poll

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Ranzid

Well, I like to base my beliefs in what we know and have discovered to this point. I know, we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean that we have to jump to conclusions to fast. That's why man started to believe in god in the first place, to explain the inexplicable.

You base your beliefs off of what "we" have discoverd to this point? *chuckles* Care to give some examples?

As for jumping to conclusions... I think you may be the one jumping to them. How do you know for a fact that "explaining the inexplicable" is the 'reason' man believes in God? Have you ever taken into account that religious figureheads may be real people and *gasp* the book speaks of the truth about them?

None of us lived in that time, thus none of us can prove anything that happend at that time without reading into it... Correct? So when you say "I base my beliefs in what we know and discoverd to this point" who are you talking about when you say 'we'?

The fact is, there is no 'we' there is only you and yorself. You are chosing to believe what you read in a history book, and what you see on TV, but the fact is everything that you haven't lived with or experienced for yourself could be completly bogus.

Like in my last arguement, all the infinitys in life can't be proved... but you labeled it as "proven". There is no proof, that's just like me listing God as proven. Some say the universe goes out forever, but how do we know? Most of us haven't been off the planet, let alone outside of the solar system... how do you know it's not just one big scam? Simple, you don't until you see/do it for yourself.

Back to the point, you are chosing to believe in somthing that may or may not be true, just like any religious person on the planet. You have faith in history and science books, and you believe in infinity, somthing that defanently can't be proven.

So, I ask you again, what do you base your beliefs off of?

*taps foot*

Ok, I'll tell you... you base them off of what you want to believe, not what you know, just like everybody else. You will claim it's what you "know" just like a religious person will claim it's what they "know" but neither have anything to back themselves up except by personal experience. Infinity never has been, nor will ever be a proven concept because nobody can experience infintity.

You live your own life, and you believe what you want to believe... Science is just as bad and even worse than Religion when it comes to faith... and it has no moralities involved.

Some people will never read the bible (or any religious scripture) and accept it as truth, like they would read a history book or somthing of that nature and accept it. If you didn't see it for yourself, just like you didn't see the events in the bible for yourself, that doesn't mean it isn't true. Just because somthing is in the history book it doesn't automatically classify as true, same goes for anything anybody has said or claimed to have done that you haven't done for yourself or seen for yourself.

Maybe you can go to outer space one day and prove the world is round

[nWoCHRISnWo]

*Enters THIS argument again.* I voted no god because I believe it's much more likely that we just haven't figured out what created us all than all the theories out there right now. How old is the bible supposed to be? Pretty damn old, no? Back then they though Earth was flat and was in the center of the universe. I highly doubt they'd be right about god.

[Crono]

I don't believe in God, but I also don't think people should take the bible literally. For many years, the events of that time were passed around by word of mouth. A lot of these stories could've changed drastically throughout time. Like Jesus healing someone just by touching them? I don't believe it, but I'm not denying that a man named Jesus did help people. My belief is that it wasn't instantly, but he helped them in other ways.

The same thing applies with the ten plagues and such. Did you know that these plagues can in fact be caused by nature? If I have time (probably tomorrow night), I'll dig up some links. The same thing can apply to other supernatural events listed in the bible, such as the parting of that sea. There's a volcano in a southern Greek island (which is also one of Earth's most destructive volcano), and after it's errupts, it creates fractures in the earth, which actually allowed the water in the sea to split temporarily.

So my belief is that... don't take old books literally. You don't know how much the stories have changed over 2000 years.

[Vampyr]

Good Lord. This brings back memories from the "Whats your Religon Thread".

Actually, I think its begun all over again.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Crono

So my belief is that... don't take old books literally. You don't know how much the stories have changed over 2000 years.

I don't know how much anything has changed before my lifetime... same with you. You chose to trust some sources on what happend, and you chose not to trust some others... and you can't physically prove either to be true or not. Like my history Book example, how do you know for a fact that Wasington was our first president? You don't. You are basing it off of what other people say and not experiencing it for yourself. Thus basing it off of what other people believe and have written. Just because every person who you have ever met told you somthing is true, does that automatically make it true?

This goes for history and what we now accept as fact. The fact is you are chosing to deny god andyou are basing it off of things that are no more or less valid than the bible itself... You want to believe that you can't trust a 2000 year old book. There is nothing wrong with the book, it's you who are rejecting it.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by nWoCHRISnWo

Back then they though Earth was flat and was in the center of the universe.

You really think so?

[TheGame]

Nice find

[Crono]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I don't know how much anything has changed before my lifetime... same with you. You chose to trust some sources on what happend, and you chose not to trust some others... and you can't physically prove either to be true or not. Like my history Book example, how do you know for a fact that Wasington was our first president? You don't. You are basing it off of what other people say and not experiencing it for yourself. Thus basing it off of what other people believe and have written. Just because every person who you have ever met told you somthing is true, does that automatically make it true?

This goes for history and what we now accept as fact. The fact is you are chosing to deny god andyou are basing it off of things that are no more or less valid than the bible itself... You want to believe that you can't trust a 2000 year old book. There is nothing wrong with the book, it's you who are rejecting it.

