FAO: Stupid people.
Comments
-
Likewise, Josh.joshtp wrote:Thankyou, and i admire you for keeping an open mind, and being a reasonable person in a world where so many are stubborn, selfish gits.
One of the best friends I had as a teenager was a Quaker. Now modern quakers are a great bunch. They almost flatly refuse to call it a religion, or to talk about it. They call it "the society of friends".
But I spent big chunks of my teenage years talking about life, the universe, and everything with my quaker mate. We'd sit on the hillside outside his house, with some Stellas cooling in the river, looking out into the night sky and just talk.
We used to talk about all kinds of things, like morality, free will, "good" and "evil", creation, destruction and so on, and neither of us ever felt we'd crossed a line, or was pushing the other down an uncomfortable conversational path.
We both had differing views, and I realised he was at least partially religious, but it never mattered. Why would it, or should it?
We both enjoyed just talking about this stuff. I think a lot of people do.
Since then I've also met a few Jehovas and had a good old chinwag with them about similar things, and it's always a fun, engaging conversation.
It would be stupid to reject someone based on their beliefs, as long as they're not actually militant towards you.
On the flip side, some of the most objectionable people I've met have been devout Atheists. They are crass, argumentative, blinkered and overly opinionated, with very few exceptions. (like a real life version of me and sheepsteeth's forum personas
)
I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.0 -
I think I might be more inclined to follow a religion is most didn't have such a histry or corruption. Though I have always striven to explain things and make them make sense in my head, the ideas put forward in the bible don't 'sit well' with me at all.
I can think about something on and off for weeks until I come up with a theory that makes sense to me as a person and so I can start thinking about something else for a few weeks/months (technic was a massive help to function as a human being when i was a kid ) 0 -
But God already knew they'd sin before he even created them, so he really didn't give them any choice at all; they merely had the illusion of choice from their own mortal perspective.joshtp wrote:Basicly God warned them not to sin, promised to reward them if they were obediant and they still disobayed, he alowed them to use the free will
Why give somebody the option of freewill when you already know, as omnipotent God, they will disobey?0 -
joshtp wrote:BTW, im a Jehovah's Witness
Joshtp I have a guenuine question (i'm not trying to take the p1ss) - If you had a massive stack on your bike which resulted in you needing a blood transfusion to survive, would you take it?
I'm just asking because I've never got my head around things like that.Santa Cruz Chameleon
Orange Alpine 1600 -
thats the point, he didnt! He chose not to know what they would do.he sat back and let it happen.Grondel wrote:
But God already knew they'd sin before he even created them, so he really didn't give them any choice at all; they merely had the illusion of choice from their own mortal perspective.joshtp wrote:Basicly God warned them not to sin, promised to reward them if they were obediant and they still disobayed, he alowed them to use the free will
Why give somebody the option of freewill when you already know, as omnipotent God, they will disobey?I like bikes and stuff0 -
thats cool, i enjoy chats like that... shame you dont live in my area... id actually quite like to call on your door one day. LOLyeehaamcgee wrote:
Likewise, Josh.joshtp wrote:Thankyou, and i admire you for keeping an open mind, and being a reasonable person in a world where so many are stubborn, selfish gits.
One of the best friends I had as a teenager was a Quaker. Now modern quakers are a great bunch. They almost flatly refuse to call it a religion, or to talk about it. They call it "the society of friends".
But I spent big chunks of my teenage years talking about life, the universe, and everything with my quaker mate. We'd sit on the hillside outside his house, with some Stellas cooling in the river, looking out into the night sky and just talk.
We used to talk about all kinds of things, like morality, free will, "good" and "evil", creation, destruction and so on, and neither of us ever felt we'd crossed a line, or was pushing the other down an uncomfortable conversational path.
We both had differing views, and I realised he was at least partially religious, but it never mattered. Why would it, or should it?
We both enjoyed just talking about this stuff. I think a lot of people do.
Since then I've also met a few Jehovas and had a good old chinwag with them about similar things, and it's always a fun, engaging conversation.
It would be stupid to reject someone based on their beliefs, as long as they're not actually militant towards you.
On the flip side, some of the most objectionable people I've met have been devout Atheists. They are crass, argumentative, blinkered and overly opinionated, with very few exceptions. (like a real life version of me and sheepsteeth's forum personas )
I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.I like bikes and stuff0 -
Nail, head.yeehaamcgee wrote:I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.
I describe myself as being agnostic, as I have no idea. As I don't believe in any major religion, I often get described as an atheist. Technically, they're right. Theism is a belief in a god, the a- prefix means without, so atheism is being without belief. However, the word has been twisted to mean someone who actively believes there is no god, which isn't my stance (as explained above). Therefore, if I did describe myself as an atheist, it would be expected that I'll argue against people's beliefs, when I actually won't. At all.0 -
Now THERE'S your problem. Your view of god as a man throws up all sorts of complications. Men can't multi task, but women canGrondel wrote:You say, God gave us freewill and we screwed it up, right?
