Well one thing is for certain, there's no Christian God, no Buddha, Zeus or Thor. If there's god, it's the one and only and we just have given "it" different names. I think the universe is ultimately a lot more complicated than humans have even braincapacity to understand. It's like teaching math to a dog. We can try of course and maybe millions of years of evolution will shape us to understand universe better, if we as a species even live that long. And what is life anyway, if we die we might as well born in alternative reality or something. Everything is really mind boggling, universe and its vastness. To think that there are still "places" where universe hasnt even reached... but whats there beyond the horizont. Anyway, I quess that's why it's called belief, you cant prove it either way.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Disproving Christianity?
- Thread starter ElanJo
- Start date
Bluefinn said:Well one thing is for certain, there's no Christian God, no Buddha, Zeus or Thor. If there's god, it's the one and only and we just have given "it" different names. I think the universe is ultimately a lot more complicated than humans have even braincapacity to understand. It's like teaching math to a dog. We can try of course and maybe millions of years of evolution will shape us to understand universe better, if we as a species even live that long. And what is life anyway, if we die we might as well born in alternative reality or something. Everything is really mind boggling, universe and its vastness. To think that there are still "places" where universe hasnt even reached... but whats there beyond the horizont. Anyway, I quess that's why it's called belief, you cant prove it either way.
That's a pretty strong statement.
Anyway, people have two ways of looking at the human race:
1. We're all stupid, therefore we cannot possibly understand the universe.
2. We're great, therefore are special in the universe, and have rights over other less special things.
Both of these are falsehoods and oversimplify things. It's somewhere in the middle really.
The real mind bender about it, is that quantum entanglement exists. This where two distinct particles can effect each other from an age away (the communication between which breaks the c constant (speed of light) and is still unknown to us). Logic and the law of physics would dictate then, that we are in fact living in a 1 dimensional universe where every atom is in fact in the same spot at the same time, all of the time. The human mind just interprets our surrounding and creates a three (well, four) dimensional world for us to live in.
So really, all of this is mute, because nothing around you actually exists as you see it.
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:Bluefinn said:Well one thing is for certain, there's no Christian God, no Buddha, Zeus or Thor. If there's god, it's the one and only and we just have given "it" different names. I think the universe is ultimately a lot more complicated than humans have even braincapacity to understand. It's like teaching math to a dog. We can try of course and maybe millions of years of evolution will shape us to understand universe better, if we as a species even live that long. And what is life anyway, if we die we might as well born in alternative reality or something. Everything is really mind boggling, universe and its vastness. To think that there are still "places" where universe hasnt even reached... but whats there beyond the horizont. Anyway, I quess that's why it's called belief, you cant prove it either way.
That's a pretty strong statement.
Anyway, people have two ways of looking at the human race:
1. We're all stupid, therefore we cannot possibly understand the universe.
2. We're great, therefore are special in the universe, and have rights over other less special things.
Both of these are falsehoods and oversimplify things. It's somewhere in the middle really.
The real mind bender about it, is that quantum entanglement exists. This where two distinct particles can effect each other from an age away (the communication between which breaks the c constant (speed of light) and is still unknown to us). Logic and the law of physics would dictate then, that we are in fact living in a 1 dimensional universe where every atom is in fact in the same spot at the same time, all of the time. The human mind just interprets our surrounding and creates a three (well, four) dimensional world for us to live in.
So really, all of this is mute, because nothing around you actually exists as you see it.
moot. not mute.
I thought the quantum entanglement may still be nothing more significant than knowing that if someone has the left shoe of a pair, the other is the right.
if all atoms exist in the same space at the same time, isn't that a zero dimensional universe, a singularity?
I rather thought the possibilty exists that all atoms MAY exist in the same space at the same time, from which premise, unfortunately, we can deduce no information regarding the numbers of dimensions involved.
of course nothing exists as we see it, because the information recieved focally is only a precursor to the firing of primal neural networks that lead us to seek further visual information that fire further neural networks, a simultaneous process that leads to 'recognition'. in other words, the eye is the mind's slave, and the it is the mind ultimately decides what it sees, leading to the conclusion that the absolute visual information can never be what is truely represented in our mind.
otherwise, not bad at all.
have you read any thomas pynchon?
you'd fucking freak for it.
ElanJo said:So the "what opinions do you have that people love to hate" thread got me thinking again about religion (yes, yes I know that a good portion of the threads I start are religion centric) and the whole debate as to whether a God can be disproved. So here's a little effort of mine to disprove the Christians one.
The Christian God is a dictator. However, it is possible to have a somewhat loving or benign dictatorship. A classroom is one, a parent - child relationship is another.
According to Christian doctrine God is an all loving dictator.
I beg to differ.
1. He creates us (limited as we are)
2. He wants us to a)acknowledge him and b) to accept and worship him
i) If you do a) and b) you will be rewarded.
ii) If you do not do a) and b) you will be sent to Hell (or in a state of Hell - either way, it's everlasting torment)
3. To be able to do b) you must first do a)
4. God hides himself from us and gives no reason whatsoever to believe this scripture( in this case the Bible) over another. ***
5. It's already established that the Christian God is a dictator
6. Thus the Christian God is fictitious or, at the very least, evil (ie. a bad dictator/tyrant)
*** I sense an objection here so i will preempt it. If he revealed himself to us in some way as to make it pretty obvious that he existed this would not impede on our Free Will. We'd still have choice whether to follow him or not.
Is this line of thinking justified or not? If not, why not?
