|
God and Aurora
Bahamut.Serj
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2012-07-26 02:03:00
Where's the proof God doesn't exist? HMMM?
/runsaway
/flail
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2012-07-26 02:07:57
Where's the proof God doesn't exist? HMMM?
/runsaway
/flail /lasso
PROOF
Your witness...
Cerberus.Ciecle
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 191
By Cerberus.Ciecle 2012-07-26 02:09:51
*rage rock throw!*
naw i explained that already... There's no proof that he does/doesn't exist lol
People will counter claim with "I saw a man survive what looked like a fatal crash!",etc., and as i said after the proof part... "***happens" we just cant explain how/why with out saying 'God must have been with that person" because we have no reasoning(without going into a full scientific observation of each scenario that the guy/girl might have gone through to see how likely the person was to live through the crash...) to explain why the guy lived when someone else might have died.
"Science is observation, religion is the denial of observation so that "faith" may be preserved."
Lakshmi.Galvaya
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1489
By Lakshmi.Galvaya 2012-07-26 02:15:21
When did a movie theatre become sacred?
Theaters in America haven't been sacred since April 15th, 1865.
Ragnarok.Kongming
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1052
By Ragnarok.Kongming 2012-07-26 02:20:40
I don't know why things like these happen and I'm not able to give a perfect answer that fully fulfills what you want to know that covers every angle of this situation. I'm only human.
Some random situations in life can be *** up and so can people and their choice to let themselves degenerate to an animal or plant or be more than human it's a set of choices that set the pace for a way of life and we make them constantly everyday.
I can't consider myself a strong Muslim as I've been in the past and leave it as something to catch up to because of my weakness of ego if you're wondering what stance I'm speaking from. I can say only a few things I find for facts and quotes that help me understand a lot of things in life that are complicated(about people).
1. Life is painful when we make the simple complicated and this comes from being unable to control what we want and having no repercussion everytime we become weak to our desires and possibly slaves.
2. Most people are humans before any titles they associate themselves with, those who are, act for themselves first and what benefits them first not many people would (truly) act for something they consider greater than themselves and it still be in their best interest to do so. I'm sure there are varying degrees of it and most people aren't horrible people but it's what most of us are in my opinion so far. I've been disgusted to call people that I've met the same race as me and by the same token I couldn't be more inspired to be a better person from another person of the same human race that is completely different from me in all respects.
3. As a believer of people are imperfect beings and that a perfect being being in control of this is letting this happen there is a reason. I can't quantify what this reason is nor *** you to that I understand the ulterior motive just because I've read the Qur'an but I can't. There are just some situations where human logic and rationale just flies out the window and you just have to trust your instinct; it's not the first time where I've read, heard, seen about situations and wondered where the gaps of logic come from, where the quantified data was there but we could still not understand, and regardless of how prepared people can be ***still happens.
Now specifically concerning this case of the shooting I would guess from hearing about this guy's background and schooling was that he lost Love somewhere along the lines or couldn't percieve it as well as important emotions from people. It's like when we see ants walking across the ground as we walk and we see them die and feel nothing or don't take note of their existence I think he felt this way because of his obvious superior intellect and cunning the world felt boring to him and unmotivating.
I would ask how is someone that loves and is loved feel this way about life? My instinct would say that he couldn't feel love of any multitude which caused him to separate mentally from society and treat them as ants.
I have an insensitive question(or three) to ask.
Do we care about this and we respond to this tragedy so strongly because the movie was the Dark Knight?
Why do we care about linking this to the Dark Knight when how haphazard and random and suprisingly well orchestrated this guy's plot was to roll into a movie theatre and shoot up as many people as possible then calmy exit the building to wait in his car to be carried off?
Why do people feel so unsafe about movie theatres or seeing the Dark Knight now? Even after 9/11 happened airplanes are still the safest mode of transportation out there; so many isolated and random reports given so much attention and screened make things sound more dangerous than they really are. Something like this can happen anywhere.
I guess it was suprising that it was a movie theatre and not a political, religious, war-related incident for CNN and every other media to show us and just filter through our minds because most of us are desensitized to almost anything concerning death?
I guess the above was a lot simpler in my head than when it came out but when I start talking or typing my mind keeps adding more and more to it. Hopefully that's clear since I can be vague Wow.
This is what I wanted, and honestly Thank You.
I can't begin to address the questions you pose, but I can try.
Is the response largely because of Batman? God I hope no. Had this happened during a screening of My Best Friend's Wedding, I would have had exactly the same response. In fact, imagine for a moment it did in fact happen during an obscure movie. The violation of the movie theatre atmosphere persists.
