Announcement

**EmptyneSs** · 05-31-2005, 02:30 AM

the phenom

the undertaker from wwf was pretty cool.

**gregimotis** · 05-31-2005, 11:28 AM

It seems to me that the pro-religion (its just an expression guys) people often fall into a trap when debating with athiests. The trap is this: they allow the atheists to frame the debate around science and semantics instead of around principle - and in allowing this, they are instantly on the defensive.

It's pretty darn obvious that evolution - whatever you want to call it - plays some role in life, and it's pretty obvious that the bible has a number of literal inconsistencies. I assert that neither of these things have anything at all to do with the substance of religion which is morality.

"Do unto others as you would have done to you"

That is the basis of the teachings of Jesus and probably the basis of most world religions - albeit said a bit differently. Justice, compassion, and mercy are the themes of religion; whether God said man can only live to 120 is no more relevant to the core of religion than the length of the Ark in meters. Also irrelevant is whether somebody abused religion for selfish means. It doesn't follow that someone claimed to be religious therefore whatever they did defines religion.

I contend that if you define yourself as an athiest then you define your morality as 'Anything that gets me ahead, and aids my genetic strain'. That's it.
Organized society is a survival strategy which an atheist plays at in order to attain help securing his survival. If as an athiest, you could murder two of three billion people not belonging to your family, you would be absolutely obligated to do so in order to secure resources for your future generations. If you are strong enough to do it, then your genes deserve to be passed and if you aren't strong enough to prevent it being done to you, then you ought to go.

**Toudiyama[NL]** · 05-31-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by gregimotis

I contend that if you define yourself as an athiest then you define your morality as 'Anything that gets me ahead, and aids my genetic strain'. That's it.
Organized society is a survival strategy which an atheist plays at in order to attain help securing his survival. If as an athiest, you could murder two of three billion people not belonging to your family, you would be absolutely obligated to do so in order to secure resources for your future generations. If you are strong enough to do it, then your genes deserve to be passed and if you aren't strong enough to prevent it being done to you, then you ought to go.

Sounds more like Nietzians (Andomeda)

**Tom Yum** · 05-31-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Toudiyama[NL]

Then won't your religion be at jepardy if/when scientist manage to produce something to fix the divisionliimit of cells? (Seeing that god told Noah, man would become no older than 120 years
But as long as there aren't any results, you could say god is intervening already

Nope.

Neither will my religion be threatened if they discover life among the stars. If you were wondering, I am quite a fan of the sciences. God said nothing directly about the discovery of automobiles, airplanes, space travel...I am not a strong Bible scholar, but I remember God saying something like he will reveal the beauty of the universe to us. He also created us in his image.

I will search for that quote and post it later.

**Tom Yum** · 05-31-2005, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by gregimotis

It seems to me that the pro-religion (its just an expression guys) people often fall into a trap when debating with athiests. The trap is this: they allow the atheists to frame the debate around science and semantics instead of around principle - and in allowing this, they are instantly on the defensive.

Gregi, I really enjoy science, allthough I must acknowledge I am merely an amateur. So I don't find the science and semantics the least bit offensive. Actually, it is refreshing.

Someone who decides to become a Christian (or any other religion) by asking all the right questions, will be better prepared.

How would a Christian respond if sometime in the next 20-30 years, we discover life on another planet? What is solar sails allow us to travel to the edge of the universe in the next 50 years? What if we are able to take advantage of quantum entanglement on a macro scale (beam me up Scotty!)

? What if robots become the next race in our society - will they be allowed to attend church and worship, much less enjoy human rights? As silly as this all sounds, we can't forget that within a 40 year time period, man discovered how to travel with autonomy by land and air...

Regardless, I know that the man upstairs can still hear my prayers and his word is still alive, sometimes in my own thoughts and actions. He sits in the driver's side.

**gregimotis** · 06-01-2005, 10:55 AM

Gregi, I really enjoy science, allthough I must acknowledge I am merely an amateur. So I don't find the science and semantics the least bit offensive. Actually, it is refreshing.

I enjoy science as well and I don't see any inherent conflict between the two (religion and science). What I'm getting at is this: Spirituality cannot be proved or disproved by scientific argument because the two address inherently different facets of life. Too put it simplistically; science is how, religion is why.

**Lizard** · 06-07-2005, 10:04 AM

I think there is a much more fundamental and important choice here.

Do we:

Construct beleifs based on what we think is true

OR

Construct beleifs based on what is useful to us

I dont beleive in god. But I used to, and I was happier when I did. If I had a choice I would go back to beleiving. And of course science is important, anyone who says they dont beleive in science should perhaps consider that the computers which they use to express these opinions work on scientific principles.

**Toudiyama[NL]** · 06-07-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Lizard

I dont beleive in god. But I used to, and I was happier when I did.

Can you explain why?, I'm not a believer nor have I ever been so I don't have a reference

**Garland** · 06-08-2005, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Toudiyama[NL]

Can you explain why?, I'm not a believer nor have I ever been so I don't have a reference

It's like a safety net. Religion provides us with convenient answers to intangible questions. When one loses their religion (as opposed to never signing on to a denomination/faith/creed/cult/sect and/or idiocy) they lose the answers, and instead of following somebody elses beliefs around blindly, they have to find their own, and...Oh my GOD...think for themselves and create their own sort of..."spirituality", or coming to terms with existence.

When I lost my faith (I was actually being groomed most of my life as a candidate for becoming a Catholic preist...believe it or not)...I lost the answers, and, even more terrifying, I lost my "salvation". I now believe there is NO afterlife. In that very thought, I doom myself to a fate worse than the proverbial hell I'd been tought to avoid in my actions and thoughts in all my years of Catholic compulsory mis-education.

So...essentially, when God and I fell out...well, I lost my answers, and I lost heaven. Pretty much, yeah, I'm fucked.

So, now...I try and live life based on reciprocity. I don't mess with others, and do good in the world in the HOPE that others will do the same for me, and make my short, miserable time here a little more bearable.

it's as the Kids in the Hall say;
life is short,
life is shit,
and soon it will be over.

I would probably be much happier living as a lemming, then living in a coherent panic and still being set for the same fate. Cuz, ya see, we all goin' down sooner or later...perhaps it's better not to see it comming, as they say, ignorance is bliss.

**Tom Yum** · 06-08-2005, 07:50 PM