The thing is, your God is omnipotent, so before giving us freewill he would known we'd screw up; he is everywhere at every point in time so therefore any retribution/ramification are totally illogical. In God's "view" time is a constant, so start and end don't have the same meaning as they do to man, surely?
Maybe there's an alternate reality where god was a woman, and she managed to keep a handle on all this!
Apart from that, I think you are fundamentally missing the point of "free will", from a religious point of view.
If a god did surrender his control over a being, and allow that being to determine it's own destiny, then that god no longer can see what will become of it, and becomes a spectator.
If a god DID have control, or DID know the destinies of the creature, then he must have not given them free will.0 -
joshtp wrote:he didnt know we would screw up, he could have chosen to know that, but he didnt, that would have removed the free will. We are not predestined, God can choose to know some things that will happen in the future, but he doesnt foresee everyhting, that would reomve the element of freewill.
Sorry, that's full of holes, too.
God would have had to know we'd disobey for him to make the decision to NOT know we'd disobey, so by that definition, he would have to know the outcome, then choose not to know the outcome.
But by doing so, he would therefore be in the position whereby he does not know the outcome, again (the same point he was at before choosing not to know).
Take into consideration that, as God, all this would happen at the same time (non-linear as he's omnipotent), but outside of our concept of time, and you're left with a huge paradox that only happens when humans write story badly.0 -
I'm with you wholeheartedly on this one.whyamihere wrote:
Nail, head.yeehaamcgee wrote:I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.
I describe myself as being agnostic,
I won't re-quote the entire thing, but your view (the bits on a cosmic hard drive being pre-set by "something") is how I imagine a god would be.
The jury's still out on whether I do believe in it or not, but the more you learn about our universe, and the precise balance of things that had to exist in order for us to BE, the more the probability just blows your mind.
On the other side, we have the vastness of reality, and maybe it really is just chance. If the same thing happened an infinite number of times then somewhere, sometime, the balance of everything would be just so, and would lead to the creation of the universe, the stars, planets, and life.0 -
MacAndCheese wrote:joshtp wrote:BTW, im a Jehovah's Witness
Joshtp I have a guenuine question (i'm not trying to take the p1ss) - If you had a massive stack on your bike which resulted in you needing a blood transfusion to survive, would you take it?
I'm just asking because I've never got my head around things like that.
Fair Q. I would refuse. Its not that i want to die, i love life. But i also take my belifes very seriously, and its pretty clear that the bible, and so God condems the intake of blood whether that be in either medical use or food. The thing is though, that im not really that worried about it. In recent years bloodless surgrery has become common place, and many doctors actually refuse to use blood, there are Very few situations that really require the use of blood.
check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWhRqCjT9wI like bikes and stuff0 -
God isnt selfish, he gave us freewill becouse he wanted us to enjoy free will. Noone likes being controled.Grondel wrote:joshtp wrote:he didnt know we would screw up, he could have chosen to know that, but he didnt, that would have removed the free will. We are not predestined, God can choose to know some things that will happen in the future, but he doesnt foresee everyhting, that would reomve the element of freewill.
Sorry, that's full of holes, too.
God would have had to know we'd disobey for him to make the decision to NOT know we'd disobey, so by that definition, he would have to know the outcome, then choose not to know the outcome.
But by doing so, he would therefore be in the position whereby he does not know the outcome, again (the same point he was at before choosing not to know).
Take into consideration that, as God, all this would happen at the same time (non-linear as he's omnipotent), but outside of our concept of time, and you're left with a huge paradox that only happens when humans write story badly.I like bikes and stuff0 -
If you had a child, who needed an operation using blood would you still refuse it? Or let the child choose for themselves?0
-
as i've still got no clue what this "god" thing is it's all man made concepts and notions therefore man made horseshit0
-
You can't use speculation of action or intent as fact to pivot your point on, sorry.yeehaamcgee wrote:If a god did surrender his control over a being, and allow that being to determine it's own destiny, then that god no longer can see what will become of it, and becomes a spectator.0 -
Thewaylander wrote:
But I have a strong mathmatical/physics background which makes me also a bit skeptycal.
Albert Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Descarte, Newton, Max Plank.....
I'm fairly certain they had a stronger mathematics/physics background than you or me......but it didn't stop them from having belief in the divine......Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Kitty wrote:If you had a child, who needed an operation using blood would you still refuse it? Or let the child choose for themselves?
Easy tiger! danger that was lies!
0 -
Why?Grondel wrote:
You can't use speculation of action or intent as fact to pivot your point on, sorry.yeehaamcgee wrote:If a god did surrender his control over a being, and allow that being to determine it's own destiny, then that god no longer can see what will become of it, and becomes a spectator.
EDIT: Let me expand on that.
I'm proposing a possible solution to the free will idea, and why a god would not know the outcome.