That should answer question 2, or at least I hope. The guy shot up a movie theatre; what was playing does not seem relevant. So he calls himself "the joker". I don't bear relevance to this fact, or at least the causality of it.
Question 3 is loaded. I personally have reservations about schools ever since Columbine. I know the probability is absurdly low but that's that. Most of the airlines after 9/11 went bankrupt if you didn't know, and have continued to exist afterwards only after federal funding.
Bahamut.Serj
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6179
By Bahamut.Serj 2012-07-26 02:28:42
Where's the proof God doesn't exist? HMMM?
/runsaway
/flail /lasso
PROOF
Your witness...
Screw your lasso!
/wigglesfree
I'M RUNNING!
/flails
By testi 2012-07-26 02:29:26
Valefor.Slipispsycho said: »There's no God.
Imagine trying to tell some alien the beliefs of any modern religion (Christianity, Islam, etc...)
They'd laugh in your face like the caveman/woman you are.
There are no aliens
Imagine trying to tell God you believe there are gray little creatures flying around probing people.
I'd prefer to ask him why the *** he/she created a universe so large....?
DHUR .... WUT!??!?!
Good question.
I'm convinced all alien or ufo sightings are of either military air/space crafts or of spirits (demom, jinn, nephilim).
I can see the logic behind the assumption of there being life else where in the universe, I however am not convinced that modern science has explained existence in an objective way. Just as media/religion/government are used as control systems so is science. Scientist are the modern day priest class with school being the tool of indoctrination. It is not hard to prove, just apply the scientific method to the big bang theory. Assuming that it did happen then what preceded or caused it?
It is my belief that it was created. The obvious rebuttal is who or what created the creator. The best theory I can come up with is that God created himself through the will to exist. I know not the most convincing argument but its all my mortal mind can come up with. :P
....What?
I'm going to go ahead and specify.. The underlined, sure whatever. I can't come up with a better explanation of an all powerful being capable of creating the universe could be created except by himself..
The ....What? part is in reference to the bold. You see, in the old days religion thrived off science and school NOT existing or being available to the masses. When you try to apply logic to organized religion, it starts to fall the *** apart quickly, so you need a bunch of people who are either willing to ignore logic or just not know how to recognize it to begin with. Science teaches you to believe what can be tested and proved, it's far from what you describe, in fact it's the exact opposite. Science and school is the tool of emancipation. It gives people the power to make informed decisions and actually have a leg to stand on if they have to debate their stance.
Anyways, bed time for me.
I agree religion and science are at odds for the most part. But science has changed all through out history. At one point in time it was thought that the world was flat and of course we know it is not. But what does that say about science.....it does not have all the answers, and even if it did how are we to say we have the right answer at this particular time given that through observations and work science progresses. It would be arrogance for it to be considered scientific fact that the universe was not created, that is why is is a THEORY.
As for religions suppressing the peoples knowledge that has merit. But ever if every religion on earth were wrong it would still not preclude a creator God. In the end neither point of view can ever be proven sufficiently to the other.
By Shaokahn 2012-07-26 02:38:32
This is a pointless thread. God most likely doesn't exist, now shut up and enjoy your life.
Anyone who believes in god fortold in a holy book is a moron, or brainwashed.
/endthread
Your going to suffer in HELL!!!!! go to church you scrub.
Fenrir.Sylow
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6862
By Fenrir.Sylow 2012-07-26 02:52:34
If there is an omnipotent creator, he/she/it/they certainly don't have any divine *** to give about our sorry ***.
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9265
By Odin.Eikechi 2012-07-26 02:56:27
I agree religion and science are at odds for the most part. But science has changed all through out history. At one point in time it was thought that the world was flat and of course we know it is not. But what does that say about science.....it does not have all the answers
How does some archaic religious folk viewing the world is flat prove science is wrong? Also I think you're drastically confusing the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY over the regular term theory. Scientific theories are mostly truths that lack sufficient means to test them to prove them wrong. Look at the "theory" of evolution. Do you honestly think evolution doesn't exist?
[+]
By testi 2012-07-26 03:35:34
Bahamut.Refreshtwo said: »Quote: it does not have all the answers,
well it impossible to have all answers but science is working on finding out what it can.