You're comparing something that is 200 years old to something that is 2000 years old.

They didn't even have paper or much to write on those days. Why do you think the gospels of Mathew, Luke, Mark, and John were written way after Jesus' death? None of the events in the Bible were recorded on the spot. That is a "Bible fact".

I think you may have missed my common point that I stated before. Stories get changed over time, especially without any way to record them. That's just why I, personally, find it hard to believe them. It's different when you're talking about Washington being the first president, because there were people there, at the time, who recorded those events. There weren't people following Jesus and writing down eveyrthing he did.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Crono

They didn't even have paper or much to write on those days. Why do you think the gospels of Mathew, Luke, Mark, and John were written way after Jesus' death? None of the events in the Bible were recorded on the spot. That is a "Bible fact".

It's different when you're talking about Washington being the first president, because there were people there, at the time, who recorded those events. There weren't people following Jesus and writing down eveyrthing he did.

So what if the gospels were written after Jesus' death? Don't people write biographies of persons after they die? Is everyone's memory really that bad?
No paper to write on in those days? Why am I reading the Peloponnesian War, which was written more than 400 years before Christ?
Why does it say in the Old Testament that the King has to make his own copy of the law that was handed down from Moses?

[Xantar]

1. Whoever gave me -rep for this thread for the reason of "I believe in god" is an idiot. I didn't even state my views on the matter nor have I voted in the poll. True, my thoughts are well known if you just take a look through some previous posts, but then maybe you should have given me -rep for those threads.

Of course, it could always be the case that you just lowered my reputation because you were bored and felt like it. In that case, you're not an idiot. You're just a loser.

2.

Originally posted by Ranzid
A change of state?

That's what a Buddhist would say.

Why do we insist on saying that birth is the beginning of life and death is the end of life? It could be that we go to heaven or hell afterwards. Or it could be that we just change states.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

So what if the gospels were written after Jesus' death? Don't people write biographies of persons after they die? Is everyone's memory really that bad?
No paper to write on in those days? Why am I reading the Peloponnesian War, which was written more than 400 years before Christ?
Why does it say in the Old Testament that the King has to make his own copy of the law that was handed down from Moses?

You don't get it. If someone wrote a biography of someone who died in the year 1960, it is completely different than the Bible. Example: we know Einstein encouraged the development of atomic weapons, there is the actual letter that he wrote to Rossevelt. We know he invented the E=mc^2 physics law, because there were people there, on first account, when he did it, and recorded it.

But when there's no way to record such events for a long period of time, the stories get changed. That is a human fact. Don't believe me? Why not listen to some of the gossip at your school, and tell me how close it is to the "real story". I've heard and seen so many situations where stories get completely turned upside down that I cam't even count them. They are perfect examples. Jesus may have healed someone, but some other guy probably said "YEAH! HE DID IT JUST BY TOUCING THEM OMG IT WAS SO AMAZING", but he probably wasnt there,, he just heard the story from someone else and changed it. Eventually, when things were written, the writers wrote from what they thought they knew, and what they heard. They had no real facts to prove that it happened.

They had other ways to write, such as on stone. And it was mostly people of high rank who had success to such things.

But anyway, it is pointless to argue because neither side has the right facts. I don't dislike religion, and I don't dislike those who follow it, I just don't believe it.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Crono

You don't get it. If someone wrote a biography of someone who died in the year 1960, it is completely different than the Bible. Example: we know Einstein encouraged the development of atomic weapons, there is the actual letter that he wrote to Rossevelt. We know he invented the E=mc^2 physics law, because there were people there, on first account, when he did it, and recorded it.

But when there's no way to record such events for a long period of time, the stories get changed. That is a human fact. Don't believe me? Why not listen to some of the gossip at your school, and tell me how close it is to the "real story". I've heard and seen so many situations where stories get completely turned upside down that I cam't even count them. They are perfect examples. Jesus may have healed someone, but some other guy probably said "YEAH! HE DID IT JUST BY TOUCING THEM OMG IT WAS SO AMAZING", but he probably wasnt there,, he just heard the story from someone else and changed it. Eventually, when things were written, the writers wrote from what they thought they knew, and what they heard. They had no real facts to prove that it happened.

They had other ways to write, such as on stone. And it was mostly people of high rank who had success to such things.

But anyway, it is pointless to argue because neither side has the right facts. I don't dislike religion, and I don't dislike those who follow it, I just don't believe it.

The gospels were written by whoever they're named after. And they did witness the things he did because they were together nearly all of the time.

By the way,
Einstein was a fraud.

[Hero2]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

Einstein was a fraud.

How dare you Einstein is a god...although you are part true...Einstein is my role model just because he is lasy and does want he wants and became famous for it.

[WiseMan]

Einstein should have never went back in time and made it possible for the Russians to take over.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by WiseMan

Einstein should have never went back in time and made it possible for the Russians to take over.

He "should have never went back in time"? What are you talking about?