily decided that time "goes forward" in the direction that entropy increases. But it's fundamentally tied to entropy and light. In a lot of ways light gives time its entire meaning, whereas entropy is just the arrow pointing which direction it's going in.

Vague explanation you say? It's infinitely better than the bullshit "god" is trying to spew. "A thousand years is a day and vice versa my lad!"

"...so what is time...?"

"YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!"


You must have a crush on Poop Loops, don't you? Go do some pushups or something.

now my arms hurtes

I'm really awful with the language of the subject, but I'll try. I aim to keep this short because I have a feeling I might've bungled this up.

There is the famous question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is to say, why is there anything at all. The initial feeling is that nothing is in some way easier than something, therefore it should be the default. The concept of nothing might be easier to understand, though I believe the idea of nothing cannot be fully understood simply because we as people have never encountered it.

We falsly assume that the idea of "nothing" is even possible. We have no evidence of such, nor can we. The moment there is something, "nothing" no longer exists.
I did a mental double-take earlier today when I recalled this post, and I want to elaborate a little on it to collect my own thoughts, because I find it very interesting. (It also makes me want to re-read A Brief History of Time; even more, it makes me want to find a book that covers most of the same topics but takes more time, and takes a less ex cathedra approach to them.)

We define space in terms of matter. We measure distance as either the length of material objects, or the distance between them. Areas, volumes, and the interior measurements of hypercubes, hyperspheres, etc. are all defined in terms of material measurements. (We could also measure 'stuff' in its alternative state of energy, but for my purposes it's equivalent. Call it a length of matter or an extent of electromagnetic radiation, I don't care.) We even define emptiness entirely in terms of matter: An empty space is just a space with no matter in it.

We can imagine total emptiness: An empty space with no matter (or energy) to define it. But can we really describe it in a meaningful way? I can describe an empty space, sure: Take a box, remove the air, and voila! a box of vacuum -- emptiness. But the empty space is defined entirely in terms of the matter that surrounds it: "Here's an example of an item where the distance between atoms is particularly large; there's a gap between the atoms in this side and the ones in the other." But if I set up a one-sided boundary, it's already hard for me to see how there is any value in describing what's on the far side as space. It's that old question, "What's outside of the universe?" The only answer that makes sense to me is that the question makes no sense.

So: Emptiness, in this view, is not a thing or even a concept unto itself. It's only an area of very low (absolutely minimal) density of matter (and energy), or a bounds beyond which -- the word 'beyond' no longer has a useful meaning.

It occurs to me that I recently read Relativity: The special and the general theory by Albert Einstein, and in a foreword (the note to the fifteenth edition) he talks about something relevant:

I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.
So, then, you who claim that the universe came from nothing and must therefore have been created by a deity: What is this 'nothing' of which you speak, and what defines its properties, and what constrains its consequences?

So Vince Tortelli believes in God? I've repped that dude for hard nutriding of the BJJ cult. I feel betrayed.

Let's get some **** straight right now. The primitive Judaic god is a delusion. The only god is the God-Emperor Kano and his primarchs Helio, Kimura, Maeda, Mifune ect.

Here's something to think about; Why are the most devoutly religious societies the worst ones to live in?

Take the Dark Ages: Total power of their church, everyone believes in god. Sucks.
Saudi Arabia: Theocracy, everyone devoutly believes in God. Sucks.

I'll answer for you: "They don't have the r34l Christianity" You were going to say something like that weren't you?

"They don't have the r34l Christianity" You were going to say something like that weren't you?
Sublime.

I avoid these kinds of arguments these days, keeps my blood pressure down. To Christians that want to challenge me in to a religion-yaddayadda-deathmatch (which typically goes "don't believe in god, i'm atheist" followed by stupidity like "HA! you believe that you don't believe and thus you believe in something, HA HA!") I just state my religion as "none". Any references to atheism always gets them all riled up and keeps me from doing something more useful like watching paint dry.

I'll answer for you: "They don't have the r34l Christianity" You were going to say something like that weren't you?

Cool, now we are going to start the who has the r34l g0d linage wars. :godtroll:

Grabs popcorn and varment rifle and waits for the fun to begin.

God is an idea. Ideas exist. Therefore God exist.

God is an idea. Ideas exist. Therefore God exist.

Uh, ok, uh, I guess what your are saying is that any god anyone has thought of, at anytime must exist because someone had the idea that they do? What about if someone has an idea that no gods exist? Based on who is having the idea when, do all these gods keep poofing in an out of existence? Wow, your universe must be special and shiney.

Belief in God or gods/spirits/magic/ancestors living in the realm of the dead, seem to historically be essential to the survival of human beings. All extant societies from the "primitive" to the "first world" have these concepts central to their being. Organized Religion has the function of organizing communities, demarcating social strata, and determines who has the most legitimate right to govern. The human mind is particularly well equipped to experience feelings of the profound. It's a part of our evolutionary history whether devout Athiests would admit to that, or Christians admit to evolutionary history, it can't really be ignored.

The idea of gods and religion isn't a simple matter due to how much of the brain involves itself in different ways. Religion is experience through music (which requires many regions of the brain to process) and dance, through language, through art and architecture, through natural studies-in the sense that the first study of the properties of the natural world involved in part a religio-spiritual motivation. It manifests itself in technologies. Metalsmithing was considerd in all the cultures that had metalsmithing as a display of spiritual power and connectivity.

Religion and God is dramatic and emotional. Many Brazilians tear up with nostalgia as they watch worshippers in Bahia take to the shores sending offerings to Iemanjá.

Religion is experienced through laws that order societies.

Religion is a little iffy in the sack, though.

I am on the side of understanding the whys and letting people do what they need to do. Ofcourse, fundamentalist christians, etc.... that's another topic.

Cafe can have my proxy for the remainder of this thread.