Quote: . At one point in time it was thought that the world was flat and of course we know it is not. But what does that say about science....
the bible says the earth flat and still do what that say? but sort of off topic
when science had more Research about the earth it update to the right thing. it says that science moves forward. i dont know why people cant understand that in testing there are going to be some wrong's have to run the tests to get to the conclusion.
look into it deeper it the religions person deep fear of being wrong that make them so anti-science "oh what will i do if i do not go to super happy place when i die science must be wrong!" "oh look science was wrong about there new Theory!" (testing a new Theory where it ok to be wrong about the Theory but you have to test it 1st to see if the Theory is true)
and that why americans are doom we have become more and more anti-science Forty-six percent of Americans are creationist
The 32% "theistic evolution" aka "intelligent design" that can be easy disprove
15% choosing evolution just 15% are smart enough to know this are one who do research know this is true.

I could just as easily say it is the atheist person's deep fear of consequence for their amoral behavior that drives them to deny they are accountable to something greater then them self.
By Artemicion 2012-07-26 03:37:08
I could just as easily say it is the atheist person's deep fear of consequence for their amoral behavior that drives them to deny they are accountable to something greater then them self.
By testi 2012-07-26 04:02:59
I agree religion and science are at odds for the most part. But science has changed all through out history. At one point in time it was thought that the world was flat and of course we know it is not. But what does that say about science.....it does not have all the answers
How does some archaic religious folk viewing the world is flat prove science is wrong? Also I think you're drastically confusing the definition of SCIENTIFIC THEORY over the regular term theory. Scientific theories are mostly truths that lack sufficient means to test them to prove them wrong. Look at the "theory" of evolution. Do you honestly think evolution doesn't exist?
The point is prior to Galileo it was though that the earth was flat. But even prior to the birth of Galileo in 1564 we can examine past cultures which were far more advanced then Europe circa dark ages. For example the destruction The Great Library of Alexandria by the Romans and how other empires invaded and destroyed the science and culture of the conquered. Who is to say that our current understanding of things will not change in the future? Change is the only constant in the universe. And science also changes.
If you can not prove something if is theory plain and simple. And if you believe in something you can not prove then you just as soon call it a religion.
I do not believe in evolution I believe in adaptation. It is the reason why people further away from the equator have lighter skin then those closer to it. Of course we have chickens and birds which most likely had adapted from giant prehistoric creatures. And then there are sharks which have not changed since the prehistoric time. I can accept that the first man may have had a very different appearance. But I do not believe we evolved from monkeys. If that was the case why didn't the rest of the monkeys evolve?
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 173
By Valefor.Monkeynutz 2012-07-26 04:03:37
I could just as easily say it is the atheist person's deep fear of consequence for their amoral behavior that drives them to deny they are accountable to something greater then them self.
Now that is silly.
In any case, I don't see what gods would have to do with a tragedy like this. It is tragic, but not any more than quite a lot of other events throughout history. I think most believers either go with the mysterious ways line of thought, which I take to mean, 'I can't explain it, but bad things sometimes have to happen to inspire good', free will being a double edged sword, or something more superstitious like demon possession, people being pure evil, pawns of Satan, etc.
Usually people just act in self interested ways and it's not too hard to figure out why certain bad things happen. This one's a bit more complicated as the assailant stood to gain nothing even if he had evaded capture. To me it seems that he intended to do evil for its own sake which is strange and troubling. Usually people do horrific things while at least convincing themselves that it's morally justified.
EDIT: As to the scientific stuff. You seem to misunderstand the word 'theory'. A theory is a system of ideas that most accurately fits known data and cannot currently be disproved. It is for all intents and purposes a fact. That's not to say that theories cannot change or even even be proven completely wrong eventually, but the more a theory holds up to scrutiny, the less likely it will ever be disproved (because it's more and more likely to be true). Evolution is likely the most scrutinized scientific theory we have. We know so much about evolution that I would be less shocked to hear that someone disproved the heliocentric theory of the solar system than the theory of evolution. It's just that solid. Also we are still monkeys. Not every single member of a genus follows the same lines of evolution. Asking why there are still monkeys after people evolved is exactly the same as asking why there are any living things that aren't people.
By testi 2012-07-26 04:07:40
Valefor.Monkeynutz said: »I could just as easily say it is the atheist person's deep fear of consequence for their amoral behavior that drives them to deny they are accountable to something greater then them self.
Now that is silly.
In any case, I don't see what gods would have to do with a tragedy like this. It is tragic, but not any more than quite a lot of other events throughout history. I think most believers either go with the mysterious ways line of thought, which I take to mean, 'I can't explain it, but bad things sometimes have to happen to inspire good', free will being a double edged sword, or something more superstitious like demon possession, people being pure evil, pawns of Satan, etc.