I dont think you will be sent to hell or a state of hell, rather than after death you will have FREE WILL to choose where you would be happier, so if you choose a hellish state, that will be your idea of heaven, whilst heaven would be your idea of hell.
i'm back here again for another go
open question to all believers of all religious persuasions
what makes you so sure he/she/it is up there and brought us all here
what part of it am i missing.
this is your chance......again to provide me the proof
the floor is yours
open question to all believers of all religious persuasions
what makes you so sure he/she/it is up there and brought us all here
what part of it am i missing.
this is your chance......again to provide me the proof
the floor is yours
Gaudino said:ElanJo said:lol I'm just more familiar with the claims of Christians than I am of Muslims
and I don't want to be blown up :P
Sure it's not just cos it's seen a fair game and totally ok to have a pop at Christianity and our beliefs, but un PC and ''racist'' to have a go at muslims....?
good one....
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
levets said:Gaudino said:Sure it's not just cos it's seen a fair game and totally ok to have a pop at Christianity and our beliefs, but un PC and ''racist'' to have a go at muslims....?
good one....
Not at all. Christians delight in telling us how this is a Christian country. I've grown up being surrounded by Christians and therefore have become very aware of their beliefs and scripture. I'm also fully aware of how a number of them play the victim card at any chance they get in order to not engage in serious debate about the validity of their beliefs. "What about the Muslims?" is just another of these pathetic attempts. It's juvenile. And anyway I've criticized Islam before and will continue to do so. I suspect that the argument could quite easily be used for the Muslim version of God... since they are the same God. I'm just not as familiar with the Quran as I am the Bible. But, hey, don't refute the argument just stomp your feet and act like a baby
ElanJo
Well-Known Member
mackenzie said:Elanjo
Serious question. What do you make of the teachings/preachings of Jesus.
If he existed and all the preachings attributed to him are what he actually said I think he had some good things to say, I particularly like his teachings of what it is to be a hypocrite and "casting the first stone", pretty elementary stuff but good nonetheless. His version of the "Golden rule" (treat others as you'd wish to be treated) is a decent base for morality but it is flawed. Other things such as "love thy enemies" I find to be morally bankrupt. His religious preachings paint him as a maniac tho. He brought into effect the idea of Hell as eternal punishment which, imo, destroys all his work on morality (it's an immoral teaching and doing good things out of fear is not really morality - and, btw, neither is it moral to do something just because an authority says that it is good (in this case - God) ).
On Jesus himself I think it's probable that he existed and that he was a philosopher who gained a number of followers and became well known for that era. He may have used the Old Testament to help his philosophy gain traction in what was a very religious area but since his death and up until the Bible was put together things were falsely attributed to (and about) him to help fashion a religion around him. This is me being kind to Jesus because if something like this wasn't the case, and he did preach that he was God etc., then he was at best delusional, at worst a naughty boy! ;) ... ( a lying maniac)
I completely disagree with the above, and think that you need to reread the Gospels, especially that of Matthew.
Even if you aren't doing this and are going off historical Jesus, you still need to reread Dickson, Funk and Barnett.
You're interpretation of events of Jesus is misleading (I can't be more specific right now, as it's a flying visit, I'll get to it next time I come around, sorry!). If you are reporting from an emotional opinion, then it's fair enough, but if you are trying to be scientific about it, then you are wrong.
Even if you aren't doing this and are going off historical Jesus, you still need to reread Dickson, Funk and Barnett.
You're interpretation of events of Jesus is misleading (I can't be more specific right now, as it's a flying visit, I'll get to it next time I come around, sorry!). If you are reporting from an emotional opinion, then it's fair enough, but if you are trying to be scientific about it, then you are wrong.
Zin 'messiah' Zimmer
Well-Known Member
ElanJo said:mackenzie said:Elanjo
Serious question. What do you make of the teachings/preachings of Jesus.
If he existed and all the preachings attributed to him are what he actually said I think he had some good things to say, I particularly like his teachings of what it is to be a hypocrite and "casting the first stone", pretty elementary stuff but good nonetheless. His version of the "Golden rule" (treat others as you'd wish to be treated) is a decent base for morality but it is flawed. Other things such as "love thy enemies" I find to be morally bankrupt. His religious preachings paint him as a maniac tho. He brought into effect the idea of Hell as eternal punishment which, imo, destroys all his work on morality (it's an immoral teaching and doing good things out of fear is not really morality - and, btw, neither is it moral to do something just because an authority says that it is good (in this case - God) ).
On Jesus himself I think it's probable that he existed and that he was a philosopher who gained a number of followers and became well known for that era. He may have used the Old Testament to help his philosophy gain traction in what was a very religious area but since his death and up until the Bible was put together things were falsely attributed to (and about) him to help fashion a religion around him. This is me being kind to Jesus because if something like this wasn't the case, and he did preach that he was God etc., then he was at best delusional, at worst a naughty boy! ;) ... ( a lying maniac)
Love your logic....... don' think it can be argued he existed/then again it could, but the church has fashioned the idea of the man (yes man) being of a different plain..... monkey spunk. From as early as Constantine the masses have been controlled and manipulated into believing in 'icon' all for monetary gain. Peoples opinions and arguments can never be rational as all the facts have been manipulated over time........ for example the gospel of thomas 'the kingdom of god is all around you, not in brick or stone', fuck me if that isn't an organization deliberately erasing for self gain I don't know what is. The lye is easily rectified if one can only listen.