You are claiming this would not work, based on your beliefs.
Now, since neither of us knows or CAN know for certain the true nature of a god, (ignoring for a minute whether we believe or not), how can you possibly say that I'm wrong?0 -
Think about what free will is. If it's true free will, then the results can not be known until the person making the decision has made it. Your view is based entirely on the view that God can see all of time at the same time (which is actually omniscience, not omnipotence as you keep describing it). Consider, instead, that God can see everything that *could* happen as a result of the decision, but until the decision is actually made, the path which will be taken is unknown.Grondel wrote:
You can't use speculation of action or intent as fact to pivot your point on, sorry.yeehaamcgee wrote:If a god did surrender his control over a being, and allow that being to determine it's own destiny, then that god no longer can see what will become of it, and becomes a spectator.
Which is actually pretty much exactly the same as Schroedinger's cat...0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Now THERE'S your problem. Your view of god as a man throws up all sorts of complications
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image 0 -
this guy makes sence.yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'm with you wholeheartedly on this one.whyamihere wrote:
Nail, head.yeehaamcgee wrote:I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.
I describe myself as being agnostic,
I won't re-quote the entire thing, but your view (the bits on a cosmic hard drive being pre-set by "something") is how I imagine a god would be.
The jury's still out on whether I do believe in it or not, but the more you learn about our universe, and the precise balance of things that had to exist in order for us to BE, the more the probability just blows your mind.
On the other side, we have the vastness of reality, and maybe it really is just chance. If the same thing happened an infinite number of times then somewhere, sometime, the balance of everything would be just so, and would lead to the creation of the universe, the stars, planets, and life.
The probability of th most basic component of the most basic part of the most basic single cell forming is so low that evolution, even on the lowest level is near imposible, of cource it is posible, in theory at least, but for all those huge improbabitys (SP?) to add up to the life and variety of life we see today is just ludicrus! Im still not writing it off completely, but it is NUTS!
And thats not acounting for the mystery of where the "spark" of life came from...I like bikes and stuff0 -
Meh, written by a biggoted man!Grondel wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Now THERE'S your problem. Your view of god as a man throws up all sorts of complications
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image
Oh, and that's on top of the fact I'm specifically ignoring any specific "version" of a god concept here.0 -
The words 'man' and 'mankind' are pretty much interchangeable.Grondel wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:Now THERE'S your problem. Your view of god as a man throws up all sorts of complications
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image
The only reason for actually believing that God has a penis is to allow for the possibility of some absolutely amazing porn...0 -
See ^^ THIS is what I like.joshtp wrote:
this guy makes sence.yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'm with you wholeheartedly on this one.whyamihere wrote:
Nail, head.yeehaamcgee wrote:I'm not talking about people who don't believe in god. I'm talking about people who believe there is no god, it's a subtle but important difference.
I describe myself as being agnostic,
I won't re-quote the entire thing, but your view (the bits on a cosmic hard drive being pre-set by "something") is how I imagine a god would be.
The jury's still out on whether I do believe in it or not, but the more you learn about our universe, and the precise balance of things that had to exist in order for us to BE, the more the probability just blows your mind.
On the other side, we have the vastness of reality, and maybe it really is just chance. If the same thing happened an infinite number of times then somewhere, sometime, the balance of everything would be just so, and would lead to the creation of the universe, the stars, planets, and life.
The probability of th most basic component of the most basic part of the most basic single cell forming is so low that evolution, even on the lowest level is near imposible, of cource it is posible, in theory at least, but for all those huge improbabitys (SP?) to add up to the life and variety of life we see today is just ludicrus! Im still not writing it off completely, but it is NUTS!
And thats not acounting for the mystery of where the "spark" of life came from...
We both take wonder at our universe, and all that's within it, but for different reasons.
I gawp in wonder at all the chance things that had to happen at random in order for the conditions to be met where we can exist.
But a Religious person gawps in wonder at the divine force that put all those things just so, so the conditions could be met where we could exist.
Not that different, ultimately. We just have different names for the same thing.
I call it physics, you call it God.
Fair statement?0 -
Nahwhyamihere wrote:actually omniscience, not omnipotence as you keep describing it
I used the word in the correct context.
Omnipotent comes from the Latin Omni Potens which means "all power", ie., they can do anything at all, including see the past, present, future, or turn into a small otter named Roy.0 -
Have you been hacking into my hard drive?whyamihere wrote:The only reason for actually believing that God has a penis is to allow for the possibility of some absolutely amazing porn...
Actually, God-porn sounds like something that might bring about some awesome results on /r/ 0 -
By the way, regarding this, I think that yeehaa and I are essentially arguing both sides at the same time (which takes real skill, let me tell youjoshtp wrote:BTW, is it not a little unfair, having 5 or 6 all lobying against my line of thought, and me being the only one to reason the other side.... Can i call for back up?). 0