Usually people just act in self interested ways and it's not too hard to figure out why certain bad things happen. This one's a bit more complicated as the assailant stood to gain nothing even if he had evaded capture. To me it seems that he intended to do evil for its own sake which is strange and troubling. Usually people do horrific things while at least convincing themselves that it's morally justified.
I was only pointing out that it is just as sill as saying "the religions person deep fear of being wrong that make them so anti-science."
By Artemicion 2012-07-26 04:12:07
I was only pointing out that it is just as sill as saying "the religions person deep fear of being wrong that make them so anti-science."
Except it's not. As many doctrines within religion(s) lie on the foundation of being absolute and infallible. To have any question, evidence or otherwise opposition to what has been deemed truthful under the sanction of God/whatever ancient tome have you, would be considered blasphemous and atrocious, and grounds for repercussion and consequence from religious authorities therein.
So yes, a great factor in why many religious followers are skeptical or outright defiant of scientific methods is because they firmly believe that there is only one truth: the one approved by their deity.
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1008
By Bahamut.Cantontai 2012-07-26 04:24:15
To answer OP with a question: Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
By testi 2012-07-26 04:35:47
I was only pointing out that it is just as sill as saying "the religions person deep fear of being wrong that make them so anti-science."
Except it's not. As many doctrines within religion(s) lie on the foundation of being absolute and infallible. To have any question, evidence or otherwise opposition to what has been deemed truthful under the sanction of God/whatever ancient tome have you, would be considered blasphemous and atrocious, and grounds for repercussion and consequence from religious authorities therein.
So yes, a great factor in why many religious followers are skeptical or outright defiant of scientific methods is because they firmly believe that there is only one truth: the one approved by their deity.
I understand your point but religion(s) are not the key factor. We can for the sake of argument assume all religions lie and are false this in it of itself does not disprove a creator God. This would be like me saying that since some data was falsified by scientist in the global warming issue that therefore the earth's temperature will not rise.
You assume the religious person operates out of fear, some do out of there fear of mortality, I can only speak for myself in saying that I base my beliefs on person experiences. Religious people as well as atheists who believe they are right out of fear are of course irrational.
By testi 2012-07-26 04:49:16
Bahamut.Refreshtwo said: »
And this so called common ancestor is based on the findings of skeletal remains of ancient chimps. How you can not be skeptical of this is beyond me. The only thing this proves is that they are similar to humans. If there was empirical data that showed 100% certainty it would not be a theory it would be a scientific law however it does not meet the requirements.
By Artemicion 2012-07-26 04:51:32
It provides something tangible and relatively conclusive to the given hypothesis therein. To deny that because it isn't a worldwide recognized truth is as silly as worshiping a deity in the first place.
I find it strange and contrary that you possess the mindset of acknowledging that there are little or no absolute truths, yet deny the pursuit for those answers and the knowledge contained therein.
[+]
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2012-07-26 05:09:59
"I just can't believe it!" is not a legitimate refute for something with solid reason and evidence behind it. Evolution has been bombarded by the religious for over 100 years. There is nothing in all of science that people want to debunk more than evolution. All it takes it just -one- prediction by evolution that is proven to be wrong and the entire theory is scraped.
Yet, evolution has withstood it all and still stands to this day.
If you can believe the sun is a giant ball of burning gas, a million times bigger than the entire Earth itself, then you can believe in evolution.
Not only that, but much of the entire field of biology is built upon evolution. If evolution is wrong, then we don't really know anything about biology at all.
Bismarck.Xdudemanx
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2014
By Bismarck.Xdudemanx 2012-07-26 05:58:15
one of these threads again
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
Server: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-07-26 09:26:50
This thread is actually hysterical.
Quetzalcoatl.Xueye
Server: Quetzalcoatl
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6386
By Quetzalcoatl.Xueye 2012-07-26 09:36:29
And this so called common ancestor is based on the findings of skeletal remains of ancient chimps. How you can not be skeptical of this is beyond me. The only thing this proves is that they are similar to humans. If there was empirical data that showed 100% certainty it would not be a theory it would be a scientific law however it does not meet the requirements.
Please explain what you think scientific theories and scientific laws are so that we can engage this discussion properly.
It would appear to me that you are using the layman terms for theory and law in the scientific field. We have bountiful amounts of evidence that evolution is true. There is no question about it.
Evolution occurs. The earth rotates. We all will one day die. These are facts. There is no room to dispute them.
Evolution occurs: this is the fact.
The theory of evolution states reasons as to why evolution occurs. It's an explanation of something that happens. The theory of evolution explains that animals evolve due to [such and such] reasons and through [such and such] manners. It's like the germ theory of diseases: you can't deny we get sick, and the germ theory of disease explains why diseases come from germs.
Evolution is not something that really could have a law, so far as we know, because a scientific law is a set of observations (such as formulas) that are continually accurate in predicting an outcome. In this way, we have stuff like Newtons' Law of Gravity, which allow us to predict how objects will move and such.
A law that is disproven is not back to a theory. You may think of it easier as such:
In science, a law allows you to see what will happen, whereas a theory allows you to see why.
[+]
By daemun 2012-07-26 09:54:10
Even with that said Xueye, the laws of physics are broken time and time again. We have observed them become rendered null and void in many instances.
By Gimp 2012-07-26 10:08:33
I could just as easily say it is the atheist person's deep fear of consequence for their amoral behavior that drives them to deny they are accountable to something greater then them self.
You could. It's a blanket statements that goes both ways in what you're saying above but this is a more subjective take and you would have to know what exactly drives a person to be amoral(and for them to be actually candid enough to admit it). The assumption would be for this is that people are normally moral and that it comes from religion but I couldn't even begin to start speaking of shades of grey with that because it's just too damn complicated to think of and requires more knowledge to attempt to quantify fully.
I can't really see how science and religion are opposed because I do believe in trial and tribulations with your faith or you have no real strength behind it.
Science and religion have been together with man since day one if an event of life can be classified and analyzed then it is a science this can easily apply to religion itself. I think because of Man's long history of using religion as a tool to control masses and the strife against the people who made new discoveries in the observation of life which contradict the same societies' way of life gives people that perception of the rift between them.
Since there are many forms of religion and my view on the very few I do know is biased because of what I do choose the follow not all religions are equal, as for science being completely against and contradictory to religious thought? It depends on the religion I can say that it depends on the science in question and that not all types of sciences can be considered as accurate in comparison.
Kong: I'll answer your response to my 3rd question after work I ran out of time -_- but while I'm gone you should read On The Dignity of Man.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2012-07-26 11:17:05
Even with that said Xueye, the laws of physics are broken time and time again. We have observed them become rendered null and void in many instances.
We've seen the laws broken? No. Have we seen modifications of models based on new information? Yes.
Religion is also an ever changing system of beliefs and what is believed today is merely a representation of a chain of events that lead to the present. The major monotheisms of our day didn't simply spring into existence and their spread has been chronicled by many authors.
This is going to be pretty loaded, so I'll preface that I mean no offense to anyone or their beliefs. I'm just looking for viewpoints on the matter from people with a variety of backgrounds. Also keep that in mind with responses.. I'd rather this be an exchange of ideas than a heated debate.
I was already thinking it before I spotted the blog on CNN and have thought it countless times before, most notably after the 2004 tsunami. I guess I'm going to have to define "God" before I get started with this as the word has perhaps as many interpretations as there are people. This concerns mostly the Abrahamic version of God, literally or ideologically: a personal God who invests himself in the interests of mankind.
Christopher Nolan's statement on the shooting gets me every time I read it, and paints the scene so painfully accurate that I can't help but cry:
Quote: Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises, I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community. I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.
These weren't people going to work, or school, or a political rally. They were people who wanted to see Batman, and suspend their belief if only for a moment that reality isn't everything and there is a world were Magic is possible.
Of all the places and times for a person to kill another person, this is perhaps the most unforgivable, detestable scenario I can possibly imagine. What's worse is that I know one day someone will show me where my imagination has failed.
Where's God? Was this his will? Did he allow this to happen? Did he want this to happen? Is it all really "mysterious ways"? Is that not just a cop-out excuse for defending a god that is indifferent, illogical, and downright malevolent? Why believe in such an entity? The notion of spending all of eternity with such a being just sickens me. I honestly find it repulsive. I'd rather spend my eternity in hell if it means I don't have to be around this thing that willingly makes innocent people suffer needlessly.
So that's my position. For those believers among us, I want you to defend God, since he's obviously not here to defend himself. For those non-believers, I apologize for telling you what you already know. And for the fence-sitters, does an act like this sway you at all?
I know I've left out an impersonal god, by definition who cares as little about the troubles of mankind as he does a tree, rock, or gigantic hydrogen/helium fusion reactor. Maybe there is a Spinoza's god out there who created everything and subsequently left the building. To those with belief or lack of certainty about such a god: why? There's a great deal of uncertainty in life; I mean, I don't know for sure that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, yet I feel completely comfortable in making the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" as an assertion and not an opinion or belief.
To everyone else, if by chance I skipped someone by categorization, my apologies for this rambling. Actually, my apologies to everyone in advance.
|
|